A Few Thoughts on Easy Versus Hard (Part 4)

Dude, Who Doesn’t Like Technology

I’m so old I can remember when computers were special.  They were massive machines used for the most complex tasks.  Growing up in the Hudson Valley, the home of International Business Machines, we had their offices and factories all over the place.  When we took a class trip to a local bank they showed us their new IBM computer that kept track of everyone’s money it filled an entire 10’x10’ room.  When I went to Columbia University for a Science trip they showed us their computer center with its massive tape fed machines, and the punch cards that fed the routine and the tasks into it.  I am told all that computational power now rests inside my IPhone.

Clearly, in the past 40-years, the science of computing has made quantum leaps in processing as we moved from the analog age into the digital.  But this change has come with what appears to be a pretty significant social cost, so let’s think about that for a moment or two.

Computing is great, but until now it has required human decision making on what is of value and what is the desired end state of the computations.  That is slowly changing as we expand the science of artificial intelligence or machine-based decision priorities.  Occasionally, despite all the best efforts of the computer we humans still find ways to screw things up.  For example, even rocket scientists can make mistakes – like the one that cost the loss of the $125 million Mars Climate Orbiter back in the late 1990s.[1]  One group of scientists were using metric, another group wasn’t.  I guess this goes to show the “Climate Orbiter Science” wasn’t settled back then.  (That’s science humor.)

So, what are the social costs of all this new technology?  I believe we see two really significant issues.  First, we see an isolation in the human interaction where, under the guise of global communication, we as individuals are actually more isolated from each other than when we only communicated within small social groups or communities but did so on a personal basis and had to physically travel to meet with others.  Now we can sit back and give into our base emotions as we criticize or complain about those we disagree with.  We do so without the immediate feedback of our choices from those we care about.  We can condemn or praise, vilify or worship, mock or support almost anyone on the globe all from the comfort of your chair.  We can delude ourselves that we are anonymous by creating false personas, or we are famous for buying false followers, all with a few simple clicks of the cursor.

Along with this isolation, we see almost exponential growth in the violent video game industry where our appetite for death and destruction is met.  At this time, it appears to be principally aimed at young men, although it seems only a matter of time before women are drawn in as well.  For every study suggesting there are negative consequences in this, there are opposing studies saying we need not worry.  It is almost as if the industry funds favorable studies to keep itself profitable.  A rich and profitable industry would never do that, would they?  No, of course, they wouldn’t (this is sarcasm).

What could possibly be wrong in setting young people in front of video games for hours of isolation, where lives are lost, heads cut off, bodies dismembered or cities destroyed?  I’ve got to believe we fuel the idea that violence is an acceptable social interaction, even if real people you know suggest it is not.  When people play this out, as it appears to be the case with the Parkland shooter and police and child welfare representatives visit without real consequence then why wouldn’t the belief violence is was okay -- evolve to the point of action?

Isaac Newton, the noted 17th-century English scientist developed a set of theories for gradational effects on objects.  These laws have withstood the test of time (at least within the Earth’s gravitational field) and remarkably seem to have some correlation with human behavior.    His first law says “a body remains at rest or continues to maintain a constant velocity and direction unless acted upon by a force.”  Video gaming has become the de facto “babysitter” for thousands (and perhaps hundreds of thousands) children in the U.S. and maybe around the world.  When this occurs what is the moral consequence?  What guides the path of the child towards the socially acceptable norms of the day?  Is it his/her parents (who seem to be involved in their own struggles), the school system with its rules and changing social expectations, other government agencies with their infrequent contacts, or is it his or her peers?   If you are caught up in this world of gratuitous violence, who are your peers?  Are they the kids in your class, or the people (young and old) you interact with during the game?

My next question is a simple one, are the behaviors learned in the gaming world reinforced by the public media in the shows, movies, and news reporting that fills our world on a 24/7/365 basis?

(to be continued)

---

[1] http://articles.latimes.com/1999/oct/01/news/mn-17288

A Note to a Friend

--> I found this while cleaning out for an upcoming move and figured it might seem funny to some who were involved in these events.  It comes from a letter written just after Desert Storm and deals with what was then the 39^th Special Operations Wing (now 352^nd SOW).

“Dear Mike,

I hope this letter finds all the XXXX’s in the very best of health.  I know it has been quite a while since I’ve written but the past nine months have been a very busy time for the Townsends.

As you are aware, in January I got to go to Incirlik to take part in the CNN special “Desert Storm the Renovation of a City.”  Well right after we came home George called and asked if we could head back to resupply the Kurds.  It seems they took us at our word and attempted to overthrow Saddam.

Operation Provide Comfort evolved into a three-phase program.

