Passing 061509
My father died yesterday, he was over 100. It was an expected death and he went fairly quickly and easily so it wasn’t such a shock. Looking at his death with some perspective this morning it brought home the passing of the 20th century, the American Century.
My father lived through most of the century and saw change in land, the people and the world as a whole. I wish I had listen more closely to his conversations with his contemporaries when there were some who understood his time. There were a few stories that stand out, as a teenager he drove the family across country before there were highways or maps to show the way. He learned to fly in an old WWI Jenny and hopped freights during the depression he was not unique for his time there are many such stories of his generation.
His was a generation of giants that built a new culture they grew up when a man’s word was a bond, honest work was the norm and invention and discovery carried the nation from conquering forest to conquering space. These old men fought two world wars and numerous minor wars where not only they served again but their sons also. They survived the great depression, dust storms and industrial migrations that changed the nation. They invented and manufactured cars, planes and communications networks that bind the world today. It was their honor and hard work that carried America to respected great power status. They had vision and overcame obstacles, solved problems and created new solutions to achieve their visions.
Theirs was a hard scrabble life that shaped their character. They passed their values to a new generation but it became diluted for they wanted their children to have a better life without the challenges and struggles they had experienced. As generations multiplied the culture and values began to erode. It lasted for most of the 20th century as the Giants built a New World and controlled the development of the American Century for almost all of the century. They began to die off, from the wars, from their hard work and finally from old age.
The Giants left a legacy for the 21st century, their R&D and inventions continue to be exploited well into this century. Their greatest contributions to society however are being lost. Their values and their culture that made them Giants of the American Century are rapidly disappearing. These Giants who survived the challenges to old age may not have been happy with the direction of those changes but they were to old and tired to lead the nation to greater innovations and back to a respected place in the world.
My father was not a great statesman or a captain of industry but like most his generation a man of vision, invention, backbreaking labor and honor. I’m grateful to have known not only my father but also so many other 20th Century Giants, I wish I had paid more attention to their teachings.
My father outlived most of his generation, in the end missing the companionship of his generation of Giants. The passing of my father signals the passing of our greatest era.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
great game 052209
052209 Great Game
In democratic societies as administrations near the end of their tenure they begin to worry about how history will view their legacy. Administration “spin” and dis-information bombards the public, public records disappear, and open source files become classified in the “national interest.” Their interpretation of national interest being prevention of political embarrassment.
History, unlike the administrations, takes a long view of success and failure. History also looks beyond era public pronouncements of politicians and self-serving officials. In the past historians could call on period journals, not meant for publication, as keys to truth. Today the truth is a little more difficult to find in the vast information ocean electronically manufactured by spin-doctors. Administrations’ egos ignore that the information age cuts both ways, allowing publication of both their official politically correct pronouncements as well as contradicting documentation. In recent years administrations have shredded files and erase computer memories in vain attempts to leave history only favorable views of their regime. Linked computer workstations and the Internet however have insured that obscure accurate records remain as flotsam and jetsam on the information ocean to be salvaged by future historical researchers.
US administrations count on the public’s short attention span to enhance their image, disseminated PC sound bites in place of factual dialog. Sound bites are catchy buzzwords that hang on in a disinterested public’s mind. Honest explanations of events are papered over by Sunday morning talk show sound bite spin, which set the agendas for the coming week’s amplification. More substantive analysis and discussions of current events however condition the international community’s views and it like historians have long memories of both words and actions.
Public long memories also consider more than an administration’s waning months in evaluating legacies. Actions and rhetoric undertaken early in the first few months in power defeat slanted legacies requiring redefinition. As embarrassing documents bob to the surface of the information ocean member of the former administration attempt to cover up, deny and spin but without a forum and following to legitimize their ossification of responsibility.
