The past few weeks in Sociology and Criminal Justice classes we've been covering territory that overlaps more and more. As it should, of course. During a discussion on white collar crime last week, I jotted down on a piece of note paper the following, "the greatest act of white collar crime, in history, was called 'trickle down economics', and this crime was committed with our permission."

We've discussed, in Sociology, the widening gap in America that has impacted so many, and enriched so few. I can not blame this gap of the past 20 years on 'trickle down economics' but certainly if we start to look at the various rules and regulations that have been put into place during that time we can see that a pathway was illuminated for some to make huge profits.

I wonder if the U.S. was always like this, and answer to myself that it must have been.  Men like, J.P. Morgan, Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and many others were no different than the men of today - or were they?  Is it that those men all employed vast sums of manpower in order to achieve their great wealth. Today wealth can be created by betting for or against a company or process in the stock market.  It seems, more and more, that all Wall Street is now is Las Vegas in New York.  What exactly is the difference, except that the people in Las Vegas have more morals and values than the folks on Wall Street, apparently.  So creating wealth today does not rely upon all those toiling and laboring, earning a wage while producing a product that will be bought, exported, consumed, and replaced.  That's how wealth used to be created, and yes, some of it did have to trickle down through middle management and skilled laborers. They in turn purchased goods and automobiles and created more jobs to fill their needs.  This was how many were able to achieve the American Dream...not a multi-million dollar mansion, just simply a decent living and the ability to provide for them and their families.

I'm not for a socialist society, but I do think that the scales are unbalanced, they have tipped and all the gold is on one side. We don't need income or wealth redistribution, we need regulations and taxes that place the burdens squarely on all shoulders. It's our Country, we are all responsible for it equally.

Shut 'em all down

I've been quiet on the Shutdown subject, and while not prepared to jump in with both feet yet, I find that something has to be written down here.

In the eternal blame game going back and forth in Washington D.C. a gov't shutdown which impacts millions of Americans; that's the 800,000 furloughed gov't employees and the small businesses that they frequent, the Dentist or Doctor's appointment next week that they just canceled (not sure about that extra savings going to the much needed procedure, or next months mortgage/rent/groceries or light bill), point being that this shutdown affects so many more than just those 800,000.  Looking at it globally, it effects our entire Nation due to this inability to properly function as a Democratic Republic....a nation founded upon the principles of Freedom, Equality, Liberty, Happiness etc..etc..etc...we actually try to sell this stuff overseas, in old country nations and emerging nations - Hey, Look at us...Beacon of Light...Hope of the World.....Bumbling idiots of self-governance...

Yeah, held hostage because we don't think that our people deserve equal access to health care.  Now, I don't know enough about the Affordable Care Act, but I know that it ensures access to all, that it functions as a market-based exchange upon which competing insurance companies try and get your business - Uhmm...that sounds really familiar to me - almost like the market economy that drives our country, never really thought that was Socialist, but apparently this Health Care program is a Socialist program and will turn everyone in this country into some semblance of a utopian dream.

I just don't see it.

Apparently we are going to steal from Medicare/Medicaid to fund ObamaCare...which provides earlier access to preventative care, which likely results in increased savings down the road when Medicare kicks in for the aged, and seems to provide the same opportunities that one would have available under Medicaid.  Now recall that I have not done any research on this subject, so I've probably gotten a lot of it wrong, but if I got just one part right, it seems like we'd end up saving money in the long term.

This is about the long term folks!  This is about the security of our children and children's' children. If you haven't realized it yet, Health Care in this country, both private and publicly funded, is going to bankrupt us if we don't do something about it.

Standing around pointing fingers at the other party is not 'doing something about it'.  Jumping on every publicity strong bandstand to garner affection for your politics is not the way to go about it - the Republican Party looks like ID-TEN-TANGO-S running from one "Emergency" like Veterans at the WWII Memorial to funding VA Healthcare for disabled Vet's to funding FEMA in front of a pending Hurricane.  Let me tell you something that your pollsters are leaving out....it's starting to get pathetic. 

The business of government requires a budget.  A government and nation without a budget does not achieve any of it's objectives.....well, maybe this one does - however, it hasn't achieved an objective in more years that I can count, unless you call going to war an objective.

It is really, really sad to see this state of affairs that we have fallen too.  Time to reach down and pull ourselves up by the bootstraps again and get back to governing.

Will work for pay; or, Food for thought..

