Brother of slain soldier is right, we do need to remember we are a nation at war (but we need to question policy too)

One can certainly understand the anguish of a man whose brother has just been killed in a war. One such man was quoted in a story over the past day as saying that Americans need to remember that we are a nation at war. I agree, but I also think that as we remember that or take note of it, we also need to decide what we are accomplishing in the decade-long effort in the Middle East, and Afghanistan in particular.

And maybe the reason people don’t act like they realize we are at war is that no outward sacrifice is being called for on the part of the general public. And although one would think our goal would be to have some kind of victory, we have already telegraphed that we eventually plan to quit. If we can quit later with no clear sign of victory, why not quit now? This is not as much a war in the conventional sense as it is a geopolitical police action. With our all-volunteer force when one signs up these days, he or she is essentially signing onto a world police force. Police are on duty forever. The American public is given little choice in the matter. If either Barack Obama wins re-election to the presidency or Mitt Romney is elected (and that seems now to be the choice) there is no clear end in sight to the war. Obama does like to talk about time tables (they are movable), Romney does not like the idea of telegraphing when you plan to quit, and that much I agree with him on. But, Romney also wants to press on, something I am not necessarily in agreement with. Somehow it seems immoral to me to ask people to put their lives on the line for something you go at half-heartedly, always ready to quit. That does not mean I think we should not quit. I think it takes as much guts to fight all-out as to admit the war cannot be won outright or is not worth it. I would not suggest admitting defeat or anything like that, rather, I would think we should re-assess.

There may be other more practical ways to keep our enemies at bay or at least off our shores. We are already in the Vietnam syndrome in that we seem to have miscalculated and would like to get out but we can’t because we must save face and not dishonor those who have died. We also have used the discredited strategy of limited war. War continues to be war and the only practical thing is to fight to win or not to fight at all. It could be that an even more drawn out war of attrition could work in our favor (although doubtful), but it does not seem to be the way we should conduct things, lest we put ourselves in a true state of endless armed conflict, a state of being and an image I don’t think is right for the United States of America.

But yes, we should remember we are a nation at war and demand our president and congress do something to resolve the issue.

(The story I referred to is at: http://news.yahoo.com/brother-ohio-soldier-nation-war-104658229.html )

—————-

What follows is my previous post on pretty much the same subject:

I’m not sure what women not shaving under their arm pits, people drawing welfare, Occupy Wall Street, soldiers denied proper medical care once they get home (who’s to blame there?) while welfare recipients are tended to, and making it a point to thank the people in uniform all have in common but that seemed to be the elements of the conversation on my local radio station which was playing the Glenn Beck Show, being hosted by a guest host possibly. I only listened to a few words before I had to turn it off.

The message seemed to be that women who did not shave their arm pits were just part of the crowd who lives off of welfare, protests, and who shows it is against America by objecting to war and failing to thank the troops.

While listening to the ignorance and hate one should realize that those who run the local radio stations simply play the blather because it is cheap fare and it apparently brings in the revenue — never mind being part of a more civil and intelligent public discourse. But people want their own point of view to be validated or they want someone to do their thinking for them, so the talk show trash on radio is just what it is. Critical thinking and discussion does not do well in the marketplace.

And I am not saying they should be playing Amy Goodwin and Democracy Now; I’ve caught a little of that at times and it may be somewhat more civil but it is propaganda too, just from the far left of the political spectrum.

But before I turned my radio off I heard the tired old diatribe about how people don’t support our soldiers and the wars they fight. It is irritating that the idea of supporting troops (and that can mean different things in different contexts; a government –to include Republicans – who fails to treat returning reservists or National Guardsmen is not supporting the troops) has to be forever linked in the minds of those of the far-right, one-track mindset to national policy. As far as I know most people who may object to wars or military adventures/actions are not specifically or not at all criticizing individual soldiers, but the policy that puts them in harm’s way. Now in instances where there is abuse perpetrated by soldiers (such as the murder of innocents) then, yes, there might be indeed criticism. And there was a school of thought during the Vietnam War that since it turned out to be so obviously wrong and immoral, not to mention impractical, that any one who agreed to fight it (even if conscripted) was committing an immoral act (I do not necessarily agree with that). And some might argue that today (again I do not necessarily agree with that, even though it is all volunteer).

But people who dress differently than what has become the norm among what is considered the general public, or women who do not shave their arm pits, which has been the custom in Europe and even here decades and decades ago (into the past century), and people who get government assistance, and people who would dare question public policy (unless it is the far right questioning legitimate policy promoted by the middle and left) are all linked together in the minds of those incapable of critical thinking or those simply stirring up the masses for political and financial gain.

(I hate to bring Tom Sullivan into all of this. But he is a case study of someone who began as a conservative talk show host who was capable of and willing to engage in somewhat critical thinking in that he would give both sides of an issue, even though always coming down on the right. But he apparently found such was not acceptable in the world of right-wing talk, so he cut it out for the most part. I wrote that previously and he actually emailed me about my comments on that and other things to do with him and did not deny it — and he still occasionally lets his guard down, I think. He’s usually clever enough that it goes over the heads of many of his listeners, but sometimes they object. The rule on the right is to never but never present the other side of the case. That may be true on the far left too.)

I have to make sure to remember to switch the radio off or to music or something when the commercially driven-right wing propaganda is on, which is all the time.

And it is troubling that Mitt Romney, a highly intelligent man (hell he speaks fluent French) has felt he needs to pander to the ignorant masses to get his party’s nod to be GOP candidate for president.

P.s.