This year’s change of American administration keyed on two lost wars, failed policies, declining power and an economic melt down. These are historical indicators of great power decline. Instead of contributing to reversal of this trend, members of the previous administration are attempting to justify their failed policies, which have carried to country to crisis. Lost wars and failed polices will eventually reside in dusty archives but the economic melt down and fall from power will impact a generational culture change long remembered by the international community and those that have lived through dynamic change.
In democratic societies as administrations near the end of their tenure they begin to worry about how history will view their legacy. Administration “spin” and dis-information bombards the public, public records disappear, and open source files become classified in the “national interest.” Their interpretation of national interest being prevention of political embarrassment.
History, unlike the administrations, takes a long view of success and failure. History also looks beyond era public pronouncements of politicians and self-serving officials. In the past historians could call on period journals, not meant for publication, as keys to truth. Today the truth is a little more difficult to find in the vast information ocean electronically manufactured by spin-doctors. Administrations’ egos ignore that the information age cuts both ways, allowing publication of both their official politically correct pronouncements as well as contradicting documentation. In recent years administrations have shredded files and erase computer memories in vain attempts to leave history only favorable views of their regime. Linked computer workstations and the Internet however have insured that obscure accurate records remain as flotsam and jetsam on the information ocean to be salvaged by future historical researchers.
US administrations count on the public’s short attention span to enhance their image, disseminated PC sound bites in place of factual dialog. Sound bites are catchy buzzwords that hang on in a disinterested public’s mind. Honest explanations of events are papered over by Sunday morning talk show sound bite spin, which set the agendas for the coming week’s amplification. More substantive analysis and discussions of current events however condition the international community’s views and it like historians have long memories of both words and actions.
Public long memories also consider more than an administration’s waning months in evaluating legacies. Actions and rhetoric undertaken early in the first few months in power defeat slanted legacies requiring redefinition. As embarrassing documents bob to the surface of the information ocean member of the former administration attempt to cover up, deny and spin but without a forum and following to legitimize their ossification of responsibility.
This year’s change of American administration keyed on two lost wars, failed policies, declining power and an economic melt down. These are historical indicators of great power decline. Instead of contributing to reversal of this trend, members of the previous administration are attempting to justify their failed policies, which have carried to country to crisis. Lost wars and failed polices will eventually reside in dusty archives but the economic melt down and fall from power will impact a generational culture change long remembered by the international community and those that have lived through dynamic change.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
terror 2
042609 terror
Government officials who are the practitioners of State terror come to believe their own propaganda that it is legitimate to use any means to achieve their goals. They fail to recognize that terror generates terrorism.
When legitimate political dissent is characterized as terrorist activity dissidents are forced into the roll of resistance and even insurgencies. Dissidents begin to mirror the State by grasping the tools of terror out of frustration in their sense of powerlessness. The State seizes on this resistance to justify imposing greater State terrorism. The State uses its power to legitimize detaining people with out charges: torture to terrorize detainees becomes a norm. Innocents and dissident are both swept into a broad state network of terror.
Dissidents develop a political agenda that embraces terror as a tactic to achieve their goals. Their acts of terror fall into two categories first direct attacks on the government and second attacks on the population. Attacks on the government generate an even more oppressive State reaction. Attacks on the population generate fear and distrust in a government unable to protect its citizens. These attacks also bring recruits to the dissent movement; they may also generate additional dissents that immediately embrace terror as the way to advance their own agendas.
Both the dissent groups and the State develop splinter groups that are more radical extremist in the use of terror. Terror generates ever more brutal terror until the objective is no longer political change but rather terror for the sake of terror. Nearly a hundred years ago the Soviet Leon Trotsky said that the purpose of terror was to terrorize. Trotsky was speaking of State terror and as practiced by the Soviets was successful at the cost of millions of citizens. Ultimately Soviet terror failed as dissents rejected the Soviet system. The collapse of the Soviet Union generated competing criminal terrorist groups as well as regional dissents employing terror for a share of political power.
Foreign terrorists attack in other countries in today’s linked international community because the community supports oppressive home countries. International terror hopes to generate pressure for change and cut off support for oppressive regimes. International terror however generates terrorist activities as the international community embraces terror in the name of counter terrorism.
