Author Topic: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces  (Read 844904 times)


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18521
    • View Profile
How times have changed since my first Presidential election
« Reply #1651 on: November 29, 2016, 05:48:04 PM »
The entire South voted Dem (for southern Carter) and California , NJ, Washington , Oregon , Illinois  voted for Republican Ford!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#/media/File:ElectoralCollege1976.svg



bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile
Where the right went wrong
« Reply #1654 on: December 19, 2016, 01:08:39 PM »
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/opinion/sunday/charlie-sykes-on-where-the-right-went-wrong.html

"Now that the election is over, don’t expect any profiles in courage from the Republican Party pushing back against those trends; the gravitational pull of our binary politics is too strong."
« Last Edit: December 19, 2016, 03:18:07 PM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18521
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1655 on: December 19, 2016, 05:34:31 PM »
"We destroyed our own immunity to fake news, while empowering the worst and most reckless voices on the right.

This was not mere naïveté. It was also a moral failure, one that now lies at the heart of the conservative movement even in its moment of apparent electoral triumph. Now that the election is over, don’t expect any profiles in courage from the Republican Party pushing back against those trends; the gravitational pull of our binary politics is too strong."

This guy still doesn't get it does he?   Yes many of us , myself included were repulsed by Trump's vulgarity.  Yet he was he was the only one willing to fight except for probably Cruz and Jindal too  though they lacked the star power.

Like today I watched some sort of forum hosted by the ex Repulican governor of NJ Christine Todd Whitman who is just as much an elitist as the rest and who  thinks she is above it all by voting for Hillary .  I could only stomach about 10- or 15 minutes of listening to her panel speak of compromise and both sides working across the aisle to govern and get things done.

We are in a civil war . wake up.  We are not one country anymore.

They still don't get why Trump blew all the other Republicans out of the running.  They are grasping and crying just like the Democrats .




ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18521
    • View Profile
2nd post from me
« Reply #1656 on: December 19, 2016, 05:45:38 PM »
 While is  Whitman talking about compromise and working across the aisle?   

Did she hear what the Clintons are saying?  What the DNC is saying?

What Obama is up to?

This guy , Pat Cadell,  a Democrat gets it:

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/12/19/caddell-grace-missing-obamas-leave-white-house/

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1657 on: December 19, 2016, 05:45:58 PM »
Anyone ever heard of Charlie Sykes before this coverage in the New Duranty Times? I have not. Oh look, he's writing a book! What a coincidence!

Over time, we’d the media succeeded in delegitimizing the media altogether — all the normal guideposts were down, the referees discredited. **Fixed it for him

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69435
    • View Profile
Right, Left, and Wrong
« Reply #1658 on: December 19, 2016, 08:37:54 PM »
"For years, we ignored the birthers, the racists, the truthers and other conspiracy theorists"

NOT ON THIS FORUM.

We tangled with the Truthers who tried surfing in to here.

Racism has been rejected clearly and strongly.

When the data was , , ,sparse we entertained birtherism, but when it was settled, we moved on.

Can't say I've never been fooled (Fool me twice, shame on me) but as for conspiracy theorists?  Infowars, DEBKA and others of that ilk are a non-grata.

I'd say we do our best around here to Search For Truth.

bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1659 on: December 20, 2016, 04:15:09 AM »
Anyone ever heard of Charlie Sykes before this coverage in the New Duranty Times? I have not. Oh look, he's writing a book! What a coincidence!

Over time, we’d the media succeeded in delegitimizing the media altogether — all the normal guideposts were down, the referees discredited. **Fixed it for him

http://www.hoover.org/profiles/charles-j-sykes

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18268
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1660 on: December 20, 2016, 06:33:57 AM »
Charlie Sykes made perfect sense in the Wisconsin Primary fight where Cruz beat Trump. But after Trump was nominated, the never-Trump leaders ended up with almost no followers on the right.

Sykes had it exactly right with this at the beginning of the piece:

"What they did buy into was the argument that this was a “binary choice.” No matter how bad Mr. Trump was, my listeners argued, he could not possibly be as bad as Mrs. Clinton.".  Enough said.

They didn't just buy into it, from a conservative point of view that was the truth.  The conservative voter had the risk Trump would be a lousy conservative vs the certainty of Hillary.

Ted Cruz is a more pure conservative, and would have lost this race. The voters knew something that Charlie Sykes didn't.

Lamenting Hillary's loss makes no sense to me from a conservative point of view.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2016, 06:47:01 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1661 on: December 20, 2016, 06:47:29 AM »
I'm glad the left is more principled and decent and punishes anti-semetic racebaiters like Al Shapton by giving him a tv show on MSNBC, having him speak at DNC conventions and only allowed to visit the white house less than one hundred times in the last eight years. Haters!