Phase I: “FIND A KURD.”  During this stage aircraft loaded with MREs, bottled water, and toilet paper (for dysentery), flew into northern Iraq looking for population centers (i.e. refugee camps), and dropping supplies to them.  After a few Kurds tried to catch the 16,000-pound bundles we moved into phase II.

Phase II: “ADOPT A KURD.”  In this stage, the aircrews were assigned specific areas to fly.  The theory being the aircrews and Kurds would get used to each other’s quirks (like an aircrew who always drops into the center of the camp).  Just about this time the Kurds threatened to report us to the UN as inhuman for providing so many MREs.  So, we moved into phase III.

Phase III: “HERD A KURD.”  Here American ingenuity really came into play.  The diplomats figured out it would be nice to establish large refugee camps in major Iraqi cities like Zakho.  To get the Kurds out of the mountains we staged a two-part campaign.  First, we dropped large quantities of MREs to the camps (ensuring an end to all dysentery in our lifetime, and at the same time chasing the refugees out of the shelters) … as an aside I don’t think the pork patty was a favorite!  After we had moved the refugees from the tops of the mountains, we started dropping real food just a little beit in front of them as they began their migration towards the cities.

After 45-days of this fun, I redeployed home to continue planning for the wing’s move from Frankfurt to England.    Well enough about me… how have you been?"

A Few Thoughts on Easy Versus Hard (Part 3)

When Draft Doggers Become Tenured.

When I went to college I had a number of friends who were committed to staying in college as long as they could to maintain their educational deferment.  I am pretty sure my little college was not unique in its role as a shelter for those who felt the war in Southeast Asia was wrong, or who wished to avoid the draft and not have to flee to Canada.  I suspect there were a significant number of people who found in this path a career option in education, where their belief that capitalism and US Imperialism could be supported, and young minds correctly educated to address the problems they saw with our views of exceptionalism.

When you look at how much the university system has expanded from the 1950’s and look at the cost increases associated with that growth it takes little effort to understand how lucrative the college industry really is.  The government has pushed college as the way to a comfortable life -- probably in response to all the lobbying, the college industry has done to convince everyone they will make great students.

Today, Harvard University with its 22,000 students has an endowment of over $37 billion[i] which provides roughly 35% of its operating budget.  Public release of salaries like Elizabeth Warren's suggests it is more than willing to pay roughly $500,000 a year for professors teaching a single course.

With that type of funding, there is an inevitable isolation that removes the professional staff from the economic realities faced by the average middle-class American.  This is, I believe, also a sense of entitlement that encourages those same isolated individuals to believe they know better than others what is right, and what is wrong.

Over the past forty years the elders who had actually seen the evil of Communism, Fascism, and Japanese aggression first hand slowly aged into retirement.  The college communities began to look at themselves as the bastions for progressive thought, but only if those thoughts originated from like-minded organizations.  We see in today’s universities the products of group-think and closed political dogma where under the banner or diversity the only agendas allowed are in support of groups they view as oppressed. 

Into this thought-limiting mill we send the impressionable high school graduates fresh from the four years of indoctrination by those who would convince them to follow in their path and go to college to “expand their mind.”  From these same institutions, we receive back the young teachers who believe it is their mission to educate our young with the right way of thinking.  To aid them in this mission we have introduced the latest technology.

(to be continued)

---

[i] https://www.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/content/20160401_harvard_congressional_report.pdf

A Few Thoughts on Easy Versus Hard (Part 2)

What happens when entitlement meets reality?

Entitlement is an interesting word.  The dictionary provides two distinct meanings.  First, it is the state or condition of being entitled, the second is a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group.

Let’s briefly consider the second definition first, “government programs providing benefits to members of specified groups.”  The very first government entitlement programs were created in response to civil unrest and protests of veteran groups after the civil war.  They got a big boost with the social security “safety net” set up by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the depression era Congress.  The theory behind Social Security was the government would collect far more in taxes than it paid out and the trust fund would be self-sustaining forever (that was the theory).  It assumed there would always be more workers than annuitants.  A look at the current projections for our society show that assumption is no longer valid and there will soon be far fewer young people paying into the program than people collecting benefits.  These “must pay” entitlement programs now account for roughly 60 percent of the annual budget.  Social Security and Medicare make up a little over 50 percent of that expense.  We hear a lot about how the Social Security Trust fund has been raided, but my research shows that is not exactly true.  The “trust fund” can only invest its funds in programs that are guaranteed by the U.S. government.  The problem is we will soon run out of tax dollars to pay off the investments made in the government by the government itself.  The question is what will happen when we reach that point?  Who will be left holding the bag?

