In an effort to create a Watergate-level scandal, Fox Noise and its flunkies in the U.S. Congress (talking about you, Senators McCain and Graham), are making an already murky event much more opaque. Here’s a framework for analyzing and interpreting what has transpired. The framework doesn’t provide answers but merely tries to separate the important questions and issues from the unimportant, and to highlight the complicating facets of the matter.
First, it is helpful to think of events in Benghazi as taking place in three phases: the pre-event phase, the attacks themselves, and the public explanation aftermath. Second, not just the U.S. State Department was involved. The attack was against both a State Department consulate and a significant operational center for U.S. intelligence operations. And third, the attack occurred at a moment when demonstrations were erupting in various locations in the Islamic world over an inflammatory anti-Islamic video produced by an individual in the United States.
The interplay of these factors makes for a very messy picture that is ripe for simplistic political exploitation by those so inclined (talking about you, Fox Noise).
First, consider the three phases, or timelines. In the pre-event phase, the broad issue was the security of U.S. embassies, consulates, bases, and personnel around the world. Was the security of the consulate and operational base in Benghazi neglected? Reports are that additional security was requested in the months before the attacks. But were these unusual requests, or are they common? The fact that requests were made and rejected is not in and of itself sufficient to establish negligence. Security levels are dependent in part on the perceived threat and in part on adequate resources. Tradeoffs are necessary, and within limits defensible whatever the outcome. The decision to not increase security in Benghazi is one that must be judged from a broad perspective and with a number of considerations in mind.
The actual event phase lasted only a few short hours. Questions have been asked about when the Secretaries of State and Defense were informed, when the leaderships of the intelligent organizations were informed, when the President was informed, as if early knowledge by any of these individuals had the potential for making a difference in what transpired. Given the relatively short elapsed time of the events and the remoteness of the location relative to major collections of U.S. forces, early, even immediate, notification of the highest levels of government, if it did not occur, would likely have made little difference. Complicating the situation was the lack of clarity about what was actually happening. The more pertinent issues concern the responses at lower levels of the government agencies involved. Establishing the timelines of these responses is necessary to get a clear picture of what happened, but focusing on when the President was told is little more than political gamesmanship.
Phase three of the events was the shifting public explanations that stretched over several weeks. Opponents of the Obama Administration see in the shifting explanations a conspiracy or conspiracies amounting to something on the level of a Watergate scandal. But the much more likely explanation is confusion arising from the involvement of multiple, and secretive, agencies of the U.S. Government: State, Defense, intelligence agencies, and maybe more. It would be wonderful if government were a well-functioning machine, but it’s not and that’s just the way of things. And it’s not just government. Very few large organizations, if any, operate smoothly.
Compounding the confusion was the fact that demonstrations were occurring in many locations in the Islamic world over a video produced in the United States. Distinguishing a violent demonstration from an organized terrorist attack is easy only if you’re a commentator in a comfortable safe studio and you have the time and energy to quibble over the difference between “extremist” and “terrorist.”
So did the confusing responses leave the U.S. Government looking good, or even competent? No. But were they the result of conspiring public officials trying to accomplish something that even Fox Noise can’t quite pinpoint? If your answer is yes, you have qualified for citizenship in United States of Paranoid America.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
UPPER BODY STRENGTH
One of the great things about the Internets is that any yahoo can broadcast his or her opinions to the World. The World might not be listening, but that's the World's problem. Anyway, Cranky reacted negatively to a recent op-ed in Rupert's paper, The Wall Street Journal. Cranky sent the WSJ a letter to the editor, which apparently fell on deaf ears. But the World should have the benefit of Cranky's thoughts, so here is his unpublished letter. (UPDATE: The WSJ did in fact publish an edited and abbreviated version of the letter on November 20.)
Michael O'Hanlon's op-ed, "A Challenge for Female Marines" (Nov. 13), accepts without question what Cranky considers the fallacy of excessive upper body strength as a necessity for individuals in Marine or Army infantry positions. Mr. O'Hanlon cites two components of Marine Corps testing in the Corps' Infantry Officer Course: endurance and upper body strength. He gives each equal importance.