« Last Edit: December 20, 2016, 06:53:29 AM by G M »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1662 on: December 20, 2016, 07:00:49 AM »
 the racists, the truthers and other conspiracy theorists...


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69435
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1663 on: December 20, 2016, 10:58:35 AM »
In fairness, the point that Trump has overturned certain conventional and long standing Rep positions remains and is worthy of examination.  At the moment I am mentally composing a post about this.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69435
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18521
    • View Profile
political "trolling"
« Reply #1665 on: January 04, 2017, 05:11:28 AM »
The end of real discourse?  I agree the Left started this.   But now what?


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443503/trump-and-right-love-trolling-and-tweeting-what-happened-truth

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18521
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1666 on: January 11, 2017, 01:10:46 PM »
I dunno.  Anyone who has had to sit on an airplane for 5 hrs from a delay may be understanding of this:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-york-senator-al-damato-211300984.html

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18521
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1667 on: January 12, 2017, 02:05:24 PM »
All VERY strange:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2017/01/12/jeff-bezos-is-the-anonymous-buyer-of-the-biggest-house-in-washington/?utm_term=.4cad0fb414f0

Lets hope that rising tides lift all boats and there is real trickle down effects.

Because the rich are about to get fantastically richer. 
Drain the swamp?  I dunno.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18521
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18268
    • View Profile
Re: The full fury of the globalist elites is still pending
« Reply #1669 on: January 13, 2017, 08:23:54 AM »
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/12/virgil-trumps-nationalist-vision-vs-gospel-globalism/

Note Fay Voshell is cited in the article

Good article and excellent wisdom from Fay about globalism becoming a religion.

The article's author wrote’:. Trump's pro-worker, pro-taxpayer activism is also proving to be pro-business."

Yes, and that ends the moment we start a trade war.  Not mentioned was the American consumer.

"Back in 1846, the leading British free trader Richard Cobden declared, flat-out, that free trade would save the world:

I see in the Free-trade principle that which shall act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in the universe—drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonism of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace.

Cobden was a capitalist, and capitalists are often cold-eyed, but, as we can see, there’s a dreamy, even giddy, utopianism in Cobden’s thinking.  And amazingly, it won the battle of public opinion in 19th-century Britain.

Interestingly, one contemporary of Cobden’s—who was much colder-eyed and decidedly not a capitalist—nevertheless endorsed the same idea.  That would be Karl Marx, ..."

We can fight open borders, the UN disaster and our loss of sovereignty without losing our standard of living and our freedom to trade.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2017, 08:51:58 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18521
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1670 on: January 14, 2017, 08:03:38 AM »
Of course . Cowards never take responsibility.  Instead for any remorse of fixing the primaries for Clinton and against Sanders she blames Comey.  No surprise she is a known back stabber.


Yet , of course she is still in Congress fighting every day to redeem her relavence and shove herself on the country:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/13/wasserman-schultz-grills-fbi-chief-over-russian-hacking-issue-in-closed-door-meeting.html

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69435
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1671 on: January 15, 2017, 11:24:41 PM »
This is the Rants and Interesting Thought Pieces thread.  The Politics thread would be better for that.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18521
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1673 on: January 18, 2017, 06:17:40 PM »
I am more interested in the before and after Presidency photos.  We always hear about how much they have aged from the stress of the job.  Truthfully I think that is BS and if you took photos of a lot of people over 8 yrs at those times in their lives one would see a big difference:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/18/before-and-after-obama-10-signs-of-a-diminished-america/

He was what 47 in '08 and he is 55 now.  So sure he looks older.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 06:19:32 PM by ccp »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69435
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1675 on: January 18, 2017, 09:47:31 PM »
I am more interested in the before and after Presidency photos.  We always hear about how much they have aged from the stress of the job.  Truthfully I think that is BS and if you took photos of a lot of people over 8 yrs at those times in their lives one would see a big difference:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/18/before-and-after-obama-10-signs-of-a-diminished-america/

He was what 47 in '08 and he is 55 now.  So sure he looks older.