Whatever the type, terrorists are difficult to defeat and counter terror generates reactive terror. Terrorism however can be prevented or defeated by understanding the dynamics that generate political dissatisfaction with the current government and giving dissent a voice. This requires enlighten leadership in states and the community of states.
Government officials who are the practitioners of State terror come to believe their own propaganda that it is legitimate to use any means to achieve their goals. They fail to recognize that terror generates terrorism.
When legitimate political dissent is characterized as terrorist activity dissidents are forced into the roll of resistance and even insurgencies. Dissidents begin to mirror the State by grasping the tools of terror out of frustration in their sense of powerlessness. The State seizes on this resistance to justify imposing greater State terrorism. The State uses its power to legitimize detaining people with out charges: torture to terrorize detainees becomes a norm. Innocents and dissident are both swept into a broad state network of terror.
Dissidents develop a political agenda that embraces terror as a tactic to achieve their goals. Their acts of terror fall into two categories first direct attacks on the government and second attacks on the population. Attacks on the government generate an even more oppressive State reaction. Attacks on the population generate fear and distrust in a government unable to protect its citizens. These attacks also bring recruits to the dissent movement; they may also generate additional dissents that immediately embrace terror as the way to advance their own agendas.
Both the dissent groups and the State develop splinter groups that are more radical extremist in the use of terror. Terror generates ever more brutal terror until the objective is no longer political change but rather terror for the sake of terror. Nearly a hundred years ago the Soviet Leon Trotsky said that the purpose of terror was to terrorize. Trotsky was speaking of State terror and as practiced by the Soviets was successful at the cost of millions of citizens. Ultimately Soviet terror failed as dissents rejected the Soviet system. The collapse of the Soviet Union generated competing criminal terrorist groups as well as regional dissents employing terror for a share of political power.
Foreign terrorists attack in other countries in today’s linked international community because the community supports oppressive home countries. International terror hopes to generate pressure for change and cut off support for oppressive regimes. International terror however generates terrorist activities as the international community embraces terror in the name of counter terrorism.
Whatever the type, terrorists are difficult to defeat and counter terror generates reactive terror. Terrorism however can be prevented or defeated by understanding the dynamics that generate political dissatisfaction with the current government and giving dissent a voice. This requires enlighten leadership in states and the community of states.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Terrorism 1
042309 terror
For all most a decade the political buzzword is terrorism and claims that terrorist are everywhere poised to destroy civilization. Radical right politicians justified bad legislation as defense against terrorism, while prosecutors capitalized on the new anti-terrorism laws to avoid due process by charging local crime as terrorist activity.
It is apparent that there is still a lack of understand of terrorism. The fact that an individual is terrified does not make a conspiracy of international terrorism. Terrorism falls into three broad categories there is “State terrorism”, political minority tactical terrorism, and organized crime terrorism.
Criminal terrorism is easy to understand criminal elements terrorize local populations into acceptance of criminals as de-facto rulers of a neighborhood or city. Terrified citizens are afraid to walk the streets or speak out against criminal elements. Examples abound of gang control of “turf”; drug dealers using terror to control markets, in some cases organized crime uses its power to terrorize in order to gain control of elected offices and become the government. Criminals terrorizes for power over the population and profit by that power.
State terrorism is more difficult to identify or understand for States have immense power over its domestic population and in the international community. The goals of State terror are to leverage existing power into total power and control. States target their own population through disinformation that frighten citizens into acceptance of loss of freedoms and insure the governing party’s stability. Political dissent is quickly labeled a threat to stability and dissidents as terrorist intent on overthrow of the existing social order. Governments utilize their legitimacy to establish disinformation bureaus, which reinforce the party line to establish public acceptance of abuse of powers.