Now we come to the issue of who is entitled?  As a nation we had historically bought into the idea of “American Exceptionalism.”  Whether it was right or wrong to think we were exceptional seems to be one of the core elements of our on-going social debate.  I believe the sense of being exceptional pushes us to achieve as a society, sometimes in remarkable ways.  The young are now taught we are not exceptional, in fact, there are those who teach we are not exceptional and our arrogance has made us the villain.  It seems to me along the lines of this change comes the idea that government is there to solve our problems for us.  That has been the mantra for the progressive left since the fall of the stock market in 1929.  With the best intentions we have created social programs and safety nets but it seems in so doing we have changed the spirit of our upcoming generations from expecting greatness awaits them if they have the courage to apply themselves to accepting that tomorrow won’t be brighter than today.  We seem to have instilled a sense that they are “owed” a life free from all the things that stress us, and the government is solely responsible for their well-being and happiness.  It is an unfortunate testament to that faith that the government so grossly failed in its job during the recent school massacre. 

The question before us though is who is responsible for this dramatic shift in our individual, national and world view?  I believe the answer is unfortunately quite simple, the blame lies with the baby boomer generation.  My generation.  We are the children of a generation who knew abject poverty, where work was hard and often dangerous, and who fought a war where the entire industrial might of the nation was focused on war goods production, and civilian goods were sacrificed.  But they came from parents who for the vast majority shared a faith in family and independence.  They came out of that experience vowing to make life better for their children, and they did. 

What we saw in our parents though was the stresses of this new America beginning to take its toll.  Divorce, once rare and unthinkable, began to increase, and the laws were changed to make it easier for that was what they wanted.  Alcohol and drug addiction began to rise, along with the domestic violence that often comes with people out of control in the emotional state.  Mass migration and loss of the extended families was another theme during the years of our youth.  In search of the better job, the better climate, or the better community people moved at rates unseen for a number of generations.  All these issues reflected the beginnings of what has become a disposable society.

Most of us grew up without too much concern about our daily survival, although racism and poverty still deeply affected a sizeable and significant number of families, especially in Appalachia and the South.  For many of my generation, we would be the first in our families to go to colleges and universities to realize the dream of a greater life.  The big decisions in our youth were what color bike we wanted or should our baseball glove have five or six fingers.

We came of age in the 1960s and 1970s, a time not unlike today, where protest and pressure for social change was overwhelming.  Young men fled to Canada to avoid being drafted into the services engaged fighting a war in a country many Americans could not pick out on a map.  Those who could afford to found ways to avoid the draft either through remaining in college or through political influence with their local draft boards.  Eventually civil protest, and extreme violence by radicals led President Johnson to retire.  His replacement, President Nixon promised to end the war, but it took him well into his second term to keep that promise.

Meanwhile the blacks of the nation were engaged in another type of war where they fought for an equality that had long been denied them.  The government responded with new laws and new social programs to help lift them up from the oppression they had so long experienced.  What the government could not do was change the hearts and minds of those who had grown up with a view whites and blacks were not equal.  But, the social engineers of the time said we could put preferential treatment programs in place as a way to overcome those biases and the bigotry that existed.  I believe this was the beginning of the class conflicts we see today where equality is no longer the desired end state.

The drama of those decades is captured in the changes even in our music.  Big Bands were replaced by electric quartets, soulful love songs replaced by talk of free love and free drugs.  Our parents condemned this new “Rock and Roll” as so much noise, while we abandoned those classic orchestrations of their generation.  Perhaps in our search for our own identity, we fueled the conflict and exasperated the social change.

As I look at my generation we have bought into the idea when something breaks we throw it away and get something newer and better.  While this sounds good for things like televisions or refrigerators we have carried the concept into all aspects of our lives and our society.  Marriage is good, as long as it is convenient to remain married.  Fidelity is nice but not that important.  Babies should only be born if it is not too much of a burden.  Large families are expensive and should be avoided.  Focusing on our children should not interfere with our work or social lives.  The list goes on.

We became a generation that believed the “experts” know everything and if we would only listen to them life would be great.  As a result, we now have these “experts” on mass media telling us how to fix our lives and dispose of those things that bother us.  We have “experts” telling us how the climate is changing, how bad men are, how evil history is, and a thousand other things from micro aggression to the appropriate pronouns to use in every social setting.  We stopped thinking for ourselves and began telling our children to just listen to the experts, but somewhere along the line, we have chosen that vilification of opposing views was okay.

(to be continued)

A Few Thoughts on Easy Versus Hard (part 1)

The latest political “hot potato” is playing out according to the approved script.  Attacks and counterattacks from each side, vilification of the NRA or politicians who support private gun ownership, interviews with experts who don’t know what they are talking about, “man on the street” interviews with outraged and uninformed protesters, and children who believe they know what is best to solve the issues of shooting murders in “gun free zones.”  The media companies are effectively orchestrating it for the good theater they so desire.  This is easy.

What isn’t easy is a public discussion and finding solutions that challenge the political talking points of two mainstream parties and their propaganda departments.  It would never do to question what in society has changed in the last forty to fifty years that has led us to a point where public violence is now becoming rather common.  It is far better we stick to the approved script.