I know that America looks seriously damaged by the last 8 years. Faces of meth level damaged.

bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile
Movie about the facts that led up to Kelo decision
« Reply #1676 on: January 19, 2017, 01:46:40 PM »
http://www.vimooz.com/2017/01/18/courtney-moorehead-balaker-little-pink-house-athena-film-festival/

"Based on a true story, two-time Oscar® nominee Catherine Keener plays a small-town nurse Susette Kelo, who emerges as the reluctant leader of her working-class neighbors in their struggle to save their homes from political and corporate interests bent on seizing the land and handing it over to Pfizer Corporation. Susette’s battle goes all the way to the US Supreme Court and the controversial 5-4 decision in Kelo vs. City of New London gave government officials the power to bulldoze a neighborhood for the benefit of a multibillion-dollar corporation. The decision outraged Americans across the political spectrum, and that passion fueled reforms that helped curb eminent domain abuse."
« Last Edit: January 19, 2017, 02:41:09 PM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18521
    • View Profile
wealthy running for top political jobs
« Reply #1677 on: January 20, 2017, 06:30:50 AM »
Mark Cuban , who I like is clearly jealous of Trump.  Many of these fabulously wealthy type A personality types must be looking at Trump, a business man and be thinking why not me?

Zuckerberg will run too eventually.  Think about it.   The owner and controller of social media.   And all the funding (times 1000) that he could need to run .   And he would win IMHO.  Effectively he would be a Democrat but I would guess he would play independent.  Independents though are essentially Democrats.

Now I see this:

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/shark-tank-star-kevin-oleary-enters-politics-people-151807375--abc-news-topstories.html

Trump seems to have widened the whole thinking about who could run.  Does not have to be career politician.  And can run right for the top job.  Why waste time in a state job or congressional job?  Why bother with the Michael Bloomberg thing and be a lowly mayor.  


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69435
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1678 on: January 20, 2017, 11:40:27 AM »
Not the thread for this-- this is not a catch all thread for "items of interest".   

"Politics" is a better catch all thread for items of interest.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18268
    • View Profile
Re: Movie about the facts that led up to Kelo decision
« Reply #1679 on: January 20, 2017, 12:44:16 PM »
http://www.vimooz.com/2017/01/18/courtney-moorehead-balaker-little-pink-house-athena-film-festival/

"Based on a true story, two-time Oscar® nominee Catherine Keener plays a small-town nurse Susette Kelo, who emerges as the reluctant leader of her working-class neighbors in their struggle to save their homes from political and corporate interests bent on seizing the land and handing it over to Pfizer Corporation. Susette’s battle goes all the way to the US Supreme Court and the controversial 5-4 decision in Kelo vs. City of New London gave government officials the power to bulldoze a neighborhood for the benefit of a multibillion-dollar corporation. The decision outraged Americans across the political spectrum, and that passion fueled reforms that helped curb eminent domain abuse."

Thank you Bigdog.  I hope they did a good job telling this story.  From my perspective, it is shameful that ANY Justices voted for this much less 5 of them including Anthony Kennedy, Reagan's third choice for that seat.

This is one issue that kept me from supporting Donald Trump until there was no one left (but HRC) as an alternative. 

As he description states, this is an issue that united the right and the left. I don't want special powers to anyone and the left doesn't want it for big corporate interests over the people.

Freedom of contract for consenting adults?  Your home is your castle?  Right of privacy?  Takings require public use?  Right of title, what third world countries often lack.  Whatever happened to buying property on the market, consensual buyers buying consensual property from consensual sellers at a consensual price?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69435
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1680 on: January 20, 2017, 04:06:45 PM »
This decision was discussed on the Constitutional Law thread on the SC&H forum.  IIRC some wag with a local NH position made a move to subject Justice Souter's home to eminent domain.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69435
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69435
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69435
    • View Profile
The US is now an Open Loop system
« Reply #1684 on: January 25, 2017, 07:34:04 AM »
Second post

Open Loop Nation
Posted: 24 Jan 2017 10:50 AM PST
The US, as a socio-economic system, is now running open loop. 

Not only that, it's running open loop in an extremely chaotic environment and that's bad news.  While open loop systems are extremely stable under controlled conditions, they can be just the opposite in complex, rapidly changing or uncertain environments.  In those environments they fail quickly or worse:  they run amok.   

What is open loop?  Open loop is a concept from control theory, but anybody who has ever worked with machines is already familiar with it. 

In a nutshell, an open loop system doesn't use a feedback loop to modify its performance, it simply runs at the level you set them at until you turn it off or it runs out of fuel.  A closed loop system is just the opposite.  It modifies its performance based on changing conditions.

For example, its the difference between a fire in your fireplace that burns until it's out of wood and a home heating system that turns on and off based on the temperature you set. 

So how does this apply to something as big and complex as the US? 

The US is a socioeconomic system.  We built it.  For the last hundred years it's been a closed system.  That means it:

   has levers and mechanisms for adjusting its performance.

   can measure its effectiveness relative to achieved results. 

   can mitigate any damage or exploit opportunity when the environment or situation changes. 