This endless war thing: Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are equally guilty and spend more time blaming each other for it than trying to figure out how to reform our policies so we are not constantly mired in conflicts that are so costly in human lives and to our economy.

A third party is needed and we need to indeed vote all the current slate on both sides out. Extreme yes. But we are facing extreme circumstances. But beyond that people have to pay more attention to public affairs and critical thinking is in order here.

P.s. P.s.

And part of the story or back story in all of this is that those with nothing else to do often get involved in protest movements and supposedly the poor, but working people just do what they are told and don’t question. And those who stand to gain from various policies, such as defense contractors, oil interests, and so on, would like to keep it that way.  Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party are at opposite ends of the spectrum and yet in many respects have the same interests, but the Tea Partiers may consider themselves more legitimate in that they consider themselves to be part of the mainstream of working people (whether they are or not and notwithstanding that there is evidence that the original concept of the Tea Party may have been the brain child of monied and vested interests). And the Tea Party no doubt thinks the Occupy movement is nothing but anarchists and maybe socialists/communists. It’s too bad there cannot be an effective movement from the middle, or maybe that is what general elections are all about.

People ignore or don’t realize the danger of railroad crossings…

A tragedy over the weekend in Sacramento reinforces the fact that drivers are not careful enough around railroad crossings and that trains are often not visible until it’s too late.

Two adults and a baby, not yet two years old, were killed when the SUV they were in went around the crossing arms and a light-rail train hit the vehicle.

No one knows what the driver was thinking by going around the warning devices, but one possibility that came out in observations of those familiar with the crossing is that the arms often stay down some time after a train has passed.

On this particular crossing there are four sets of tracks and multiple trains had already come by — there are both regular freight trains and the light-rail on that section of rail right of way. Also, a sound wall obscures or blocks the vision of motorists, who may not be able to see or even hear the train until they are on the tracks.

Area residents noted that they often see people driving around the crossing arms and some had worried about just such an incident.

But here’s the deal. Going around crossing arms is just too dangerous and foolhardy, not to mention illegal.

I think we all have seen people do this and some of us have done it ourselves so as not to be inconvenienced by waiting.

And also, there are times when crossing arms malfunction and stay down long after a train has passed.

But bottom line, crossing railroad tracks is dangerous or at least can be and you just cannot afford to let your guard down.

As a professional truck driver I know well the danger of railroad crossings — I’ve had a few close calls. In traffic one can get caught in a line of vehicles when the one ahead of you stops and you are sitting vulnerable on the tracks. Driving a big truck you just can’t let this happen — it would be a lot harder (near impossible) to move out of the way than perhaps in a smaller vehicle where you might, might I say, have a chance of somehow moving your vehicle off (probably not) .

And of course everyone has to be careful about those crossings where there are no warning devices or where you never expect to see a train because it appears to be an old, unused spur line.

Not all that long ago I was in Oakland, Ca. and was on the freeway but I could see the place where I was to deliver and noted that there was a freight train going down the tracks right down the middle of the city street near there. But in the short time it took me to get to the driveway of my delivery point I was no longer thinking for that train. I was startled when as I drove in on the driveway to look to my right and see the headlamp of a locomotive. Fortunately it was not yet in motion. It had backed into a nearby building, but it moved forward not long after I cleared the tracks.

Another highly dangerous situation for motor vehicles is the combination of traffic lights and railroad tracks that you have to cross before entering an intersection.

Years ago my wife and I were watching a TV show about train vs. vehicles collisions. In one, a train ran into the side of a semi-rig, cutting its trailer in two. The train crossing warning signals were not synchronized or connected into the intersection’s traffic signals for motor vehicles. So it was possible to have a green light and proceed over the tracks just as a high-speed commuter train was barreling through. This was in Oxnard, Ca. I noted at the time that I was familiar with that intersection. I told my wife I had crossed it many times and did not realize the problem with the signals. By coincidence a day or so later I found myself at that intersection. And as I recall,  I witnessed the phenomenon of the green light and the train coming full speed for the intersection with the warning devices not yet on. Fortunately I was forewarned.

I often face a similar and even more problematic danger in Vernon, Ca. while driving a big truck. There is a crossing with several tracks and it is difficult to make it across all of them before the traffic light turns red again sometimes, what with the other traffic. And it is especially dangerous to try to make a left turn on the left turn signal. By the time I get about in the middle of it all, my light turns red. You either keep going or find yourself a sitting duck on those tracks. And the freight trains use those tracks frequently. I’ve given up on doing that left turn. I go straight ahead and circle around the block.

And I have seen people go around the crossing arms there.

They are fools. They think they are clever.

Well the driver in Sacramento was not clever, but that driver and a baby and another adult are dead.

P.s.

The stories I read said another adult in the SUV in Sacramento was injured, as were a few people on the light-rail train.

Now is the time to start reading up on Romney…

THURSDAY, NOV. 10, UPDATE:

I’ll have to read up on Romney to see if he could make me vote Republican in the presidential race. A pretty tall order, that is voting Republican. I did not catch the GOP so-called debate last night but see that the pundits declared Romney the clear winner and Rick Perry the clear loser due to a case of the flop sweats.

Cain held his ground with answers limited to cutting taxes and spending I guess and, meanwhile, his lawyer is threatening to take legal actions against accusers in the ongoing sex scandal. Obama has been a dissapointment to many (including me), but with Cain I don’t even see anything to get disappointed about.

ADD 2:

Checked the debate blog and apparently Cain did answer a question on the sexual harassment allegations, saying: “The American people deserve better than someone being tried in the court of public opinion based on unfounded accusations…” He also said his supporters are just sending him more money over the issue. I do think, though, that beyond his die-hard supporters, he has lost a lot of ground.