But writing as an individual who served in Vietnam for two and a half years (1966-69), was an Infantry platoon leader in an Airborne unit (the 173rd Airborne Brigade), and retired from the Army Reserve with the rank of Colonel after 31 years of service, Cranky firmly believes that endurance is far more important than upper body strength for successful service in the Infantry, particularly when the tests of upper body strength are contrived and subjective.
Mr. O'Hanlon mentions three strength standards demanded of Marine Corps infantry officers. The first is being able to lift oneself−while wearing body armor and carrying a pack−up and over walls. He calls this essential in modern combat.
But what are the details of this standard? How high are the walls: 4 feet, 6 feet, 8 feet, 10 feet? What is the combat load? Is there any research as to what and how often walls of various sizes are encountered? Or is the standard just a seat-of-the-pants estimate by someone who just happens to be blessed with superior upper body strength? During his time as an infantry platoon leader in Vietnam and later as an infantry advisor to a Vietnamese infantry unit, Cranky encountered zero walls in need of climbing. But then, that was the nature of the jungle and the rice paddies.
Second, Mr. O'Hanlon describes as also essential being able to move a wounded fellow Marine across a field to safety. Does that mean being able to lift and carry a wounded comrade? Or is dragging permitted? And is any adjustment made for whether the comrade is bigger than normal and the carrier smaller? Cranky will bet the mortgage that in few, if any, infantry companies in the Marines or the Army can every single individual carry every other individual for a meaningful distance. There just have to be some outliers.
Third, Mr. O'Hanlon notes as essential being able to haul part of a dismantled mortar to an ambush site. Finally, we have a requirement that is somewhat realistic. One of Cranky's "commands" was of a 81mm mortar platoon in an infantry company. Actually, there were only about fifteen members of the platoon, and the platoon had only one, rather than the more normal two or three, mortars, but such were the conditions in '67. Anyway, the mortar base plate, the tube, the tripod, and the mortar rounds certainly made for heavy loads. But they were loads of endurance and stamina much more than of upper body strength.
Cranky has two daughters, one a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy. Neither has exceptional upper body strength. But both have completed a number of marathons and several 50-mile ultramarathons. One has completed a 100-mile ultramarathon. Both have accompanied Cranky on grueling multi-week backpacking trips into remote wilderness areas in various Western states. In Cranky's opinion, each has both the endurance and upper body strength necessary for the infantry, provided the upper body strength standard is not based on a figment of some weightlifter's imagination.
Michael O'Hanlon's op-ed, "A Challenge for Female Marines" (Nov. 13), accepts without question what Cranky considers the fallacy of excessive upper body strength as a necessity for individuals in Marine or Army infantry positions. Mr. O'Hanlon cites two components of Marine Corps testing in the Corps' Infantry Officer Course: endurance and upper body strength. He gives each equal importance.
But writing as an individual who served in Vietnam for two and a half years (1966-69), was an Infantry platoon leader in an Airborne unit (the 173rd Airborne Brigade), and retired from the Army Reserve with the rank of Colonel after 31 years of service, Cranky firmly believes that endurance is far more important than upper body strength for successful service in the Infantry, particularly when the tests of upper body strength are contrived and subjective.
Mr. O'Hanlon mentions three strength standards demanded of Marine Corps infantry officers. The first is being able to lift oneself−while wearing body armor and carrying a pack−up and over walls. He calls this essential in modern combat.
But what are the details of this standard? How high are the walls: 4 feet, 6 feet, 8 feet, 10 feet? What is the combat load? Is there any research as to what and how often walls of various sizes are encountered? Or is the standard just a seat-of-the-pants estimate by someone who just happens to be blessed with superior upper body strength? During his time as an infantry platoon leader in Vietnam and later as an infantry advisor to a Vietnamese infantry unit, Cranky encountered zero walls in need of climbing. But then, that was the nature of the jungle and the rice paddies.