However, those levers and mechanisms have frayed over the last couple of decades:

   The levers and mechanisms of control the US has available to manager our socio-economic system are too weak to do so anymore.  From the Fed ZIRP to a chaotic media to porous borders to companies that avoid paying any taxes (Google, Apple, etc.).

   There is no consensus over what constitutes success.  Who should benefit and how should they benefit?  Should we let the market dictate everything or allocate success based on identity or should we build a prosperous middle class? 

   We've blundered into failures with security (9/11 to Iraq to ISIS), domestic development (rustbelt and Katrina response) to economic progress (the non-response to the financial crisis that we still haven't recovered from nearly a decade later).   

Now, there are forces at work in the US, driven by ubiquitous globalization and a rapid expansion in Internet social connectivity.  More importantly, from Trump's disruptive governance to a women's protest that was 3x bigger than any protest in US history, these new forces have exceed the ability of the US institutions to respond. 

What does this mean? 

The US doesn't have a control system anymore.  It's open loop. 

Sincerely,
John Robb

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18521
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1685 on: January 25, 2017, 07:47:23 AM »
"Perhaps Bush was able to handle his reelection loss with such equanimity and show such generosity to the man who turned him out of office precisely because he had such a modest view of himself, because he trusted the many over the mighty, because he understood that voters might have seen something that he couldn’t, and because he had such faith in our institutions, even when those institutions produced outcomes not to his liking"

compare this humility to the conceit , arrogance, narcissism , braggadocio, smugness, know it all, first marxist Prez we just endured and who will surely not go away gracefully and will surely be there to annoy the Right for years to come.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1686 on: January 25, 2017, 10:05:56 AM »
"Perhaps Bush was able to handle his reelection loss with such equanimity and show such generosity to the man who turned him out of office precisely because he had such a modest view of himself, because he trusted the many over the mighty, because he understood that voters might have seen something that he couldn’t, and because he had such faith in our institutions, even when those institutions produced outcomes not to his liking"

compare this humility to the conceit , arrogance, narcissism , braggadocio, smugness, know it all, first marxist Prez we just endured and who will surely not go away gracefully and will surely be there to annoy the Right for years to come.

It's ok, he will continue to act as a GOTV mechanism for Trump's reelection.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69435
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69435
    • View Profile
Trump's use of social networking changes governance
« Reply #1689 on: February 02, 2017, 11:30:16 PM »
How Trump's Use of Social Networking Changes Governance
Posted: 02 Feb 2017 04:22 PM PST

The Trump presidency operates very differently (obviously) than those of his post-WW2 predecessors.  First off, its goals are completely different:  it's dismantling the neoliberal system.  A system that earlier administrations built up over decades.  Second, and equally as interestingly, it operates more like a network than a bureaucracy.  Specifically, the Trump administration is:

   More autocratic than bureaucratic.  Single decision maker (softly autocratic) rather than decision through a consensus of bureaucratic elites.  This is faster, particularly within a network setting, but more prone to error.

   More socially networked than hierarchically networked. Its external social network is on the same level as the governmental bureaucracy.  The social network is now a means of governance on par with the bureaucracy.   

   National governance isn't just in Washington anymore, it's be conducted everywhere at once.  Everyone, from the government bureaucrat to the corporate executive to the owner of a Twitter account is now an active participant.  It is now much more participatory than it has EVER been.

Reactivity

What makes Trump's networked autocracy (potentially) effective is in how it stays reactive to the rapidly evolving needs of its supporters.  It does this through:

   Big Data Analysis:  Both Bannon's Cambridge Analytica and Kushner's San Antonio Moneyball operation dig deeply into social networks to profile voters.

   Online chatter:  Direct online feedback on Twitter or Facebook, as well as chatter in groups like the_Donald, the 358,000 member pro-Trump social network on Reddit.

   Intuition:  A salesman's gut.  All Trump.  Trump has an intuitive feel for what the target audience wants and needs.  A gut that's greatly enhanced by feedback from social networks.

Reactive Networked Autocracy

Based on these differences and the evidence of the first few weeks, we can expect this administration's style of governance to operate very differently than the legacy cold war bureaucracy that ran our country since WW2.   Here are some of the major changes:

   Incremental change vs. Rapid change.  Bureaucrats make changes slowly and incrementally.  Autocrats can make wholesale changes.   Social networking makes it possible to route around bureaucratic roadblocks to create de facto change before the bureaucracy can catch up.   

   Adherence to Ideology vs. Adherence to Common Sense.  US bureaucratic governance is based on neoliberal ideology and the sciences of social complexity (economics, etc.).   Social networking has made people increasingly aware to the gap between results/common sense and ideology/models (a similar gap toppled the USSR).  Trump exploits that gap.