——————–

ADD 1:

I have to remind myself that right now we are in the primary, partisan mode of the presidential campaign — a lot of nonsense, not many real issues. In the so-called Republican debate tonight it is reported that the audience booed when questions were asked about the sexual harassment charges against Herman Cain — they were booing the questioner. If you are only supposed to ask softball questions or ones that simply set up the talking points for the candidate, really what is the use? It would be helpful, though if the media (and I hate to use that term because it is a kind of pejorative to describe working journalists) asked questions on true national and world issues and skipped the gossip, except that whether someone who wants to be president of the United States is in the habit of groping women (we had one that was famous for doing just that, Bill Clinton) is somewhat of an important issue — it goes to character, as they say. It was a big deal among the no-nothing contingent of the far right when Clinton did it, but just propaganda from the left when Cain does it (or is accused of doing it). Actually I think he is losing some of his flock over the matter.

———————–

Maybe Mitt Romney will finally win the presidency and the GOP can claim a victory, but right now it is looking to me like they have shot themselves in the foot by too much pandering to the far right, and not just conservatives, but no-nothing, anti-intellectual conservatives — there is a such a thing as intellectual conservatives — ever hear of the late William F. Buckley Jr.? And there is such a thing as thoughtful and honorable conservatives. Ever hear of the late Barry Goldwater? And there is George Will, who uses words so big or obscure that the average so-called conservative of today would not know whether he is on their side or not and I don’t know either. I haven’t read any of his stuff lately — maybe I need to see what he thinks of the current GOP circus.

I am so tired from working all day that I really don’t have the energy to write. But I was going to listen to tonight’s GOP debate on CNBC, but I seem to have no live video or even audio access to it. But a live blog post I read said the first question was on Italy and it went to Herman Cain. But he did not address the question but instead went on to something else. Figures. From what I understand about him he has no world view whatsoever.

I hear that Newt Gingrich is moving up in the polls, thanks to Cain’s problems with the sex scandal.

But I think the smart money is still on a Romney- Obama race.

I have also heard that there might be a third-party attempt by maybe someone like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who could finance it himself.

We really need a third alternative (actually alternative indicates two, so we need a third option).

We also need to get all the clowns out of the race. Looks like we might be losing one if the sex scandal keeps up.

I need to cook dinner and get some sleep.

Tomorrow has to be better.

Should we get out of Afghanistan? Should we stay the course? Should we ramp things up?

How can we win in Afghanistan when we have already made in clear to the enemy that we are not in it for the long haul? The very idea of telegraphing our intentions to the enemy, i.e., planned withdrawal, is absurd. What if we would have told Hitler and Tojo, “we will give it four years but if we don’t win by then we quit”? (I know, it’s been ten years in Afghanistan, but our political leaders have been half-hearted in the matter and the public indifferent.)

———————

I want to comment on the here and now, primarily the Afghanistan war, but for war, Vietnam is always my analogy or point of comparison.

The Vietnam war was not necessary and it accomplished nothing, except the communists did eventually take over South Vietnam (all of Vietnam), and how that, the commie take over, hurt the U.S. I have no idea. In fact, today Vietnam is a prosperous nation and a trading partner with the U.S. and has adopted a primarily capitalist economy (as has communist China).

Even if nation after nation had indeed fell to communism, as the prevailing “Domino Theory” of the time had suggested, it would not have necessarily adversely affected the U.S as a whole (some capitalists perhaps), I would not think, and eventually those communist governments would see their economic system fail as they always have under communism and look to more capitalist style business models.

But due to our Cold War doctrine we were pre-disposed to fight communism wherever we could. JFK said “we will fight any foe…”

Today the threat of communism has been replaced by the threat of terrorism, primarily terrorism that claims to carry the Islamic banner (even though the whole religious community of Islam itself is not necessarily arrayed against us).

The modern threat seems a little more real, though. Terrorists have struck all over the world and of course struck the U.S. big time on 9/11, with other incidents from those who apparently were inspired by the Islamic terrorists, since then (e.g.,Ft. Hood ect.).

With our predisposition and our rhetoric of the time of the Cold War, we were in some ways looking for a fight, and we got one in Vietnam. There was an ongoing communist insurgency in South Vietnam aided and abetted by Communist North Vietnam and the Soviet Union, and China to some extent as well.

For sure, I suppose, if communism were left unchecked the fear was that it would eat into the free capitalist markets and enslave whole nations under iron socialist, extreme leftist, rule, which ironically is the same as iron right wing (capitalist) fascism or Nazi control. Both ends of the political spectrum demand totalitarian rule — dictatorships (I am not sure why, except they are totally intolerant of independent thought).

And if modern so-called Islamic terrorists had their way we would all be enslaved under harsh Sharia law.

I’m going back and forth here, but way back in the early 60s there had not been a direct invasion by North Vietnam of South Vietnam but we were itching to fight the spread of communism — it was taught in our schools that the USSR wanted to rule the world with its communism and that it was ready to nuke us at any minute and short of that or meanwhile it was attempting through subversion and outright warfare to take over countries one at a time (and of course there was some modicum of truth here mixed in with all this). The USSR had already forced Eastern Europe under its umbrella as a kind of spoil of victory in World War II, during which it was our ally.