But for the sake of argument I would like to lay out, in my opinion and in no particular order, what some of the root causes just might be.  I believe the problems are not irreversible, but with an increasingly polarized population it seems unlikely to be reversed.

Let’s start with a changed perception of what it means to be an American.  We are inherently a nation of immigrants, who can trace that status back to the land bridge from Asia.  The latest wave of immigration began with the establishment of St. Augustine in Florida (for the Spanish), Cap-Rouge[1] (for the French), Jamestown in Virginia (for the English) or Fort Nassau[2] (for the Dutch), and has continued pretty much unabated since then.  But the question really stems from the Declaration of Independence when the 12 united English colonies became the United States.

With the establishment of the United States we began the process building a society unique to the world, based on individual merit rather than family titles and status.  In the process of that building we accepted newcomers and they sought to integrate into the accepted norms.  Clearly, the representatives of the people and the general population as a whole, had exceptions on who could be full-fledged members of the society.  Those most acceptable to the society that was established with our Declaration came from Europe, while those coming from Africa, Asia and the sub-continent India have historically had to fight for acceptance.

During the immigration waves of the nineteenth century the Irish, Germans, Italians, Scandinavians and Poles all came to America to escape oppression or make new lives for themselves.  Each faced discrimination until they were able to integrate into the society through a common language and common shared values.  They each brought with them their sense of culture and social value that added to our cultural richness.  At the same time, if you were not of European origin you came to America and were exploited as labor whose status was often considered by the average person as less than worthy of citizenship.  Unfortunately, this cultural bigotry carries forward to this day as immigrants from non-European countries continue and the nation wrestles with how to accept them into the society and worries about what changes to the greater society they will bring with them.

In today’s debates over immigration we cite an inscription placed on the base of the Statue of Liberty, yet we forget that poem was written as the nation wrestled with whether or not to accept the immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe.  It was controversial at the time, and current events have shown it remains so – as new immigrants arrive and the questions of whether they will integrate or remain separate are still unanswered. 

But I come back to the original idea that made us a unique society, do we remain a society based on merit, or are we becoming more like the societies that created us, where family titles and political connections are more important than your ability as an individual?  Where we have a ruling class and its social elites, where everyone else is just so much fodder for the gist mill?  Have we become a society where we teach our next generation that merit has been replaced by entitlement and the purpose of government is to manage those entitlements?

(To be continued)

---

[1] Wikipedia:  French Colonization of the Americas

[2] Wikipedia:  Dutch Colonization of the Americas

How Easy It Was and Will Be!

We now know, without question every media corporation in America has a political agenda.  It doesn’t matter if it is the local cable company or Google, the local AM/FM station or SiriusXM, the home town paper or the NY Times, the major networks like ABCNNBCBS & Fox or internet giants like FaceBook and Twitter, everyone now thinks it is okay to push their personal or corporate political agenda.  Even commercial entities like car companies are now telling us what we should think about social issues.  Most are aligned with the left and have persuaded their fans that anyone who disagrees with them is evil and stupid.  Today’s “news” has evolved from setting out facts without comment to validating a desired opinion.  How simple we have made it for a technically savvy foreign entity to play into this landscape and manipulate an already conditioned generation. 

My simple observation: the media is incapable of changing their information model and we will see continued manipulation by an increasing number of foreign players like Russia, China, and a host of other smaller but equally important players (e.g. Israel or Iran).

There is an expression, “useful idiot,” often attributed Vladimir Lenin, although it is questionable he really said it.  It is usually understood to be a citizen of a non-communist country who is sympathetic to the cause of Communism and can be cynically used as a tool in its propaganda. What we see in the Mueller report on Russian hacking during the 2016 election, is we have become a nation is full of useful idiots who jump on board with any campaign that seems to align with their political fears.  Michael Moore is the name in the news today, although almost any of a hundred celebrities could probably be named.  People who the Russians can exploit to further their own agenda.

Unfortunately, I don’t think those celebrities who live for our hero worship will grasp the significance of their vulnerability so it will be interesting to see what actual solutions those in key positions will come to recommend.

The Thing About Movements

In my morning readings, Ann Althouse had a review of a NY Times article The Feminist Pursuit of Good Sex by Nona Willis Aronowitz.  In her opinion piece Ms. Aronowitz talks of her personal challenge, “Was pornography a vanguard of sexual freedom or a tool of the patriarchy?”  Ms. Aronowitz writes of the split in the feminist movement where one side views sex and pornography as good, and the other as a patriarchal tool to suppress womankind.  Ms. Aronowitz writes this is caused by one sides lack of “nuance.”  Ms. Althouse believes there is a lack of nuance on both sides, with each accusing the other.