   Serial vs. Parallel focus.  Bureaucratic governance mass media coverage focuses on one problem at a time (serially), or as closely to that as possible.  In contrast, networked governance can focus on many in parallel.  This makes it very difficult for gatekeepers to exercise control.

Sincerely,
John Robb
 

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69435
    • View Profile
Milo
« Reply #1690 on: February 06, 2017, 10:43:24 PM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18268
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69435
    • View Profile
Ben Shapiro
« Reply #1692 on: February 13, 2017, 10:05:33 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69435
    • View Profile
What we are fighting for
« Reply #1693 on: February 14, 2017, 07:01:57 PM »
I like this one:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/opinion/sunday/what-were-fighting-for.html?emc=edit_th_20170210&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193&_r=3


What We’re Fighting For

Our acts of moral courage defend America as surely as any act of violence.

By PHIL KLAY
FEB. 10, 2017


When his convoy was ambushed during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, First Lt. Brian Chontosh ordered his Humvee driver to head straight into the oncoming machine gun fire. They punched through, landing in a trench full of heavily armed Iraqi soldiers. Lieutenant Chontosh and his Marines leapt out and he ran down the trench firing away, dropping one enemy soldier after another. First his rifle jammed, then he ran out of ammunition, so he switched to his pistol. He shot it dry, reloaded, and shot it dry again. So he picked up an AK-47 from a dead Iraqi, fired that dry, picked up another AK, fired that dry, picked up a rocket-propelled grenade, fired it, and led the group back to the Humvee, their attack having almost completely cleared the trench. Almost.

One Iraqi was playing dead, fiddling with the pin of a grenade. Lieutenant Chontosh had no ammo, but on the ground were a couple of M-16 rounds from when his rifle had jammed. He grabbed one, loaded, and before the Iraqi could pull the pin, Lieutenant Chontosh locked eyes with him and shot him dead. All told, according to the journalist Phil Zabriskie’s account of the ambush in “The Kill Switch,” Lieutenant Chontosh had killed about two dozen people that day.

When I was a new Marine, just entering the Corps, this story from the Iraq invasion defined heroism for me. It’s a perfect image of war for inspiring new officer candidates, right in line with youthful notions of what war is and what kind of courage it takes — physical courage, full stop. We thought it was a shame more Americans didn’t know the story.

But after spending 13 months in Iraq, after seeing violence go down not because we managed to increase our lethality but because we improved our ability to work with Iraqis, I became convinced that there were other stories of war equally important for Americans to understand. And as we look at a president who claims that he wants to “fight fire with fire” in the battle against jihadism, I think back to the stories that defined, for me, what it meant to be an American at war, and the reasons I was proud to wear the uniform.
 

I was sent to Iraq in January 2007 with a logistics unit, the sort unlikely to engage in Chontosh-style heroics. We managed the key parts of an army people often forget about: truck drivers, engineers, explosive disposal specialists, postal workers — and, crucially, doctors.

Midway through my deployment a Marine arrived on base with severe wounds. He’d been shot by an enemy sniper, and the medical staff swarmed around his body, working frantically, skillfully, but it wasn’t enough. He died on the table.

Normally, there’d be a moment of silence, of prayer, but the team got word that the man who killed this young Marine, the insurgent sniper, would be arriving a few minutes later. That dead Marine’s squadmates had engaged the sniper in a firefight, shot him a couple of times, patched him up, bandaged him and called for a casualty evacuation to save the life of the man who’d killed their friend.

So he arrived at our base. And the medical staff members, still absorbing the blow of losing a Marine, got to work. They stabilized their enemy and pumped him full of American blood, donated from the “walking blood bank” of nearby Marines. The sniper lived. And then they put him on a helicopter to go to a hospital for follow-up care, and one of the Navy nurses was assigned to be his flight nurse. He told me later of the strangeness of sitting in the back of a helicopter, watching over his enemy lying peacefully unconscious, doped up on painkillers, while he kept checking the sniper’s vitals, his blood pressure, his heartbeat, a heartbeat that was steady and strong thanks to the gift of blood from the Americans this insurgent would have liked to kill.

This wasn’t just a couple of Marines and sailors making the right decision. These weren’t acts of exceptional moral courage in the way Lieutenant Chontosh’s acts were acts of exceptional physical courage. This was standard policy, part of tradition stretching back to the Revolutionary War, when George Washington ordered every soldier in the Continental Army to sign a copy of rules intended to limit harm to civilians and ensure that their conduct respected what he called “the rights of humanity,” so that their restraint “justly secured to us the attachment of all good men.”