More not to follow on Syria. Time to find a new issue to chase around, I believe I'm tired of paying attention to that; nothing for the Naval Yard either, very sorry for the families of those dead and wish the injured a speedy and complete recovery.

What is American Exceptionalism?

As the day draws to an end, I finally got around to reading Vladimir Putin's remarks in the New York Times. As you already know, I do not agree with sending missiles to Syria in order to make a statement, or refute a 'line that was crossed'. I think that sending a missile without setting, as a goal, the removal of the person, or person's, that ordered the release of chemical weapons is a waste of time and effort.

In my view, war results from the failure of diplomacy.  Of course, I've always been a believer that war is caused by the 3 - R's...revenge, religion, and resources.  I believe I learned this in some college class that I took during my years in the Army; I never did see or learn anything to make me disbelieve it.  If I take my belief that the 3-R's cause war, then my other belief about diplomacy seems invalid - for diplomacy does not seek another countries resources for our own use; nor has diplomacy ever resulted in one religion not seeking to destroy another. Perhaps in revenge diplomacy would have a chance to prevail, yet the circumstances that warrant war as a extension of revenge do not normally allow for the option of diplomacy.

In the Syrian Civil War there seems to be aspects of revenge, religion, and certainly resources at work.  Why then would one seek a diplomatic solution? I think it was Einstein that stated, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result" Certainly we don't think that pursuing a diplomatic line as a solution to bringing Syria's chemical weapons under international control is insanity? How could we when we still do not have valid (my view of valid) proof of who exactly ordered the usage of those weapons. I know that the media, in it's reporting of various political happenings has alluded to such 'proof', yet I do not believe that a single American has actually heard or viewed this proof yet.  Call me skeptical, if you will, but I think we need something exceptionally concrete before we start a discourse on the taking of another person's life - which is certainly what we are discussing when ordering a cruise missile strike. It appears that even if we knew, definitively, that Assad was responsible - he was not going to be the intended target. I hope this doesn't sound like a 'new' piece of the puzzle to anyone reading this, because it has been vocalized since this thing started. Removal of the 'head of state' was not the goal of any cruise missile strikes, planned or ordered.  We don't do that.

So what was our intention then; we were going to strike to reduce the effectiveness of Assad's armed forces. That would send the message to Assad that we weren't kidding when we said that a 'line was drawn in the sand'. It may even result in the opposition gaining the upper-hand. One need not listen to the Russian President who writes that, "there are few champions of democracy" at work in Syria to understand that this is not a matter of the democratic front battling the tyrannical government for the rights of it's citizens. This is a matter of a multitude of groups, religious and otherwise, battling for control of turf and the people who live on that turf. This is not just a battle of 'them' against the 'government' this is a battle of 'them against them' and 'them against us' and finally 'them against the established government'.  Now apparently we don't like the Assad government, we feel that he is evil and should relinquish control of Syria for the good of all his people; yet, even feeling this way we will not remove him with a missile strike as retribution for usage of chemical weapons against his own population.  It's kind of starting to sound nonsensical to me.

I titled this blog post, and started it with reference to reading the NYT's editorial today because of the point I'm feeling conflicted about. While Mr. Putin makes sensible comments throughout, we can not escape that uneasy feeling that 'this is about something bigger'....but, must it always be about some greater attempt to gain ground? I guess when it's between our two countries it must.  When it's between the left and the right, the liberals and the conservatives, and doves and the hawks, the have's and the have not's...it always must be about gaining valuable ground - gathering those resources for ourselves, gathering up the souls of the lost flock, reaping revenge for previous ill's - real or perceived.

What does make America exceptional? What makes us that 'shining city on a hill', as President Reagan put it.

What makes America Exceptional is that I can write this and post it for others to see.  What makes America Exceptional is that other's can dispute, agree with, or ignore what I've stated here.  What makes America Exceptional is that we can have this dialog, in our political system, about whether a missile strike is justified or warranted - and parties from all sides can voice their viewpoint and be heard - if even only for a moment.  But they were heard, all sides, and care was taken to listen.

Has the President lost credibility on the international or national stage because he allowed diplomacy a chance; because he welcomes - cautiously - Russian intervention. Do we think that, after almost 5 years of serving as the Leader of this country, that he is still so naïve that he doesn't enter this option without misgivings. Do we really think that ALL the people who surround the President, who guide and advise the President, are all that naïve so as not too raise hands and look hard at potential outcomes and consequences as we move down this pathway? Is this not a government that is designed to work together, under difficult situations, to seek solutions to hard problems while ensuring the security and prosperity of the nation ? Are there not 540 elected officials in the Congress who we sent there to do this job? (435 voting and 5 non-voting members in the House and 100 members in the Senate).