Our trigger finger was so itchy that LBJ used the pretext of a couple of our gun boats being fired upon (questionable what really happened) to wage war against the communists in South Vietnam. But apparently there were mixed feelings about the war from the beginning and it was found that a resolution giving the president power to use military force rather than a formal declaration of war was more practicable (politicians could both wage war and claim we were not really at real war at the same time, thus appeasing both sides of the issue. And that is the model we have followed since, except that nowadays we do call it war most of the time — we just don’t go on record as officially fighting a declared war so that we feel obligated to forgo normal activities for the war effort).

There were continued mixed feelings about Vietnam. So we fought what became an all-out war with one hand tied behind our back for fear of something called “escalating a war”. I still don’t know what that really means. War is war. The side that fights the hardest, with the most skill, the most determination, and above all does not give up, wins.

Eventually the losses were too high; we took too long to realize that. We quit and the other side won.

Oh, and there is an analogy and/or comparison here (more than one really). It was said that Vietnam was not a conventional ground war. But the North Vietnamese eventually sent in regular combat troops with uniforms and everything.

It is said that Afghanistan is not a conventional war. But real bullets and shells are being fired and people are getting killed.

In both wars we found it necessary to work with corrupt governments that were supposed to be on our side. In both wars we were trying to train domestic troops (of the respective nations) to do their own fighting — but they often seemed reluctant (it is sometimes hard to save people who have no stomach to be saved).

Not long after we left Vietnam, the unconventional war, the North Vietnamese quite conventionally rolled into Saigon with their quite conventional tanks and eventually renamed the town Ho Chi Minh City, after the legendary North Vietnamese leader.

What I am trying to note here, among other things, is that once we leave Afghanistan, an unconventional war, the Taliban/Al Qaeda forces will take over in a quite conventional manner (although they might fight among one another).

As we got into Vietnam by a pre-disposition to fight communism, Bush 2 moved into Iraq and Afghanistan to fight his War on Terror (terror is a tactic not a person or an identifiable entity — that makes it rather open-ended and hopeless — kind of like waging war on “meanness”).

The 9/11 terror was staged from Afghanistan, and the government there refused to hand over the master mind, Osama Bin Laden, so we invaded and meanwhile for good measure Bush 2 invaded Iraq, a nation not necessarily waging direct terror against us but whose government was controlled by a very bad man, Saddam Hussein, who was sympathetic at least to the cause of hating us.

This issue is so complex with so many contradictions that I am only touching on what are some high points as I see them. And since I was writing all of this off the top of my head, I neglected to mention the obvious point here is that all of our current fighting (to include Libya, which I note at bottom) is tied to our need for oil. The garbage about trying to fight for freedom is primarily just that, garbage, although most would certainly hope the end result would be a free and democratic world (you know, no matter what, eventually anything might happen no matter what we do or don’t do — you know, like the freedom and democracy movement in the Middle East indpendent of us).

Looking back, it seems absurd that we invaded a nation to catch one man, missed him, and that he hid out in plain sight in Pakistan, which is supposed to be our allied nation in all of this, and that we got so many of our own people killed and have killed and still kill so many civilians, to include many innocent women and children.

With our modern technology we probably would have been better off going after the Al Qaeda leadership using Navy Seals and various other elite military special units (Delta Force, Green Berets, Rangers (and so on) and drones.

On the other hand, as I continue to contend, as so many others have too (I hear people talk), if you fight a war, fight it to win.

But to achieve victory you have to define it and you must have the will and the resources to win.

There really is no such thing as unconventional war — war is war.

Quitting is an option too. We did it in Vietnam. We survived, but with much continuing harm to our national psyche and pride. But we could and should quit now. We can claim some success in disrupting Al Qaeda. And we could actually let them know that if they menace us again  — We Will Be Back! And this time like we mean it.

(This is in no way meant to disparage our military. From all appearances we have the best fighting force we have ever had, but they are hamstrung by namby pamby political leaders — you might read that cowards — and by the public at large, not affected, not interested – unless their son or daughter is in it.)

But for those who say we cannot abandon the fight — well then let’s do it right then.

However, to do it right might actually require sacrifice of the American people and create shortages of fuel and consumer goods and desired services. We might even have to reinstitute the military draft (a good way to reduce unemployment?).

Any takers?

I thought not. Let’s just declare victory and withdraw our forces.

P.s.

I’m not saying we have to fight World War II in order to win, but we would have to be prepared to do so, financially and mentally and politically. We don’t appear to be.

P.s. P.s.

I did not mention Libya, but it is just another example of using war to secure an oil supply and for geopolitical purposes (dying for oil and politics — worth another essay).

I say again, the way to energy conservation is price in the marketplace…

Sometimes I just repeat myself, so here I go again:

In order to promote energy conservation, let the free market work.

Really that is the only thing that seems to do it.

People, Americans in particular, don’t seem to like to conserve merely for conservation’s sake, but when the price of gas or diesel begins to hurt them in the pocketbook they cut back or go to more efficient means of using energy.

I’m a long-haul truck driver, not so much in spirit as in actual fact. I mean that is how I have been making my living for about a decade and a half. When I began most of the owner operators (people who are kind of like one-man or one-woman businesses) and other drivers would swear up and down (I would hear this primarily over the CB radio) that driving at slower speeds, say 55, on the freeway did not save fuel. They said such things as their engines ran more efficiently at higher speeds, maybe 65 or more. Besides, it was not worth their while to drive slower and get fewer miles in per day (since miles traveled translates into more dollars in this business, generally speaking).

But since diesel hit $5 and more per gallon at one point, and is still sky high, higher than gasoline, which it used to be cheaper than, I have heard a different tune or more accurately, I have witnessed a different behavior.