From our founding we have made these kinds of moral demands of our soldiers. It starts with the oath they swear to support and defend the Constitution, an oath made not to a flag, or to a piece of ground, or to an ethnically distinct people, but to a set of principles established in our founding documents. An oath that demands a commitment to democracy, to liberty, to the rule of law and to the self-evident equality of all men. The Marines I knew fought, and some of them died, for these principles.

That’s why those Marines were trained to care for their enemy. That’s why another Marine gave his own blood to an insurgent. Because America is an idea as much as a country, and so those acts defend America as surely as any act of violence, because they embody that idea. That nurse, in the quiet, alone with that insurgent, with no one looking as he cared for his patient. That was an act of war.

After I left the Marine Corps, I met a veteran named Eric Fair. He was quiet. He wrote strange and affecting stories about guilt and alienation, and at first he didn’t tell me much about his past. Only over time did I learn that he’d been an Army Arabic linguist before Sept. 11, and then had signed up as a contractor and gone to Abu Ghraib prison in January 2004, all things he would later write about in his memoir “Consequence.”

Back then Abu Ghraib was a mess, he told me. Thousands of Iraqis, some of them insurgents, plenty of them innocent civilians caught up in the post-invasion chaos, and far too few qualified interrogators to sort it out. And the information they were seeking — it was literally life or death.

So Eric began crossing lines. Not legal lines — he followed the rules. But moral lines, personal lines, lines where it was clear that he wasn’t treating the people in his interrogation booth like human beings.

One time, it was with a boy captured with car batteries and electronic devices. The boy said his father used the batteries for fishing, an explanation that Eric found absurd. So, he used the approved techniques. Light slaps, stress positions. The boy eventually broke and, weeping, told Eric about a shop where his father delivered the electronics.

When a unit was sent to raid the shop, it found half a dozen partly assembled car bombs. “It was an enormous adrenaline rush,” he told me. He’d used techniques he now considers torture and, he thought, saved lives.

So, naturally, he kept using them. There were a large number of detainees caught with car batteries, all of them with the same story about fishing. With them, Eric would go right to the techniques designed to humiliate, to degrade, to make people suffer until they tell you what you want to hear. But Eric didn’t get any more results. No more car bomb factories. Just a lot of broken, weeping detainees.

Eventually, he told a fellow contractor the ridiculous fishing story, and how he wasn’t falling for it, and the contractor told him: “Of course they fish with car batteries. I used to do it in Georgia.” The electric charge stuns the fish, a simple method for an easy meal.

Eric isn’t sure how many innocent Iraqis he hurt. All he knows is how easy it was for him to cross the line. Just as with that wounded insurgent there was a codified set of procedures set in place to help guide Marines and Navy medical personnel to make moral choices, choices they could tell their children and grandchildren about without shame, for Eric, there was a codified set of procedures beckoning him to take actions that he now feels condemn him.

He doesn’t even have the consolation of feeling that he saved lives. Sure, they found a car bomb factory, but Abu Ghraib was a turning point. In 2003, thousands of Iraqi soldiers had begun surrendering to the United States, confident they’d be treated well. That’s thousands of soldiers we didn’t have to fight to the death because of the moral reputation of our country.

Abu Ghraib changed things. Insurgent attacks increased, support for the sectarian leader Moktada al-Sadr surged, and 92 percent of Iraqis claimed they saw coalition forces as occupiers rather than liberators or peacekeepers. WikiLeaks later released a United States assessment that detainee mistreatment at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo was “the single most important motivating factor” convincing foreign jihadists to wage war, and Gen. Stanley McChrystal said, “In my experience, we found that nearly every first-time jihadist claimed Abu Ghraib had first jolted him to action.” Our moral reputation had started killing American soldiers.

So, yeah, they found a car bomb factory. Once.

Eric has a relationship to his war that’s much different from mine. Yet we were in the same war. And Eric did what our nation asked of him, used techniques that were vetted and approved and passed down to intelligence operatives and contractors like himself. Lawyers at the highest levels of government had been consulted, asked to bring us to the furthest edge of what the law might allow. To do what it takes, regardless of whether such actions will secure the “attachment of all good men,” or live up to that oath we swear to support and defend the Constitution.

What to make of that oath, anyway? The Constitution seems to mean different things at different times and places — whether in my unit’s dusty little combat hospital, or in Eric’s interrogation booth, or in a stadium where a crowd cheers a presidential candidate vowing to torture his nation’s enemies. We live in a democracy, so that document can be bent and twisted and re-formed to mean whatever we want it to.

If we choose to believe in a morally diminished America, an America that pursues its narrow selfish interests and no more, we can take that course and see how far it gets us. But if we choose to believe that America is not just a set of borders, but a set of principles, we need to act accordingly. That is the only way we ensure that our founding document, and the principles embedded within, are alive enough, and honorable enough, to be worth fighting for.