Second, Mr. O'Hanlon describes as also essential being able to move a wounded fellow Marine across a field to safety. Does that mean being able to lift and carry a wounded comrade? Or is dragging permitted? And is any adjustment made for whether the comrade is bigger than normal and the carrier smaller? Cranky will bet the mortgage that in few, if any, infantry companies in the Marines or the Army can every single individual carry every other individual for a meaningful distance. There just have to be some outliers.
Third, Mr. O'Hanlon notes as essential being able to haul part of a dismantled mortar to an ambush site. Finally, we have a requirement that is somewhat realistic. One of Cranky's "commands" was of a 81mm mortar platoon in an infantry company. Actually, there were only about fifteen members of the platoon, and the platoon had only one, rather than the more normal two or three, mortars, but such were the conditions in '67. Anyway, the mortar base plate, the tube, the tripod, and the mortar rounds certainly made for heavy loads. But they were loads of endurance and stamina much more than of upper body strength.
Cranky has two daughters, one a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy. Neither has exceptional upper body strength. But both have completed a number of marathons and several 50-mile ultramarathons. One has completed a 100-mile ultramarathon. Both have accompanied Cranky on grueling multi-week backpacking trips into remote wilderness areas in various Western states. In Cranky's opinion, each has both the endurance and upper body strength necessary for the infantry, provided the upper body strength standard is not based on a figment of some weightlifter's imagination.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
A SCANDAL MAZE
This thing is really getting complicated. A short time ago it was reported that the object of Paula Broadwell's ire, Jill Kelly of Tampa, Florida, who first alerted the FBI through an agent who was a "friend," has had extensive correspondence with the current Afghan Commander, Marine General John Allen. As the cliche goes, you couldn't make this up. Here's a chart of the players. Connecting the boxes should keep the nation occupied for many months.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
WANTED: BIOGRAPHER(S)
Events of the last few days have convinced Cranky that he needs a biographer. As an exemplary federal government bureaucrat for many years, Cranky enjoyed a career that could serve as a model for aspiring young federal bureaucrats. Cranky's accomplishments are many and well-known, but a detailed biography is really the best avenue for telling the complete story, for enabling the public to fully appreciate Cranky's bureaucratic greatness.
The first requirement for Cranky's biographer is that she be a she. It is well known that in most instances the deepest communications occur between individuals of the opposite sex. And Cranky's full story will require deep communication.
Also, to avoid the loss of understanding that can occur when works are translated from one language to another, a biographer for each major language should be involved. Thus, in addition to an English biographer, there is need at the very least for a Swedish biographer, a French biographer, an Italian biographer, and an Hispanic biographer.
And then there's the Orient with its many languages and huge number of potential readers. Each language will require its own biographer.
The project is daunting but the rewards will be great. Now let's get started with selecting those biographers.
The first requirement for Cranky's biographer is that she be a she. It is well known that in most instances the deepest communications occur between individuals of the opposite sex. And Cranky's full story will require deep communication.
Also, to avoid the loss of understanding that can occur when works are translated from one language to another, a biographer for each major language should be involved. Thus, in addition to an English biographer, there is need at the very least for a Swedish biographer, a French biographer, an Italian biographer, and an Hispanic biographer.
And then there's the Orient with its many languages and huge number of potential readers. Each language will require its own biographer.
The project is daunting but the rewards will be great. Now let's get started with selecting those biographers.
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
OVER
Well, it's over. Apparently−and hopefully−there won't be disputes, recounts, hanging chads, and whatall. Mr. Mitt gave a gracious concession speech. And Barack gave an inspiring victory speech in which he noted the problems ahead, pledged efforts at bipartisanship, and praised the fact that the American system encourages both the airing of disagreements and their peaceful solution.