I was away from over-the-road trucking for awhile a couple of years ago or so when I had a bout with cancer. When I came back I witnessed two things: fewer trucks on the road and many trucks going somewhat slower than I remember (many, not all).

I am a company driver — I don’t own my truck. My truck, designed primarily for the West Coast where the speed limit is 55 in California and Oregon and 60 in Washington, has its speed electronically governed down to about 63 tops when I’m using my cruise control. So when I am in, say Arizona, where the speed limit may be up to 75, I cannot even go up to the speed limit. In fact, sometimes when there is a warning sign to slow down I can’t even get up to the suggested slow-down rate. Well anyway, that would usually mean a lot of trucks come whizzing by me. But in recent years I have noticed that I pass a lot of trucks.

The other day I was in Arizona at a truck stop and a driver told me that he felt 65 was plenty fast enough. “You save fuel”,  by going slower, he noted.

Also, my company promotes fuel conservation by handing out fuel mileage bonuses. I am chagrinned when I don’t get them. But I got to thinking the other day that maybe part of that is my own fault. I have a computer that gives me constant information on what my fuel consumption average is to the minute. This is not news to me, but it might be something I put aside in my memory some time ago. By easing off of the throttle, one can see the fuel mileage jump up rather startlingly. What I cannot say for a certainty is what the optimum speed should be on the freeway. It may well depend upon the specs for a particular truck’s engine. But I would venture to say, in general it is probably 55. The old saying or line from a song is “I can’t drive fifty five”. Driving at exactly 55 seems dreadfully slow. Law enforcement by their own toleration has put the de facto speed limit at 60 where the posted limit is 55. Most of those drivers who claim they got a ticket for going 56 were probably going 66 and the cop dropped the alleged speed to 56 to give the driver a break on the fine and to save the argument or court challenge.

I also noticed that a neighbor of mine who had been driving an SUV is now driving a smaller car, at least temporarily. She said she swapped with a  relative because she was having to make trips out of town and it is cheaper.

Back to the trucking. Since diesel prices spiked so steeply a few years ago, all kinds of efficiencies have been implemented. Trucks are going slower — again not all. And generators have been installed on lots of trucks (mine included, thankfully) that can be switched on when the trucks are not moving so the driver does not have to idle the engine to run heating and cooling and other necessities — we drivers live in these things for much of our time, you have to understand. The generators use far less fuel per hour than the truck engine and are less polluting. Shippers have done a lot of things in scheduling and dispatching to make runs more efficient. The main thing I have both read about and noticed first hand is that many companies that haul their own product are now backhauling outside freight, thus reducing expensive deadheads (empty miles). While that is more competition for the common carriers (who haul other people’s freight) it does theoretically reduce the amount of trucks on the road. I’ve even read that shippers are cooperating with one another in sharing freight space on trucks.

The bottom line is you can mandate things through government, thus creating a confusing set of rules and another tier of expensive bureaucracy for enforcement and an increase in over all expense and confusion in the marketplace or you can let the pressure of the cost of fuel create its own innovations or new behaviors.

(And government cannot run business practices efficiently. A college professor I had asserted that in the old Soviet Union they always had trouble with their grain harvests. One problem was a shortage of spare parts for combines. In the Soviet state-run industrial style, manufacturers of parts simply churned out what some bureaucratic system told them to, without regard to the real needs out in the field. In the capitalist free market, in order to stay in business parts makers and suppliers have to supply what is needed at any one time.)

There is a lot more going on in non-government coerced and market driven conservation than what I have set forth here, but I think I made my key point, and I am not even a natural free market advocate. And that is not because I am against the free market, it is because it seems to me there is seldom an actual free market. But sometimes the model or system does work.

I do think the public as a whole has been wrong is assuming that we must have all the oil we can use and do anything to make that happen. It has resulted in a vast destruction of the environment and costly wars. But the free market seems to be having more of an effect on conservation so far than anything else.

I suspect that the free market will eventually produce viable alternatives.

Government research grants and other incentives might help, but I think the ethanol boondoggle where farmers are encouraged to grow tons of corn for fuel and thus jack up the cost of food all to produce ethanol which I understand does little to nothing to conserve natural resources or reduce pollution (it may increase pollution, in fact) shows how corn state politics got in the way of good science.

Hope you enjoyed Veteran’s Day…

So this was Veteran’s Day — I’m writing this on Vets Day eve (that is the end of the day). Well technically I’m a veteran — I served three years in the Army — but I was working on Veteran’s Day. Strangely, most of the government employees get it off — veterans or not (many of course are). Seems to me if you’re going to have a national holiday then everyone, except emergency personnel and essential public service employees (skeleton staff) should have it off.

I said I was “technically” a veteran because I do not consider my service as momentous as those who actually served in the combat theatre or who actually got shot at or got shot or who made a career of it all. I was in Germany while many others were in Vietnam, to include one of my brothers who was in the Army too (although he always downplays his service). My other brother was a career Navy man, serving throughout much of the Cold War and during the Korean War. While I have not always cared for our nation’s military or foreign policy, I am proud that all of us brothers served. We get the privilege of listening to all the chicken hawks squawk about how we should go to war hither and yon while never volunteering or otherwise being available for service themselves.

And then I hear this radio report how in San Francisco one of the Catholic charities (I think it was Catholic) was handing out shoes to homeless vets. If I was president there would be no such thing as a homeless vet or one who was in need of medical care but could not get it or was bankrupted or nearly bankrupted by it, such as has disturbingly been the case for many who have served in our most current wars. You see we have gone to the much leaner force of an all-volunteer military supplemented by reserves and National Guardsmen, and even private mercenaries. The reserves and guards it has been reported get caught up in bureaucracy that separates their service from the regular military. We’ve even had wounded vets being billed for their own medical care.