Which brings me back to Brian Chontosh, that man with such incredible skill at killing for his country. Years after I left the Corps I was surprised to learn that he didn’t really put much stock in his exceptional kill count. He told Mr. Zabriskie this about killing: “It’s ugly, it’s violent, it’s disgusting. I wish it wasn’t part of what we had to do.”

When people ask him if he’s proud of what he did, he answers: “I’m not proud of killing a whole lot of people. That doesn’t make sense to me. I’m proud of who I am today because I think I’ve done well. I think I’ve been honorable. I’ve been successful for my men, for the cause, for what’s right.”

Brian Chontosh doesn’t dwell on the dead, but he does wonder whether there were times when, perhaps, he need not have killed. One of these is that last soldier in the trench. He’ll remember him, trying to pretend he’s dead but wiggling a bit. “It’s not a haunting image,” he told Mr. Zabriskie. “It’s just — man. I wonder. I wonder if I would have just freaking grabbed the dude. Grabbed his hand, thrown the grenade away or something. I could have got him some medical treatment.”

If he had, then that enemy soldier would have ended up with a unit like mine, surrounded by doctors and nurses and Navy corpsmen who would have cared for him in accordance with the rules of law. They would have treated him well, because they’re American soldiers, because they swore an oath, because they have principles, because they have honor. And because without that, there’s nothing worth fighting for.

Phil Klay is the author of the short-story collection “Redeployment.”

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69435
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18521
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1695 on: February 19, 2017, 07:32:11 AM »


From post above :

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/our-miserable-21st-century/

An eye opener. 

Agree with a lot of it.  However there are other factors that contributed to Trump no mentioned.

Such as the threat of giving away  of US sovereignty and the progressive's embrace America bashing and fueling of racism for examples.
It isn't *all* about "jobs"

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69435
    • View Profile
Novak: Democracy, Capitalism
« Reply #1696 on: February 19, 2017, 08:39:03 AM »

By Michael Novak
Feb. 17, 2017 6:46 p.m. ET
44 COMMENTS

(This article appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 27, 1994. Michael Novak died Friday at 83.)

Democracy, Winston Churchill once said, is a bad system of government, except when compared to all the others. Much the same might be said of capitalism. It is not a system much celebrated by the poets, the philosophers or the priests. From time to time, it has seemed romantic to the young; but not very often. Capitalism is a system that commends itself best to the middle aged, after they have gained some experience of the way history treats the plans of men.

My own field of inquiry is theology and philosophy. From the perspective of these fields, I would not want it to be thought that any system is the Kingdom of God on Earth. Capitalism isn’t. Democracy isn’t. The two combined are not. The best that can be said for them (and it is quite enough) is that, in combination, capitalism, democracy, and pluralism are more protective of the rights, opportunities, and conscience of ordinary citizens (all citizens) than any known alternative.

Better than the Third World economies, and better than the socialist economies, capitalism makes it possible for the vast majority of the poor to break out of the prison of poverty; to find opportunity; to discover full scope for their own personal economic initiative; and to rise into the middle class and higher.

Sound evidence for this proposition is found in the migration patterns of the poor of the world. From which countries do they emigrate, and to which countries do they go? Overwhelmingly they flee from socialist and Third World countries, and they line up at the doors of the capitalist countries.

A second way of bringing sound evidence to light is to ask virtually any audience, in almost any capitalist country, how many generations back in family history they have to go before they reach poverty. For the vast majority of us in the U.S. we need go back no farther than the generation of our parents or grandparents. In 1900, a very large plurality of Americans lived in poverty, barely above the level of subsistence. Most of our families today are described as affluent. Capitalist systems have raised up the poor in family memory.

The second great argument on behalf of capitalism is that it is a necessary condition for the success of democracy—a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition. The instances of Greece, Portugal, Spain, Chile (after Pinochet), South Korea and others allow us to predict that once a capitalist system has generated a sufficiently large and successful middle class, the pressures for turning toward democracy become very strong. This is because successful entrepreneurs speedily recognize that they are smarter and more able than the generals and the commissars. They begin demanding self-government.

As has been recognized since ancient times, the middle class is the seedbed of the republican spirit. Capitalism tends toward democracy as the free economy tends toward the free polity. In both cases, the rule of law is crucial. In both, limited government is crucial. In both, the protection of the rights of individuals and minorities is crucial. While capitalism and democracy do not necessarily go together, particularly in the world of theory, in the actual world of concrete historical events, both their moving dynamism and their instincts for survival lead them toward a mutual embrace.