Once the domestic population is sufficiently terrorized by its government, that government is free to use terrorism on the international community. Force and threats of force are used on smaller states to gain political control of their decision processes and control populations. States ultimately come to believe it their right to use the tools of terror against other states in order to gain more power. A State may justify invasions, concentration camps and even torture in the name of security and counter terrorism. Domestic opposition is muted in the fury of official disinformation that conceals the illegal nature of State terror. That same disinformation is also directed at international and human rights organizations, naming them as supporters of terrorism even as terrorist.
When State terrorism has been legitimized in the minds of the governing it becomes a dynamic. Members of the government begin to follow their own agendas of rational maximization. They push state terror activities to extremes for the maximum benefit to their careers. These activities begin to become crimes against humanity protected only by the power of the State. Once that power is compromised then the State will face the fury and accountability of the international community.
For all most a decade the political buzzword is terrorism and claims that terrorist are everywhere poised to destroy civilization. Radical right politicians justified bad legislation as defense against terrorism, while prosecutors capitalized on the new anti-terrorism laws to avoid due process by charging local crime as terrorist activity.
It is apparent that there is still a lack of understand of terrorism. The fact that an individual is terrified does not make a conspiracy of international terrorism. Terrorism falls into three broad categories there is “State terrorism”, political minority tactical terrorism, and organized crime terrorism.
Criminal terrorism is easy to understand criminal elements terrorize local populations into acceptance of criminals as de-facto rulers of a neighborhood or city. Terrified citizens are afraid to walk the streets or speak out against criminal elements. Examples abound of gang control of “turf”; drug dealers using terror to control markets, in some cases organized crime uses its power to terrorize in order to gain control of elected offices and become the government. Criminals terrorizes for power over the population and profit by that power.
State terrorism is more difficult to identify or understand for States have immense power over its domestic population and in the international community. The goals of State terror are to leverage existing power into total power and control. States target their own population through disinformation that frighten citizens into acceptance of loss of freedoms and insure the governing party’s stability. Political dissent is quickly labeled a threat to stability and dissidents as terrorist intent on overthrow of the existing social order. Governments utilize their legitimacy to establish disinformation bureaus, which reinforce the party line to establish public acceptance of abuse of powers.
Once the domestic population is sufficiently terrorized by its government, that government is free to use terrorism on the international community. Force and threats of force are used on smaller states to gain political control of their decision processes and control populations. States ultimately come to believe it their right to use the tools of terror against other states in order to gain more power. A State may justify invasions, concentration camps and even torture in the name of security and counter terrorism. Domestic opposition is muted in the fury of official disinformation that conceals the illegal nature of State terror. That same disinformation is also directed at international and human rights organizations, naming them as supporters of terrorism even as terrorist.
When State terrorism has been legitimized in the minds of the governing it becomes a dynamic. Members of the government begin to follow their own agendas of rational maximization. They push state terror activities to extremes for the maximum benefit to their careers. These activities begin to become crimes against humanity protected only by the power of the State. Once that power is compromised then the State will face the fury and accountability of the international community.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
note 020109
Most of my life has been spent in federal service in one form or the other. The young and talented gravitate to federal service from idealism of making a difference, or prospects of quickly becoming powers behind the throne.
The federal government gives every appearance of moving and shaking but the movement is circular and the shaking is bureaucratic fear of new, innovative ideas. All governments ultimately fall victim to their own propaganda of greatness. Governments are where the clueless many plagiarize the creative solutions of the few. Governments, foreign and domestic, employ “spin”, create foreign threats and generate domestic enemies to deceive their respective polities on the governments’ inept efforts to govern. Governments’ ethical standards fall victim to rationalization that maximum benefit to self is non-compliance in the best interest of the state. Whether a theocracy, democracy or autocracy the ultimate enemies of governments are the people they govern.
After a long and frustrating career in government I looked forward to a time when I could publish my thoughts under my own name. In the last few months I’ve discovered my mortality, of no great interest to most, and realized that I’ve waited to long to accomplish all that I’d planed to say and do.