I’m serious, why could not the president make an executive order that such things could not, will not happen? Would he have the legal standing to do so? Who would object? Don‘t tell me, probably the chicken hawks (many of whom are Republicans).

One thing that always bothers me is that attitudes toward war or foreign policy are always attached to patriotism by those who promote war. You can be 100 percent in support of the troops but 100 percent against a particular military action or war.

It is true, though, that once our troops are committed, they need the support of the whole nation — that is kind of a paradox or conundrum in a free society. What it points to is the fact that we need a clarification on war powers. Since Korea and especially since Vietnam we have had a muddled idea as to who can commit our troops to war and under what circumstances.

Without getting into a scholarly treatise on constitutional war powers, I thought it had been the general understanding that the president can ask for a declaration of war, but only congress can declare it. But the long drawn out and bloody Vietnam War never saw a declaration. Our current war saw congress give former President George W. Bush power to wage a war on a concept , “terror”, giving him seemingly unlimited power to wage war on anyone anywhere forever (somehow I don‘t think our founding fathers foresaw that or would even approve of it). The war continues under a new president with no clear goal and a questionable rationale. I mean, how long will it take to wipe out evil, or all the evil doers, as W. would have said? Somehow I think as long as there is a human race there will be evil doers.

But, nonetheless, we have troops in the field while a complacent nation goes about wringing its hands or whining about economic depression. The subject of war  virtually never came up in the recent elections. And ironically, the war is a major cause of our economic disaster.

I still maintain that if every able-bodied male (and maybe even every able-bodied female) was obligated to serve a tour of duty we would probably not be involved in costly armed conflict anywhere at this time.

Hope you enjoyed Veteran’s Day.

P.s.

I bought a poppy from some old guy (maybe no older than this old guy writing this) who said he also served in Germany.

P.s. P.s.

And just why do we still have troops in Germany anyway?

Is Sarah Palin the 21st Century version of Adolf Hitler? And a look at other issues…

Could Sarah Palin be the 21st Century version of Adolf Hitler? While I personally have never been impressed  by her oratory skill (except for her original acceptance speech in which I was fooled into thinking she could be a harmless place holder who was up on then current Republican talking points), I recognize that she is pleasing to the eye to most people, if not to the ear.

For his own devious and demented purposes, Hitler appealed to the German Volk, and for her own purposes (money and fame and perhaps some sense of politics and ideology), Palin represents herself as the representative of who she would describe as the hard-working and essentially self-sufficent folk who are the backbone of society and their defender against an evil and ever-expanding big government and socialism.

That aside, all available evidence so far indicates that Palin is a small-time player thrust on the national stage quite by accident or quirk of fate and she has the good sense to make the best of her opportunity. The evidence also indicates that while some of the sophisticated may have taken unfair swipes at her, that, in fact, she is to say the least rather ignorant of history and geography and national and world affairs and that her methods are always style over substance. It is hard to imagine her being able to hold her own and on her own in a serious discussion of policy.

An Arianna Huffington blog seemed to compare Sarah Palin with Hitler. She did not use the name of the little German mad man who came close to taking over the world, but I thought the implied analogy was clear. You see in a time of crisis, such as we are in, people are desperate and they don’t always listen to reason. They act out of fear and primal instinct. And while people like me tend dismiss her as somewhat insane, or at best, woefully ignorant and somewhat buffoonish, maybe that is dangerous — remember how they all underestimated that frustrated corporal with the Charlie Chaplin mustache.

And what’s with that BP oil spill that is supposedly all but shut off? Some say the pollution was not nearly bad as reported or feared while officially it seems to be going down on record as the worst oil spill ever. And some say or imply the effects may be minimal over the long run and others say it is devastating and will be with us for a long, long time to come.

And President Obama can’t seem to catch a break. He has Republicans and Democrats and folks of all political leanings unhappy with him and at the same time folks of various political factions happy with him or at least some of his policies. While I have not been wild about his performance or style, I have to think that if so many folks are mad at him he may be doing something right. That would indicate he is not doing the bidding of just one group. But I also have to believe that the Wall Street bankers (and some of the other high flyers) can’t be complaining too much after running things into the ground, getting bailed out by taxpayer money and then rewarding themselves and their cronies with bonuses and golden parachutes (thanks to trickle up from the taxpayers), and if they are crying it’s probably crocodile tears.

The no-win war in Afghanistan continues. I wondered in a blog about a week ago if the Wikileaks papers on Afghanistan might be equivalent to the Pentagon Papers back in the early 70s that signaled the end of the line for U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Opinion on that seems to be mixed.

But New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman hit the nail on the head when he wrote that the new leaks remind him of this sage old advice:

If you’re in a poker game and you don’t know who the sucker is, it’s probably you.

I read that and then I read an article in the Economist (published in Britain) that suggested the U.S. is probably currently carrying out the right strategy in Afghanistan. Apparently some Brits are in on the secret about the sucker (the U.S. being the one carrying the burden there). And we know the Pakistanis and the Taliban and Karzai know who the sucker is.

And I read a disturbing article about the details of the stoning to death methods used in Iranian justice. As bad as it was, saying what size stones could be used, among other things, it kind of reminded how we go into so much gruesome detail in our policies on capital punishment in the U.S., even though we certainly feel we are trying to be more humane. Killing is killing and dead is dead. I will say, though, that it seems a waste of time to even try to deal with societies that condone something like stoning someone to death. Some people suggest it is condoned in the Bible (not sure about that — I think it’s more like it’s mentioned).