On this basis, one can predict that as the entrepreneurial spirit grows in China, particularly in its southern provinces, we can expect to see an ever stronger tide in favor of democratic institutions begin to make itself felt. The free economy will unleash forces that propel China toward the free polity.

True, some dictators have chosen to permit capitalist systems even though such systems severely limit their own power over the economy. But there is an inherent defect in one-man rule that makes capitalism in such nations vulnerable. That defect is human mortality and the problem of succession. One of the great advantages of democracy is that it solves that problem of succession in a routine, regular and peaceful way. For the long-run health of capitalism, then, I venture the hypothesis that democracy, with its methods of peaceful succession, is also a necessary condition.

Another service to capitalism that democracy performs better than dictatorship draws upon its representational function. A free economy has a great many parts, and a parliament or representative congress tends to represent all these parts. Thus in a democracy every part of the economy has at least some active voice. This may make it more difficult for clear and simple decisions to be made. But the active representation of all economic parties does make less likely the harsh, unilateral decisions to which dictators are prone. Pinochet and other dictators have caused great harm to their economies by unconsidered, unilateral decisions, which a parliament might have prevented them from making.

People do not love democracy if it does not bring improvement in their economic conditions. They will not be satisfied with democracy if all it means is the opportunity to vote every two years. Typically, they do not ask for utopia but would like to see the possibility of solid economic progress for their families over the next three to four years. This is the psychological mechanism which makes capitalism, or at least a dynamic economy, indispensable to the success of democracy. Capitalism delivers the goods that democracy holds out as one of its promises.

Another service provided by capitalism to democracy is less well understood. The founders of the U.S. understood it very clearly, however, as one can see by a careful study of Federalist No. 10 and No. 53. Benjamin Franklin in London and Thomas Jefferson in Paris searched libraries to find out why previous republics had failed. Envy, it turns out, is the most destructive social passion—more so than hatred, which is at least visible and universally recognized as evil. Envy seldom operates under its own name; it chooses a lovelier name to hide behind, and it works like a deadly invisible gas. In previous republics, it has set class against class, sections of cities against other sections, leading family against leading family. For this reason, the early Americans stood against division (“divided we fall”) and sought ways to neutralize envy.

To accomplish this task, the Founders determined that a republic cannot be built upon the clerical (priestly) class; nor upon the aristocracy and military (whose interests in “honor” caused so many rivalries and contestations); but upon a far humbler and typically more despised class, those engaging in commerce. They opted for what they called “a commercial republic.” Why did they choose as their social foundation a class, and an activity, universally regarded by philosophers, religious leaders, and poets as lowly and ignoble?

They chose commerce for two reasons. First, when all the people in the republic, especially the able-bodied poor, see that their material conditions are actually improving from year to year, they are led to compare where they are today with where they would like to be tomorrow. They stop comparing themselves with their neighbors, because their personal goals are not the same as those of their neighbors. They seek their own goals, at their own pace, to their own satisfaction.

Indeed, in America, as de Tocqueville and others noted, there was a remarkable freedom from envy. On the whole, people rejoiced in the success of others, as signs of the coming prosperity of their village, city, and nation. Across America today, in public schools and colleges and universities, one still sees many portraits of public benefactors who were successful in commerce and industry. Democracy depends on a growing economy for its upward tide—for social mobility, opportunity, and the pursuit of personal accomplishment.

The other reason the Framers chose commerce and industry as the economic foundation for this nation is to defeat the second great threat to republican institutions, the tyranny of a majority. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, in particular, understood the ravages of original sin in human affairs. They, therefore, strongly supported Montesquieu’s (and Aquinas’) notion of separated powers, plus the “principle of division” throughout every branch of society.

It is in the nature of commerce and industry that they focus the interests of citizens in many different directions: Some in finance, some in production, some in supply, some in wholesale, some in retail, some in transport, some in lumber, others in tobacco, or cotton, or vegetables, or whatever. In their structure and goals, industry differs from industry, firm from firm. In such ways, commerce and industry render highly unlikely any single, universal majority.

In summary, commerce and industry are a necessary condition for the success of republican government (”government of the people, by the people, and for the people”) because they (1) defeat envy, through open economic opportunity and economic growth; and (2) defeat the tyranny of a majority, through splitting up economic interests into many different foci.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69435
    • View Profile
EVerything is fuct
« Reply #1697 on: February 24, 2017, 07:18:41 PM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: EVerything is fuct
« Reply #1698 on: February 24, 2017, 07:46:28 PM »
https://markmanson.net/everything-is-fucked

Gosh, it's the internet and not lie after lie from the MSM and the dominant political structures that many of us are well aware of.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69435
    • View Profile