This got me to thinking about what does an individual gain or lose when they join in political movements and are they aware of their gain or loss?

Clearly, when people band together there is a strength and support of like-minded individuals who will encourage and perhaps guide the new members in the ways of the group.  This is a positive thing if it does not progress to the level of enslavement to an ideology.  For example, when an addict attempts recovery groups like Alcoholics Anonymous provide wonderful support and guidance in how to regain control of life.  If carried too far through the worst-case scenarios can play out as demonstrated by Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple project (AKA Jonestown) massacre, or the Branch Davidian Church confrontation in Waco, TX.

Then there are the politically inspired movements such as the feminist movement began shortly before the civil war, or the flat earth society, began shortly before Christopher Columbus left Italy for Spain.  Today we have the hashtag movements of a hundred different things ranging from the lives of certain colors to the wearing of pink hats.  Each began not as a movement but as an idea in a few activists as a way to gain a larger following.

But what does an individual sacrifice in becoming a part of the movement?  For me, that is the critical question.  As we look at the popular movements of today I can’t help but feel the average participant is asked to check their reasoning at the door and must accept without question the values of the movement leaders.

From my vantage -- outside looking in, this appears to be true regardless of the political leanings of the movement.  The further from the center the movement is, the more the followers must abandon their individuality.  In that sense, movements don’t seem all that much different than gangs, just without the chains and tats (although tats have become popular within movements as well).

What social media has taught me is so many people are searching for themselves and are willing to abandon their historically rooted values to be a part of the larger group, even if it means they must abandon the idea of self, and reason.  For many of the hashtag generation, it offers the illusion of rage without consequence, but I am afraid they will soon come to realize such a thing cannot exist.  There is always a consequence.  It may not be public, but it is there until it can be reconciled with the larger moral questions.

Déjà vu, All Over Again

-->

Well here we are, watching the horror unfold after another public-school shooting, and nothing will change because we as a society cannot reasonably talk about simple things so the hard things are impossible.  Thanks to all who’ve chosen to be offended by views they don’t like, micro-aggressions, and gender specific pronouns -- you've taken the ability to debate this issue off the table.  Thanks also to the lobbying efforts of the special interest groups like the NRA or Anti-Gun groups who have shouted so long and so loudly there is no middle ground that offers possible choices.  There is only vilification and counter-condemnation.

Those who’ve read my posts on this subject know I don’t believe writing a new law will solve the gun violence issue in the nation.  We have all kinds of laws on the books that have done little to keep killers from killing, all they do is give us an opportunity to punish the offenders IF (and that is a big IF): the prosecutor choses to prosecute, the judge decides to judge fairly (putting personal agenda aside), and the defense attorney is not sharp enough to convince the judge and jury that his client is only a victim of society and it’s not his/her fault.  We now parse the laws with so many circumstances and uniqueness’s it is impossible to know if true justice is achieved.

The premise of our society is we are a nation of laws, but each day fewer and fewer of us actually believe we should follow the law.  As we see on the nightly news this holds true for even those who aspire or attain the highest elected and law enforcement offices of the land.  So, if laws no longer serve to restrain our actions, and we’ve established a morality that supports individual choice how do we convince people those individual choices should not include killing?

Those who cry loudest about the tragic rise in gun violence are the ones who have historically believed the answer is banning all guns.  It is as if they refuse to understand the human psyche that makes a banned item all the more attractive.  We attempted to ban the manufacture, sale and transportation of intoxicating liquors with the 18^th Amendment.  How did that work out? The words “speakeasy, bootleggers and organized crime” entered our language.  A completely sober USA, not so much. 

When the past President attempted to explain who the average rural American is by saying “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” He set a tone for his entire administration that said we know better than you what is right for the country.  As a result of that sentiment what happened with gun sales during his eight years in office?

Those who oppose the anti-gun side always seem to suggest the problem of people who are killing other people is obviously a mental illness issue and if we were to just treat that everything would be okay, the guns are never the issue.  While mental illness is undoubtedly a contributing, and perhaps causal factor in many of the shooting, what happens when the media gives so much air time to the individuals, and next to no air time when it comes time for them to face the consequences of their actions which, if they survive, may not come until decades later?

Now I am just guessing, but I bet that the anti-gun folks will plaster social media with their outrage since emotional reaction is pretty easy.  ABC news tonight made it a point that each time President Trump responded to a shooting he said that immediately following the event was not the right time to discuss the issue, they did this as a not so subtle condemnation. 

Anyone who thinks rationally about this will know two things.  Unique to this instance, until we know what actually happened what is there to talk about, other than the emotional outrage?  The second point is really what the pro-gun groups are working towards, the news media will forget about this in a week or so and it will move to the back burner, at least until the next shooting, where the cycle will start all over again.  Our agenda driven society, and especially the two mainstream parties cannot engage in reasonable talk without suffering the wrath of their most extreme advocates, so they won’t.