This just in — Mitch Miller of Sing Along with Mitch (late 1950s, early 1960s TV) has died.

Today’s busy and jaded and technological frenzied and mind warped and attention deficit disordered world would have no time for him and his light-hearted family oriented or maybe square-oriented (not as bad as Welk) music (as I recall it to have been).

　

People may soon beg for health care reform, but first things first…

Health care reform will come when the people really need it and that day may be near. The Wall Street Journal is reporting on its website that for the first time in history more than half the national cost of health care is projected to come out of government programs by next year and the amount paid by private insurance is dwindling as more and more people lose their jobs.

Kind of hard to buy private health insurance when you don’t have a job or unless you are independently wealthy.

So, in my perhaps simplistic way of looking at things this reinforces my now long-held opinion that President Barack Obama needlessly overreached in his bid to revamp the whole health care system.

What will the mass of people, even the tea party folks, do when they can no longer afford private health insurance and/or their insurance at the job plays out because their job played out. Get sick and die, I suppose, and maybe that is the way God meant it to be.

Of course many of the tea party folks clutch onto their Medicare or Medicaid cards already, no doubt. But they don’t like “big giverment” running things.

Personally I would rather see Obama tackle the unemployment problem a little harder. Even some government make-work programs would not hurt. There is always litter to pick up — clean up America! All able-bodied people should sign up for some type of government labor pool to clean the road sides and other such stuff before they get any public assistance benefits. And seasonal industries, such as agricultural harvesting, should not be subsidized by government unemployment checks.

———————

ADD 1: And that last sentence does not seem to go along with the general thesis of this blog post. Guess it was just on my mind. While I think it is a good idea for government to do what it can to promote employment I think it’s kind of contradictory of those business people and farmers who likely see themselves as stalwarts of free enterprise to actively participate in a scheme that has employees getting government checks for when they are not working at seasonal employment. Whole industries are subsidized in this method by the taxpayer. I’m not an expert in unemployment benefits and I do realize that it is a kind of insurance, hence the name “unemployment insurance”, and employers pay into the fund (a lot of workers think they pay directly into the fund, but I don’t think that is the way it works), but it is a government funded and staffed program nonetheless. In this economy what I seem to have come out against probably is a good idea — we need employment. I should have just excised that sentence. 

—————

I would like to see Obama do something to wind down these wars we are in if at all possible. We really need to seriously reassess what our objectives are and whether they are attainable. Fighting them over there before they come over here was a nice, if misleading and specious, catch phrase for the previous administration, but we have grownups in charge now — let’s rethink the whole thing.

On the other hand, the armed services do provide employment. We ought to have a larger recruitment effort and expand the military and free up the National Guard to go back to being a home guard available for natural disasters. The National Guard should not have to serve overseas, except in exceptional circumstances. Both the Guard and the regular military should be available for all types of public work here at home, such as fighting forest fires.

I have mixed emotions about the all-voluntary military. On the one hand we probably have the best fighting force we have ever had (not sure, of course, but from all appearances), but on the other hand we have relieved the public of the responsibility  and the need to worry about risking life and limb to fight for our country, so we may be winding up  doing more than fighting for our country, and when we do, I think we go wrong. From what I have read, if there was one thing most of our founders did not want was for this nation to revert to the old world ways of constant battles over territory and wars for wars’ sake.

And if ever the government could play a role in offering incentives — tax breaks, tariffs — to commerce, now seems the time to revive the near moribund United States manufacturing sector. Even the economic eggheads are starting to discover that service cannot stand on its own. It has to service something — and why not a restored and robust American manufacturing sector?

One problem I note from reading a recent story in my local newspaper is that we face the dilemma of bringing ourselves down to third world levels in trying to compete head on with other nations. A case in point is the famed 20-mule team Borax operation in California’s Mojave Desert (remember? Ronald Reagan used to be the host of Death Valley Days, sponsored by Boraxo). Seems the workers there have been locked out in a labor dispute with management. And now management has brought in cheaper workers. It also seems that we have to compete with places like Turkey in the production of Borax (mining) where wages are far less (I forget what, but here workers have been pulling down more than 18 to more than $20 per hour  –not huge, but nothing to sneeze at either for most folks).

While I believe American industry has to try its best to be competitive with other parts of the world, bringing down wages is not a good thing. And you have to ask yourself, do companies who bring down worker wages at the same time reduce management wages?

The answer is that we really don’t want to bring down anyone’s wages, labor or management. That is what threatens our economy today.

But back to where I started this blog. Come on Mr. President, start on the must do first, some of the rest will come in its time — and even though I personally support universal health care, it’s time may not have come — trust me, though, it soon will — very soon. People might even beg for it.

As the new year (2010) dawns, lots to be thankful for and a wish that we would look homeward…

New Year’s Eve Day 2009 — almost 2010 . I should be writing about New Year’s resolutions or an assessment of the past year, but I cannot think of much to say other than I have pretty much taken to living life day by day after coming back from a period in which I truly thought I was facing doom within weeks or months or few short years — and I still don’t really know about that since I have a relatively rare form of cancer which is incurable.

 

I have felt well enough to go back to work, although the work is not really what I would like to be doing, but then again, I am just glad to be alive and that is why I have gone to taking each day as it comes and trying to get some enjoyment out of it. I never was much for the long-range approach anyway, other than the fact I spent most of my 60 years so far thinking that things would improve in the future or living for the future. Well, you know, the future came, and now sometimes I almost long for the past.