As I stated in my last post, it's time to get back to work on home issues, however -

What really makes America Exceptional is that we even care.

Proportionate response scenario...et al...

Hello All - such a busy day that it is hard to know where to start...but as my day started with thinking about that wonderful movie, "The American President", I figure that's as good a place as any.

Why, you ask, would I be thinking about that movie, on today of all days - well, for the uninitiated, in the movie the President, played by Michael Douglas, has to direct a retaliatory strike against a foreign country.  As he is stepping through the options, one of his National Security Team advises that the cruise missile strike is appropriate and proportional.  You'd have to see the movie, or recall it, to understand the entire scenario. The point I was dwelling on this morning was that even though it would kill or maim people who had no responsibility for the action that warranted the response, the President after careful deliberation, directed the missile strike.

I'm not trying to draw any similarities with that point, it's just how my day started.  (So, yes, I do think of this stuff way too much).  When I turned the news on this morning I heard the breaking news story that Russia had come to the rescue of it's ally, Syria.  Great, let's get their chemical weapons under international control and move on with the process of running our own country and let the Syrian's continue to pursue their Civil War.

In the midst of all this action, I engaged a schoolmate of years back (grade school) in a discussion of American Rights.  I won't go into the entire discussion, but it appears that we American's - still living here, don't realize how many rights we have forfeited.  The schoolmate now lives overseas, and can better visualize this loss than we can. I'm not convinced that that is the best perspective, however, I'm not questioning anyone's' decision to leave their home country.  I say it is up to each person to pick their battlefield - mine just happens to be in Wise, VA, USA.

We've now all heard from the President, well, some of us have heard from the President and others will only listen to what their particular news channel will report.  I tend to agree with that perspective also....I mean, why get the words from the horse's mouth when you can wait and hear the edited content later on. You know, that drives me off into a sidebar concerning a discussion a few weeks ago in one of my classes. We were talking about the U.S and peoples views of how the country is actually run (Social-Elite theory etc..) I made the observation that many people seem to feel that their vote doesn't count, and then listen to only one news source to get all their news prior to voting.  So,, correct...your vote doesn't count because you voted along a predetermined line. People don't realize how much the media influences elections. If your still worried about the Military-Industrial Complex, as well we all should be....don't forget about the Media-Political Complex and the Health Care-Industrial Complex....it's why we pay $1 Billion for a plane, $500 for a bag of saline solution, and vote the way we are TOLD to vote. 

Anyhow...back on storyline....oh yea, heard from the President...delayed vote for military action....absolute requirement to teach Assad that yadda, yadda, yadda.  Forgot where I was...proportional response....retaliatory strike.......janitor on the night shift......CNN reporting from Damascus about the issues surrounding the International Community assuming control of the chemical weapons and precursors (we are going for the precursors also, right?). One of the main issues seems to be that the Assad government does not control vast areas of Syria, which means we can't get our people in safely to assume control...which means Assad's government may not have control of their chemical weapons......WAIT...I'm confused...I mean really confused now....where is the intelligence tying Assad to the chemical weapons usage ? again, it appears that no valid intelligence has been gathered or released to the American Public.  Thank you CNN for bringing up this tiny, little issue with the Russian plan.

So folks...if you've followed this far, I at least owe you a position: I am not for entering the Syrian Civil War; I'm not for a retaliatory strike, now or in the future, against Syria's peoples without ensuring that the target of that strike is also the same person that gave the order authorizing the usage of chemical weapons.  I liken that to kicking the dog cause you had a bad day at work; the dog had nothing to do with your workday and couldn't care less how your day went, he's just glad that you are home now.

I'm glad I'm home, and I'm looking forward to many of my brothers and sisters returning in 2014 from another war....that was supposed to be about finding OBL, but ended up with us fighting the Taliban, who were the enemy of Al Qaeda until we caused them to work together.

In the immortal words of Delmar O'Donnell: "C'mon in boys, the water is fine"

Starting the Blog.

Okay, in order to keep me off Facebook, or rather some of my meanderings and musings, I've created this blog.  I can freely express myself, and hopefully engage in argumentative discussion with others who so choose.

First Rule is that although I may have a preconceived notion of how I feel about a subject I'm blogging about, I am always open to other ideas or views on that subject. I never said I was right 100% of the time - I've never been wrong....but that's irrelevant to the discussion !! LOL