The fact we have no middle ground on this issue will mean it will never be fixed.  Whether that is improved mental health care, a realignment of our moral compasses, universal gun awareness training, or perhaps increased armed presence in the schools. 

There are a number of problems with that last option that makes it an unattractive choice, but of the ones I mentioned it is the only one likely to be sought because it is the simplest and keeps in place most of the status quo.  At the end of the day, I don’t think any of the choices I’ve heard mentioned will actually eliminate the threat.  That can only come if we as a society choose a different morality where our young are not taught on a daily basis that gun violence is acceptable, where the family unit is rebuilt to provide stability for growing minds, and we abandon the idea the government is responsible for fixing everything that disturbs us.  That seems an impossible path at this point.

Valentine's Day

I learned today that Saint Valentine was a Catholic priest in the 3^rd Century who was condemned for marrying men in the Roman Army who were supposed to be single.  He was clearly a visionary.  He knew married men would be more willing to leave home to fight with someone other than their wives.

There seems to be some issue on why the middle of February was chosen as the day of celebration with history saying it was either the day of Valentine's execution or an attempt by the early church to co-opt a pagan celebration of fertility.  I’m going with the latter.

When the Vice Count of Hallmark won the battle of Agincourt and began making greeting cards in the early 1400s people began sending little love notes to their friends.  Charles, Duke of Orléans is said to be the first of Hallmark’s card writers while a prisoner of war following his capture at the battle, where the Vice Count defeated the flower vendors of Lord Transworld-Delivery.  To this day his first poem summarized the battle as he wrote home to his girlfriend of the time.  It was quickly translated into English and became an instant success of the early Valentine’s Day/fertility celebrations.

Roses are red,

Violets are blue,

Hallmark won the battle,

I am still here,

How about you?

 Over the years this poem has been modified to the current version taught worldwide as part of every third-grade curriculum.

Roses are red

Violets are blue,

Sugar is sweet,

And so are you.

I hope all who read this have a happy Valentine’s Day as you look for a quiet place to dine.

Forecasting the Future

Everyone, and by everyone, I mean anyone who puts their opinion out for public consumption, likes to forecast the future.  I am no exception, although I realize I am not all that great at it.  If I was I wouldn’t be worrying about upcoming bills or the future of the nation as I would already know it.

My first introduction to the forecasting business was back in 1989 when I attended a big joint exercise planning conference for Flintlock ’90.  The exercise had been going on for a number of years, and I was sent as the wing plans officer for the 39^th SOW.  I had with me planners from the 7^th, 67^th, and 21^st SOS.  We were meeting up with the planners from SOCEUR, as well as the Army and Navy units that would participate in this theater-wide exercise.

The planner from the 7^th cautioned me that the Army National Guard and Reserve Special Forces reps would be asking for all kinds of airdrop support, but when it came time for the actual exercise no one would actually jump out of the airplanes.  I had been in the business long enough to know this forecast was probably based on experience.  The gentleman who had made the prediction proved exactly right.  In each and every case there was some unique and compounding issue that meant the SF A-teams needed to be landed at a nearby airport and allowed to take a comfy bus into where they were supposed to do their snake-eating stuff.  Although, how they found snakes in Norway in April remains a mystery to me.

Here is what I’ve come to believe after starring at my cracked crystal ball.

• Self-awareness on the part of media celebrities and “mediaholic” politicians will continue to decline with direct proportion to their ability to broadcast their thoughts through venues like FaceBook, Instagram, and Twitter.
• Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) will expand to pandemic levels as we approach the upcoming Congressional mid-term election.
• Some in the GOP will continue to talk about the need to reduce the national debt, although none of them really believe a word they are saying.
• The Stock Market will enter into a period of real volatility as they see Government spending rise unchecked and government deregulation is slowed because all the easy regulations have already been ended.
• Government fraud will increase as everyone attempts to get a bigger piece of the bigger pie and the number of regulators is decreased.
• The Democrats will focus on TDS and DREAMERS as their primary issue during the upcoming elections, and the only places this will play well are in districts where they already have a democratic representative (with a few exceptions).  They do not seem capable of identifying policies that will bring a broader segment of society into the fold.
• Through their own stupidity, the GOP will lose the Senate because they have proven themselves as unprincipled as their opponents.  In close races, their choices on debt, immigration, and TDS just might make the difference that costs them the race.
• And finally, as we pour money back into the military we will spend it on hardware rather than the fundamental problem of figuring out the right size of the armed forces and beginning what would be a long-term effort to fix it.  The reason for this is simple, buying stuff is a lot easier, and perhaps cheaper, than building and caring for a skilled and qualified force. 