Now the tough work begins. The "fiscal cliff," budget deficits, entitlement spending outrunning revenues, the list is long. Barack sounded intent on making significant overtures to the Republican opposition. Will there be reciprocation? The common ground is there, but have we become so blinded by partisanship that we won't be able to find it?
In terms of comedic relief, the highlight of the evening had to be the dispute between the Fox Noise anchors and Karl Rove over whether the call on Ohio as a Barack victory came too early. Cranky knows that this comment is not in the spirit of bipartisanship, but Karl, you really have no business overseeing the multimillion dollar disbursements for Crossroads America. Meaning no disrespect Karl, but your talents are rather more limited. Have you thought about a Home Depot franchise?
Now the tough work begins. The "fiscal cliff," budget deficits, entitlement spending outrunning revenues, the list is long. Barack sounded intent on making significant overtures to the Republican opposition. Will there be reciprocation? The common ground is there, but have we become so blinded by partisanship that we won't be able to find it?
In terms of comedic relief, the highlight of the evening had to be the dispute between the Fox Noise anchors and Karl Rove over whether the call on Ohio as a Barack victory came too early. Cranky knows that this comment is not in the spirit of bipartisanship, but Karl, you really have no business overseeing the multimillion dollar disbursements for Crossroads America. Meaning no disrespect Karl, but your talents are rather more limited. Have you thought about a Home Depot franchise?
Monday, November 05, 2012
APOLOGIES
First, apologies to Mrs. Mitt, Ann Romney. She called the other evening and Cranky said some pretty nasty, childish things to her. There may have even been some obscenities uttered, and some derogatory statements about her dancing horse Rafalca's performance in the Olympics. It was entirely unnecessary for Cranky to suggest that Rafalca rather than Seamus, the family dog, should have been strapped to the roof of the family car for the infamous cross-country trip. But Mrs. Mitt seemed to take Cranky's indiscretions in stride as she did not pause in her entreaties for Cranky to vote for Mr. Mitt.
Apologies also to Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia. It was inappropriate for Cranky to suggest during their phone conversation that the Governor take the vaginal probe he and Attorney General Cuccinelli want to insert in Virginia women and put it up their own orifices to "where the sun don't shine."
And apologies to Mike Huckabee for comparing him during his phone call to Virginia's collection of "whack-job television politico-evangelicals who are more concerned about the collection plate than about saving souls or successful government."
Also to Barbara Bush. Cranky should not have suggested when she called this evening that the names of both her husband and sons were likely to surface in the ongoing prostitution scandal in Kennebunk Maine.
And finally to Mr. Mitt himself. When he specifically asked for Cranky's spouse by her first name, Cranky should have paused before jumping to the conclusion that hanky-panky was afoot. After all, for Cranky's spouse, greasy hair has always been a turnoff.
Apologies also to Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia. It was inappropriate for Cranky to suggest during their phone conversation that the Governor take the vaginal probe he and Attorney General Cuccinelli want to insert in Virginia women and put it up their own orifices to "where the sun don't shine."
And apologies to Mike Huckabee for comparing him during his phone call to Virginia's collection of "whack-job television politico-evangelicals who are more concerned about the collection plate than about saving souls or successful government."
Also to Barbara Bush. Cranky should not have suggested when she called this evening that the names of both her husband and sons were likely to surface in the ongoing prostitution scandal in Kennebunk Maine.
And finally to Mr. Mitt himself. When he specifically asked for Cranky's spouse by her first name, Cranky should have paused before jumping to the conclusion that hanky-panky was afoot. After all, for Cranky's spouse, greasy hair has always been a turnoff.
Sunday, November 04, 2012
PAUL RYAN WINS NYC MARATHON
Barely breaking a sweat, Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan coasted to victory in the New York City Marathon. Even the vaunted Kenyans were nowhere to be seen as Mr. Ryan posted an unofficial time of under three hours. Mr. Ryan did receive a congratulatory tweet from a "B.O., on behalf of my fellow Kenyans."