The point to this is that these polemics are about to become much broader in scope reflecting my experiences and observations of macrocutures. It is probable that I will wander from subject to subject as current news trigger my interest. In short this is about to become more of a journal than academic dialectic.
The federal government gives every appearance of moving and shaking but the movement is circular and the shaking is bureaucratic fear of new, innovative ideas. All governments ultimately fall victim to their own propaganda of greatness. Governments are where the clueless many plagiarize the creative solutions of the few. Governments, foreign and domestic, employ “spin”, create foreign threats and generate domestic enemies to deceive their respective polities on the governments’ inept efforts to govern. Governments’ ethical standards fall victim to rationalization that maximum benefit to self is non-compliance in the best interest of the state. Whether a theocracy, democracy or autocracy the ultimate enemies of governments are the people they govern.
After a long and frustrating career in government I looked forward to a time when I could publish my thoughts under my own name. In the last few months I’ve discovered my mortality, of no great interest to most, and realized that I’ve waited to long to accomplish all that I’d planed to say and do.
The point to this is that these polemics are about to become much broader in scope reflecting my experiences and observations of macrocutures. It is probable that I will wander from subject to subject as current news trigger my interest. In short this is about to become more of a journal than academic dialectic.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Corruption
The rise and fall of just about everything continues to fascinate both the public and scholars. The ancients probably took as much joy out of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire as the modern western states did from the decline and fall of the Soviet Union.
The rise and fall of great powers are not the only decline of interest. The public seems to have an insatiable appetite for stories of the rise and fall of athletes and movie stars. Corporate giants and financial institutions report great products and earnings only to suddenly crash to the horror of trusting investors.
Public officials hold hasty hearings, which ignore underlying causes but quickly assign blame to pacify a now poorer public. The media seeks out obscure “experts” who pontificate that either it is the end of an era or that it is a situation that can never happen again. Academics conduct exhaustive research on the causes for declines and publish great tomes of their conclusions that are seldom read and often in error.
Public officials, the media and even academics seek to explain declines as simple single theoretical causations on which to build their reputations while fatten their own pocketbooks. The truth is of course much more complex as the various theories are often in conflict with each other. Just about every factor has been used to explain the declines of the star power of states, businesses, athletes and actors.
One area of research has escaped diligent study, that of the roll of corruption in an ultimate decline. In part this omission is the result of corruption itself. “We are not corrupt it is those other people that are taking bribes.” “We have a sterling society, it is those foreign societies that are corrupt.” “It is those politicians who are corrupting our system.” Reality is that corruption is as universal as are honorable people in every society. Corrupt CEOs and politicians are also universal and the honorable people keep them in power as long as their corruption doesn’t cost “me” too much. Isn’t that also a form of corruption?
Spin doctors, marketers, advertising agencies and self-deception are practitioners of corruption. Corruption however is much broader than taking a bribe or telling a lie, it is also failure of society to insure the integrity of their social order. Once the combined weight of corruption exceeds the honest strength of a social system then the decayed social structure collapses. The ultimate corruption is looking the other way and pretending that it does not exist.
The rise and fall of great powers are not the only decline of interest. The public seems to have an insatiable appetite for stories of the rise and fall of athletes and movie stars. Corporate giants and financial institutions report great products and earnings only to suddenly crash to the horror of trusting investors.
Public officials hold hasty hearings, which ignore underlying causes but quickly assign blame to pacify a now poorer public. The media seeks out obscure “experts” who pontificate that either it is the end of an era or that it is a situation that can never happen again. Academics conduct exhaustive research on the causes for declines and publish great tomes of their conclusions that are seldom read and often in error.
Public officials, the media and even academics seek to explain declines as simple single theoretical causations on which to build their reputations while fatten their own pocketbooks. The truth is of course much more complex as the various theories are often in conflict with each other. Just about every factor has been used to explain the declines of the star power of states, businesses, athletes and actors.