In Special Operations we’ve come to accept as truth words first written in the 1980’s by John Collins, USA (Retired)[1], the first of these imperative’s is “Humans are more important than hardware.”  In their quest for superiority decision makers always look to technology as a solution to the human needs/problems, but the need for humans with the right qualities is inescapable for all the services.  As our forces are stretched to the breaking point we see the impact of trying to do too much with too few.  It is amusing (for me) to see the public questions about why retention rates are declining and the survey’s the services conduct to try and figure out why they are so low.  Is our senior political and military leadership really so out of touch with the men and women they are to lead they really don’t know what is going on or is it just a game they must play when they can’t offer a reasonable solution?

Theodore Roosevelt is often quoted as saying “speak softly but carry a big stick” when talking about the use of force or violence to achieve an objective.  Every President since Franklin has used that big stick at one time or another in their presidency to either affect global events or react to some domestic issue by diverting attention or achieving a national consensus.  Obviously, if you use the stick too often it tends to splinter and break.  It seems we are at that point now and I wonder will it still be useful when it is really needed?

Well, that’s about it for my crystal ball.  It just fell off the table and I must glue it back together.

---

[1] http://www.sof.news/sof/sof-truths/

Watching the Olympics.

I was sitting at home, watching the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics and trying to avoid all the self-righteous social and political commentary that comes with international sports these days when one of the social commentators tells us how much the Koreans like Japan as a social and economic model.

I look over at my wife and noted I would be really surprised by that since Japan had subjugated the Koreans for most of the first half of the 2oth Century.  This was not a gentle peace-loving Japan, but one that felt anyone who wasn’t Japanese was less than human.  A Japanese occupation that took young Korean girls to be “comfort workers” for the Japanese Army scattered across the western Pacific and most of Asia.  Comfort workers was a polite way to describe sex-slave.

The men were also enslaved and used as expendable resources much like the Germans did with the Jews of Europe.  Until the end of World War II it was not a good time to be a Korean if you were employed by the Japanese.

Apparently, I was right.  NBC Apologizes

Maybe the networks should consider hiring people who actually know what they are talking about, rather than just having the right social and political views who look good on camera.

Once Upon a Time

Once upon a time in America we had a racial policy that called for “separate but equal” provisions for the black minority.  The legal doctrine arose from the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Plessey vs Ferguson, in 1890[1].  The court, in effectively modifying the 14^th Amendment, said the states could create separate facilities and thereby segregate the two populations. 

As we’ve come to know “separate but equal” is neither truly separate nor equal. For the next 65 years, the black minority in America suffered the racial discrimination imposed by this doctrine.  It wasn’t until the case of “Brown v the (Topeka) Board of Education” in the mid-1950’s did the Supreme Court move to correct the injustice it had created in its earlier ruling.

I find it interesting therefore that we see cries from the left now that we should return to the doctrine where one race or another has exclusive rights not held by the other, or that one gender or another have certain privileges not granted to the other.

When you couple this with the #MeToo sexual assault campaign the ideas of dating and relationships is undergoing a transition.  I doubt anyone can reasonably forecast the final outcome of that change.

In an earlier time, we would accept the premise of separate but equal and move to the logical conclusion that women should only work for women, blacks should only work for blacks, and so on, perhaps portioning down to natural blonds can only associate with other natural blonds.

But until “Brown v Board of Education” is overturned we are kind of forced to live together, despite the deepest wishes of those who would pull us apart.

---

[1] http://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/1-segregated/separate-but-equal.html

Who Dosen't Love a Parade?

I’ve got to say I am just simply amused at the faux outrage of the left over the idea of a military parade.  Not that I am all for the parade, we just had a big parade a year ago at the inauguration, but maybe the President wasn’t really ready for one then and would like it on a warmer day, but having the left accuse him of being a dictator and claiming this proves he is a fascist seems just a little out of touch with modern reality, and reflects the ideological corner they’ve painted themselves into by being avowed socialists.

I will grant that Mussolini probably liked parades, and there may even be a fascist dictator or two in South America who given their choice would have a military parade from time to time, but where have the really big military parades been? If we are going to make America great again who has set the standard for military parades?  Why those countries who’ve taken socialism to its ultimate conclusion of course.  The recognized leaders in the military parade field are Russia (although not as good as the USSR), China, and North Korea.  The next level would be France and Great Britain (although theirs are usually associated with some sort of anniversary for the Queen).  Finally, we come back to South America where Venezuela had them before they used up everyones money.

Clearly then, the desire to have a military parade comes from the desire to be a socialist and have everyone give the government all their money so the government can spend it wisely on great parades.  Therefore, I would suggest the left should truly embrace the idea that President Trump is moving to see their side of the spectrum and this is a symbolic shift in priorities.