For his winning strategy, Mr. Ryan credited a Michigan dentist, Kip Litton. Dr. Litton was featured in the August 6, 2012, issue of The New Yorker magazine for his unusual marathon talents of finishing a marathon despite not being observed on many portions of the course. Dr. Litton has also performed exceptionally well in marathons in which he was apparently the only participant.
When asked about his future running plans, Mr. Ryan said it depended in part on the outcome of Tuesday's election. If he and Mr. Mitt are successful, Mr. Ryan indicated that balancing the federal budget would likely require most of his efforts. He promised, however, to bring the same intensity and attention to detail to that task as he has brought to marathoning.
For his winning strategy, Mr. Ryan credited a Michigan dentist, Kip Litton. Dr. Litton was featured in the August 6, 2012, issue of The New Yorker magazine for his unusual marathon talents of finishing a marathon despite not being observed on many portions of the course. Dr. Litton has also performed exceptionally well in marathons in which he was apparently the only participant.
When asked about his future running plans, Mr. Ryan said it depended in part on the outcome of Tuesday's election. If he and Mr. Mitt are successful, Mr. Ryan indicated that balancing the federal budget would likely require most of his efforts. He promised, however, to bring the same intensity and attention to detail to that task as he has brought to marathoning.
Saturday, November 03, 2012
AMERICANS FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT: AN AMERICAN GESTAPO?
An organization calling itself Americans for Limited Government is sending a "Vote History Audit" to individuals in various localities across the nation. The audit contains the names of the recipient and a few neighbors, the addresses of both, and whether or not the recipient and the neighbors voted in the elections of 2004 and 2008. The audit does not say how the listed individuals voted, just that they voted. The one page audit contains the following ominous paragraph:
"As a further service, we will be updating our records after the expected high turnout for the Tuesday, November 6, 2012 election. We will then send an updated vote history audit to you and your neighbors with the results."
Limited Government?! Under what possible rationale does an organization purporting to be for limited government take upon itself the task of publicly revealing to his or her neighbors how often a private citizen goes to the polls? The ALG may not be a government body, but this invasion of a citizen's privacy is Big Brother in the extreme. If the federal government made a practice of publicizing a citizen's attendance record at the polls, you can be sure that the likes of the individuals providing testimonials on the ALG website, getliberty.org, would be screaming bloody hell. Those testimonials are by Ed Crane, Founder/President of the Cato Institute, and Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.
An AGL spokesperson was quoted as saying that the purpose of the mailing was only to increase participation in the electoral process. But doing so by publicly shaming citizens smacks of authoritarianism in its most virulent manifestations: Nazism and Communism.
The AGL is a right-leaning group, but this strange desire by political groups to publicly out the voting attendance record of private citizens is not confined to the right. The left-leaning MoveOn.org reportedly has a similar, although somewhat less revealing, campaign underway. In the MoveOn effort, the recipient's voting participation is scored against a neighborhood average but the records of individual neighbors aren't revealed.
Admittedly, an individual's participation in voting−not how he or she votes but how often−is currently a public record. But just because it is legal to publicize something does not mean it is a good idea. The Executive Director of MoveOn.org was quoted in USA Today as calling the practice "creepy." To say the least, that is a gross understatement.
"As a further service, we will be updating our records after the expected high turnout for the Tuesday, November 6, 2012 election. We will then send an updated vote history audit to you and your neighbors with the results."
Limited Government?! Under what possible rationale does an organization purporting to be for limited government take upon itself the task of publicly revealing to his or her neighbors how often a private citizen goes to the polls? The ALG may not be a government body, but this invasion of a citizen's privacy is Big Brother in the extreme. If the federal government made a practice of publicizing a citizen's attendance record at the polls, you can be sure that the likes of the individuals providing testimonials on the ALG website, getliberty.org, would be screaming bloody hell. Those testimonials are by Ed Crane, Founder/President of the Cato Institute, and Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.