One area of research has escaped diligent study, that of the roll of corruption in an ultimate decline. In part this omission is the result of corruption itself. “We are not corrupt it is those other people that are taking bribes.” “We have a sterling society, it is those foreign societies that are corrupt.” “It is those politicians who are corrupting our system.” Reality is that corruption is as universal as are honorable people in every society. Corrupt CEOs and politicians are also universal and the honorable people keep them in power as long as their corruption doesn’t cost “me” too much. Isn’t that also a form of corruption?
Spin doctors, marketers, advertising agencies and self-deception are practitioners of corruption. Corruption however is much broader than taking a bribe or telling a lie, it is also failure of society to insure the integrity of their social order. Once the combined weight of corruption exceeds the honest strength of a social system then the decayed social structure collapses. The ultimate corruption is looking the other way and pretending that it does not exist.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Pundits
After two agonizing years and a billion dollars the American election campaigns are finally over. The Blue team won, while the Red team crashed and burned.
The smoke is still rising from the Red team’s disastrous defeat and the pundits are dissecting every move and counter move of the campaign. In the joyous Blue Camp they are trying to figure out how to best capitalize on the “big MO” (momentum). The dejected Red camp is busy point fingers, calling names and denying responsibility for any part in the disaster.
From the back woods the view is that the Blues ran an incredibly good campaign that focused on the peoples’ interest and needs. The Blue campaign reached out to where the votes are the center. They looked past their loquacious leftist base to moderate conservatives, reassured moderate leftist while courting the independent centrist.
A good deal of credit for the Blue victory must go to the Red’s incredibly bad campaigning. If a campaign mistake could be made, they made it. Their first mistake was to embrace its rabid right instead of creating a coalition of policies. If any other running mate had been chosen the results could have been different. Instead of a campaign of voter reassurance it was a campaign of hate and fear. Most of all it was a campaign that sacrificed its presidential candidate’s greatest asset, his integrity. Red campaigners looked at the 2004 electoral map and decided it just had to hold on to the past.
Times had changed and conservatives have difficulty with change. The Reds failed to understand the dissatisfaction with the current administration policies and how deep are the economic fears of the country. There was an absence of hope from the Reds while the Blues bubbled over with hope.
It is now up to the Blue team to roll hope into policies that will united a divided nation into one that the world will again respect. Not an easy task, but one that is possible by reaching out to all the people.
The good news is that campaign 2008 is over, the bad news is that campaign 2012 has already begun. Is there no hope of peace for the voters?
.
The smoke is still rising from the Red team’s disastrous defeat and the pundits are dissecting every move and counter move of the campaign. In the joyous Blue Camp they are trying to figure out how to best capitalize on the “big MO” (momentum). The dejected Red camp is busy point fingers, calling names and denying responsibility for any part in the disaster.
From the back woods the view is that the Blues ran an incredibly good campaign that focused on the peoples’ interest and needs. The Blue campaign reached out to where the votes are the center. They looked past their loquacious leftist base to moderate conservatives, reassured moderate leftist while courting the independent centrist.
A good deal of credit for the Blue victory must go to the Red’s incredibly bad campaigning. If a campaign mistake could be made, they made it. Their first mistake was to embrace its rabid right instead of creating a coalition of policies. If any other running mate had been chosen the results could have been different. Instead of a campaign of voter reassurance it was a campaign of hate and fear. Most of all it was a campaign that sacrificed its presidential candidate’s greatest asset, his integrity. Red campaigners looked at the 2004 electoral map and decided it just had to hold on to the past.
Times had changed and conservatives have difficulty with change. The Reds failed to understand the dissatisfaction with the current administration policies and how deep are the economic fears of the country. There was an absence of hope from the Reds while the Blues bubbled over with hope.
It is now up to the Blue team to roll hope into policies that will united a divided nation into one that the world will again respect. Not an easy task, but one that is possible by reaching out to all the people.
The good news is that campaign 2008 is over, the bad news is that campaign 2012 has already begun. Is there no hope of peace for the voters?
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)