 

But of course I do have a whole lot to be thankful for. I have a wife who has stood by me and was certainly there for me when things looked the worst (a year or so ago), we have a new grandchild and at only a few months old he is quite the character — I have never seen such a happy and alert and active baby. And we have two other lovely grandchildren, as well.

  I still have my mom, who is alert and interested in world events and art and literature, at the age of 99. 

I have siblings who have been there for me. 

Have two daughters who love me (least that’s what they tell me). 

And back to the job. At a time when so many do not have jobs I have to be pretty grateful for that. I’m doing over- the-road trucking, and although I’m with what you might call a “regional” carrier and get by home often, it is not often enough, and it pretty well consumes every waking hour. I spend a lot of time waiting for the loads and waiting to get unloaded, so with this new computer I can at least blog now. That’s a good thing for me. 

But it isn’t all about me, as my wife often reminds me. 

I have to think about this nation in which I live. I think and I even hope we are going though a transitional stage that although painful, what with the economic crisis, may in the long run force us to re-organize our economy into some more efficient system (and I’m not talking about straying from capitalism) that is more productive and supplies the most for the most amount of people, rather than creates an ever-wider gulf between haves and have nots. At present and in the recent past too much emphasis has been put on money games that produce nothing but quick dollars for a few. We need to be productive and produce things and provide real services that enrich the lives of all. 

In what little Christmas shopping I did I was astounded by the fact — although I really already knew it — that it is nearly impossible to buy anything made in America. And even if it were to say so, that is the tags said “made in America”, I am not sure it would be true. I know years ago Walmart prided itself in a made in America promotion and then it was discovered that some of the stuff touted as being made in America wasn’t after all, at least that’s what I read at the time. Soon thereafter Walmart dropped that promotion and made no pretense of worrying about whether stuff was made here at home. In fact, Walmart went to China to open stores there — to sell folks in China stuff made in their own country, now that I think that one out. 

Now I know that the Wall Street money changers are not going to quit plying their trade, and I suppose there is a place and a reason for them — capital and God work in mysterious ways . And I don’t think we should go into complete protectionism with ultra-high tariffs on all incoming goods — although a little protectionism would not hurt — but for the life of me I hope that in this new year the powers that be might look homeward and realize that although we are in a global economy, it’s the folks right here at home who come first. 

Somewhere — NPR ? I don’t recall, I heard that we are making special trade concessions in the Middle East to win favor with the people there — I guess so they won’t breed so many terrorists to come and attack us. 

I wished that instead of trying to buy the rest of the world off we could do for ourselves. 

Sure we want good relations with the rest of the world and sure we want to trade goods back and forth in the world market place, but it has become too one-sided and we are finely paying the price. 

With so many people suffering from the current super recession and with the tightening of credit and so many people not able to charge things anymore because they maxed out their cards, there are signs that Americans have become more careful and prudent shoppers and are being more frugal and they are looking for value — at least that is what I hear. That’s a good thing. 

Sure retailers were used to selling shoddy merchandise and a lot of it and the prevailing wisdom was as long as consumers were on a buying binge the economy would hum along and it was good for everyone. Well the bubble burst. 

But maybe in this new year of 2010 we will start to move toward production of quality home grown goods. Who knows? We might actually return to the idea of craftsmanship. 

And now that I am on a ramble I want to suggest that wouldn’t it be nice if all those billions that the money changers throw around could be invested in something like health care for everyone and cancer and other medical research instead of making bets on runaway real estate inflation? 

While government can certainly thwart economic growth and get in the way of good old capitalism, sometimes there is a place for it, sometimes only it can or will do some of the things that need to be done, some of those things that help humanity but may not turn the quick buck. 

And let me ramble some more. Barack Obama came in with great promise. He was so reasonable and so willing to work with all sides. Well that was good, to an extent. But he may come to realize — I can only hope — that all of those he has tried to work with are not necessarily reasonable — some of them have ulterior motives — you think? 

Also I would hope that in the new year that he would learn that you don’t fix Wall Street by recruiting its own members, insiders who are so tied to the system that they can’t help but perpetuate it, and you can’t fix the inequities in health care insurance by letting the insurance companies write the new rules. 

And while diplomacy on the world stage is always in order, sometimes it is best not to say too much or admit guilt — what you say can will be used against you. 

I ramble some more: All this military effort and expense  overseas — you know, so we can fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here — would be better spent right here at home. 

We sure found out how bad it is to have too many National Guard (the old Home Guard there for local emergencies) tied up overseas a few years back when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. Our response to help our own people back here at home was pathetic. Contrast that with the response the Chinese government had to a more recent earthquake there — and please don’t accuse me of being a commie and tell me: why don’t I go there to live? 

And wouldn’t it be nice to see interaction that saw children — and adults — actually interacting face to face rather than on Myspace or Twitter (and I really know little to nothing about those two phenomena ) or cell phones. We’ve taken the humanity out of human relations — I write this in my blog on a computer that goes out on the internet and I spend most of my hours with a blue tooth earphone in my ear talking to my wife while I am out on the road or talking to the dispatchers and shippers and receivers. No I wouldn’t stop the advance of technology, that is not as long as it really is advancing us to something good or improving the quality of life. 

But most of all I just wish everyone a Happy New Year!!!!!

Planning a road trip…

I might not be posting a blog for some days because I plan to be out on the road. If I were more advanced – this is the computer age and this is a blog – I would just blog from the road. But I have to get a little upgrade to do that and I plan to as soon as I can.

But I’ll be blogging more soon about what happened out on the road and my take on current events and other things.

Please check back.