An AGL spokesperson was quoted as saying that the purpose of the mailing was only to increase participation in the electoral process. But doing so by publicly shaming citizens smacks of authoritarianism in its most virulent manifestations: Nazism and Communism.
The AGL is a right-leaning group, but this strange desire by political groups to publicly out the voting attendance record of private citizens is not confined to the right. The left-leaning MoveOn.org reportedly has a similar, although somewhat less revealing, campaign underway. In the MoveOn effort, the recipient's voting participation is scored against a neighborhood average but the records of individual neighbors aren't revealed.
Admittedly, an individual's participation in voting−not how he or she votes but how often−is currently a public record. But just because it is legal to publicize something does not mean it is a good idea. The Executive Director of MoveOn.org was quoted in USA Today as calling the practice "creepy." To say the least, that is a gross understatement.
Friday, November 02, 2012
MR. MITT AND WEIRD MONEY
In The Wall Street Journal of November 2 was an article on Mr. Mitt's financial holdings and how difficult disclosure or divestment of them would be if he were elected. The article contained selected assets valued at $1 million or more, divided into two groups: Bain-related and not Bain-related.
The Bain-related group contained two private-equity funds, a public-equities fund, an employee IRA co-investment fund, and a distressed-debt fund. The not Bain-related group contained two hedge funds, a private-equity fund, and a Tagg Romney private-equity fund. (Alert to Josh, Matt, Ben, and Craig Romney: Brother Tagg might be number one on the runway as far as disposition of Dad's estate is concerned.)
Just this selected portion of Mr. Mitt's holdings would provide all the material needed for a full semester investment portfolio class in an MBA program. How many folks in the ninety-nine percent can even attempt a definition of a private-equity fund, a hedge fund, or a public-equities fund? The only term that might be somewhat familiar to ordinary Americans is IRA fund, but even here the addition of "co-investment" likely adds confusion.
The content of the WSJ's listing of selected Mr. Mitt assets highlights two points. First, despite his forced folksiness, Mr. Mitt ain't like most of us. He is one rich dude. Second, despite his claims of being a successful businessman, Mr. Mitt is really both more and less than that. He is successful at money, but he is not a businessman who made and sold a tangible product or provided a service recognizable by most of his fellow citizens. He is someone who tore businesses apart, repackaged them, and sold the results to others.
And he did this in a time of seismic change in the world of finance, a time when the computer put money-creating power into hands of many beyond the traditional banking structure, a time when such exotic things as derivatives, credit default swaps, hedging, and electronic trading appeared and laid the foundations for the financial collapse that occurred in 2007-2009. In short, Mr. Mitt came on the scene in a time of weird money.
Mr. Mitt was a very special type of successful businessman at the dawn of the Information Age. But he doesn't appear to understand the world in which he achieved success. He speaks and appears to think in the platitudes of the fading Industrial Age. He professes to be forward looking, but in realty he is blindly rushing into the uncertain future with the intellectual tools of the fast-fading past.
The Bain-related group contained two private-equity funds, a public-equities fund, an employee IRA co-investment fund, and a distressed-debt fund. The not Bain-related group contained two hedge funds, a private-equity fund, and a Tagg Romney private-equity fund. (Alert to Josh, Matt, Ben, and Craig Romney: Brother Tagg might be number one on the runway as far as disposition of Dad's estate is concerned.)
Just this selected portion of Mr. Mitt's holdings would provide all the material needed for a full semester investment portfolio class in an MBA program. How many folks in the ninety-nine percent can even attempt a definition of a private-equity fund, a hedge fund, or a public-equities fund? The only term that might be somewhat familiar to ordinary Americans is IRA fund, but even here the addition of "co-investment" likely adds confusion.
The content of the WSJ's listing of selected Mr. Mitt assets highlights two points. First, despite his forced folksiness, Mr. Mitt ain't like most of us. He is one rich dude. Second, despite his claims of being a successful businessman, Mr. Mitt is really both more and less than that. He is successful at money, but he is not a businessman who made and sold a tangible product or provided a service recognizable by most of his fellow citizens. He is someone who tore businesses apart, repackaged them, and sold the results to others.