Speaking of symbolism, every really great military parade needs a theme if it is to be successful.  As I noted above, the Brits have chosen the Queen’s anniversaries, the French have Bastille Day, the Communists have May 1^st (linked to shorter workers hours so there is time for the parade), and the North Korean’s have whatever day the Great Leader is bored. 

For this reason, I vote for April 15^th.  That is a day we come together as a nation to pay at least a percentage of our national credit debt.

I can see it now, we can begin by having the USN drive one of their LCAC’s down Pennsylvania Avenue.  It would deafen the crowd, blow over the cameras, and clean the street -- all in one fell swoop.   

Of course, the US Army would lead the way, as the oldest of the services.  They would all be wearing their proposed new WWII style pink and green suits and carrying their rifles (although how the secret service would confirm they are all unarmed would be a technical challenge).

Then comes the US Navy, maybe they could get those guys who make the Helium balloons for the Macy’s Day Parade to make copies of the fifty or so combat ready ships we have left and the crews of the other ships could walk them down the street. If not there is always Snoopy.

Next would be the USMC with their sharp dress uniforms and walking all in step carrying their rifles and yelling about some bar owned by a guy named Montezuma.

Finally, the USAF would come by with a couple of planes and maybe the special tactics airman.  You really don’t want the Air Force folks to attempt to march.  It wouldn’t be good for them, or the administration, to see that.

Some of you may be asking what about the US Coast Guard?  Good question.  Depending on what day of the week it is, they are, or are not, part of the US military forces.  If the parade is on the right day we would have to fit them in somewhere, but usually they are so busy manning navigational aids, breaking up ice, catching drug runners, fighting eco-terrorists, or saving lives of seamen and mountain climbers they probably don’t have anyone sitting around waiting to march in the first place.

Well, that is about it.  My thoughts on today’s media scandal with the President.  Think of it as just another chapter of “Get Trumped.”

It's Just a Mystery

Yesterday the President said “let’s shut the government down.”  Today the Dem’s and Republican’s in the Senate actually do what they are supposed to do and say “let’s have a two-year budget, and the President says okay.”  The ABC White House correspondent is terribly confused, does the President want to shut down the government or not?  Clearly the action of the Senate can in no way be related to the threat by the President, and the experience of the weekend shutdown that cost the Democrat’s so much political capital.

It is just quite simply a complete and utter mystery on what could possibly be going on.  Meanwhile, let’s have a big parade.

Tidbits From the 'Burbs

Well the stock market seems to be in a period where more people want to sell than buy… hopefully if you are invested you can ride it out.  As in keeping with today's media reality I assume President Trump will be blamed for this global pull back, the only difference is he probably won’t be tweeting about how it’s his fault, although a tweet or two about how much worse it would be without him seems a possibility.

I first arrived in this town about 15,000 days ago; give or take a week.  The beaches were white, the weather fair, the flying great.  Back then I could drive my little red Subaru from Fort Walton Beach all the way to Panama City and see the ocean almost the whole way.  Back then the village of Destin was unheard of.  Today far more people know about Destin than Fort Walton, and I don’t think you can see more than a couple of miles of ocean on the drive to Panama City.  Development is a two-edged sword, and why our National Parks should stay pristine.  This is one area I really disagree with the administration on.

Football season has ended.  We didn’t watch too much of the game, but what we saw was pretty thrilling.  The commercials, on the other hand, seem to be going downhill.  I’m so old I remember when the games were boring and the commercials great.  Now we get car commercials filled with social commentary.  I don’t know about everyone else, but social justice is certainly one of my primary considerations in choosing a new car.  I was impressed by the series of Tide commercials but wondered why they didn’t have to have a warning in each one that Tide should not be eaten as a snack.

With the end of football, we are about to enter the baseball season.  The big news seems to be a whole bunch of players have opted for free-agency and the owners don’t seem all that interested in paying them what they think they are worth.  Maybe it has to do with lessons from paying past players big dollars only to have their performance decline, or maybe it’s because there are enough young players they don’t think they need to pay the older guys as much.  There is a union contract in place and as long as both sides are doing what the contract calls for, I don’t know what the problem is.  As someone who believes in the capitalist concept of supply and demand, I’m just an interested bystander.

There is a new music video out from Elon Musk and Space-X that shows them launching their Tesla on a Falcon Heavy, with Mars as the destination.  By the way, how much pollution have we already left on Mars?  Does anyone know and does Waste Management have a plan to clean it up?

It is day 128 of the Skeleton Apocalypse – Quinton Tarantino is attempting to explain how he isn’t really connected to the original source of the apocalypse.  Good luck with that.  Larry Nassar will be going away for the rest of his life (unless overturned on appeal), one can only hope it is to a prison filled with people who’ve heard his story and can take good care of him.  It would seem the FBI was not all that responsive to his victims who sought their help, taking over a year to investigate the charges.  I’d hate to think it was because they were more interested in the election than the victims.