And he did this in a time of seismic change in the world of finance, a time when the computer put money-creating power into hands of many beyond the traditional banking structure, a time when such exotic things as derivatives, credit default swaps, hedging, and electronic trading appeared and laid the foundations for the financial collapse that occurred in 2007-2009. In short, Mr. Mitt came on the scene in a time of weird money.
Mr. Mitt was a very special type of successful businessman at the dawn of the Information Age. But he doesn't appear to understand the world in which he achieved success. He speaks and appears to think in the platitudes of the fading Industrial Age. He professes to be forward looking, but in realty he is blindly rushing into the uncertain future with the intellectual tools of the fast-fading past.
Thursday, November 01, 2012
A MINORITY TWICE OVER
Polling data indicate that a sizeable majority of white men are supporters of Mr. Mitt, and that a sizeable majority of old people−geezers−are similarly inclined. That makes Cranky a minority twice over. Cranky is a white guy geezer who is pro-Obama.
Where did Cranky go wrong? Back in the '60s, he didn't march in the streets, trash his college, or do drugs (he did do a fair amount of alcohol, however). He even ended up in uniform in Southeast Asia, trying to halt them Commie hoards. Moreover, he maintained a connection to that uniform for over thirty years. So shouldn't Cranky be in the ranks of Mr. Mitt's most stalwart supporters?
Well, here's the problem with Mr. Mitt's most stalwart supporters. They enthusiastically adhere to the late William F. Buckley's definition of a conservative as one who stands "athwart history yelling 'Stop!'" Mr. Mitt reeks of the 1950s when white guys were both in the majority and top dogs, and when today's geezers were experiencing blissful or at least tolerable childhoods. In short, Mr. Mitt's most stalwart supporters seem to lack a sense of time marching on.
The future ain't gonna be easy, folks. The Information Age and its tool, the computer, are posing challenges we are only beginning to perceive. Both Mr. Mitt and Barack want to create jobs. But the computer is eliminating jobs, and its job-elimination propensities will likely accelerate. After two centuries of industrialization, the uneasy relationship among job creating technologies, increasing productivity, meaningful work, and unemployment might be tipping toward the latter.
Looking back is not where the future will be found. Barack may not be perfect, but at least he gives an impression of someone who knows the future will require adjustments in many areas. Mr. Mitt doesn't give that impression. Mr. Mitt exudes the past, and the past is no longer within reach.
Where did Cranky go wrong? Back in the '60s, he didn't march in the streets, trash his college, or do drugs (he did do a fair amount of alcohol, however). He even ended up in uniform in Southeast Asia, trying to halt them Commie hoards. Moreover, he maintained a connection to that uniform for over thirty years. So shouldn't Cranky be in the ranks of Mr. Mitt's most stalwart supporters?
Well, here's the problem with Mr. Mitt's most stalwart supporters. They enthusiastically adhere to the late William F. Buckley's definition of a conservative as one who stands "athwart history yelling 'Stop!'" Mr. Mitt reeks of the 1950s when white guys were both in the majority and top dogs, and when today's geezers were experiencing blissful or at least tolerable childhoods. In short, Mr. Mitt's most stalwart supporters seem to lack a sense of time marching on.
The future ain't gonna be easy, folks. The Information Age and its tool, the computer, are posing challenges we are only beginning to perceive. Both Mr. Mitt and Barack want to create jobs. But the computer is eliminating jobs, and its job-elimination propensities will likely accelerate. After two centuries of industrialization, the uneasy relationship among job creating technologies, increasing productivity, meaningful work, and unemployment might be tipping toward the latter.
Looking back is not where the future will be found. Barack may not be perfect, but at least he gives an impression of someone who knows the future will require adjustments in many areas. Mr. Mitt doesn't give that impression. Mr. Mitt exudes the past, and the past is no longer within reach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)