Category Archives: Politics

Politics

Praying for those in the Latest War

Leave a comment

I am heartbroken at the war in Israel and, by all appearances, soon to be an Israeli ground war in the Gaza Strip. I understand the origin of this, that Palestinian terrorist group(s) found a weak spot in Israeli defenses and launch an invasion.

It’s difficult to understand the hate that prompts one people to attack another. From my years living in the Middle East, I believe I have a reasonably good understanding of the positions of the two peoples, Israel and Palestine. They were close to peace in the days of prime minister Ehud Barak, yet by all accounts the Palestinians under Yassir Arafat walked away at the last minute when all was finished but the signing. I wasn’t there, of course, but this is what was reported at the time and since.

I’m now at a loss for words. I simply pray for peace in the region, for Israel and Palestine, for Jews and Arabs/Palestinians. Oh God, move upon people to not hate each other.

 

letters, poetry, Politics, Writing

The Poetry Wars

Leave a comment

As I’ve described in other posts, one of the special projects that is taking me from my writing is scanning/saving copies of old letters. The goal is to get rid of notebooks of paper. The letters get saves to the “cloud”, also to my harddrive, and I can get rid of notebooks.

I’m currently working on a notebook that contains letters from 2003-04. This was a time when:

  • I was still working fulltime, in a fairly stressful job;
  • We had four foster kids, up until June 2003
  • I was a moderator at two different internet poetry boards—successively, not at the same time.
  • I had a different e-mail address, one that I later abandoned and lost whatever e-mails were stored on its servers when it went defunct.

What I did back then, not thinking much about the future, and still somewhat stuck in a pre-internet mindset, I printed e-mails and instant messages, saved the papers, and deleted the electronic files. I know, what was I thinking? I obviously wasn’t thinking about a time, almost 20 years in the future, when those notebooks of paper files would be a heavy burden to get rid of.

On the other hand, since I printed and saved these communications, I still have them in 2022 even though those electronic files are lost. So, that is the silver lining to this.

In February, 2003, I agreed to become a moderator at the Poem Kingdom website. This was another “what was I thinking” moment. The site was the main place where I learned poetry, and how to critique poetry. I had been to other sites earlier—Wild Poetry Forum and Sonnet Central—but PK was what I needed in my early learning process. I studied hard and learned fast.

Alas, the site was beset by strong personalities that clashed, and argument after argument came upon the site. The better, more experiences poets and “critters, ” as we called ourselves, left. They formed other poetry message boards and started over, bringing people from PK to their site. It was when PK was already in this decline that I was asked to join the mod squad there.

As I described it to one former member who tried to recruit me for his site, it was like putting a Volkswagen engine in a battleship and trying to get it turned and moving back in the correct direction. It could be done, but would take time.

Scanning and saving these paper files from that era has brought back a lot of memories, many of them not that pleasant. We had a poetry war in early April 2003, as poems for and against the then-raging Iraq war were posted and critiqued. Strongly opinionated people let their feelings come out and did more than critique poems.

There had been poetry wars in October 2002 and January 2003 and February 2003, each of which resulted in much poetic talent leaving the site. ‘Twas sad times, and sad communications from those times.

But good also came. I had many written conversations with other poets about the art and craft of poetry. I forged a few friendships that continue to this day.

As a result of this, I spent a little time on Facebook looking for these old comrades and opponents in the poetry wars. I found some. One man in particular, who was the biggest thorn in my side, I found living in a foreign country. Now married (I think) to an Asian bride, he resides in her native land. His FB posts make it seem like he has done a 180 in his politics. I almost clicked on the “Invite Friend” button, but I hesitated. Did I really want this man back in my life? After reading a few more communications from him, I decided I did not and moved on. He obviously hadn’t come looking for me.

Another one or two people I might message or friend. We’ll see.

Even though this is giving me a significant amount of work, I’m now glad (given that the electronic files were lost) that I printed and saved these communications. I’m only skimming as I scan. I hope someday to cobble them up into a book that I will have printed just for me, and read them at leisure. How was my performance during the Poetry Wars? Did I behave well? Did my attempts at peace-making have any positive results? Did that Volkswagen engine at all move the battleship before the owner let the domain name die and lose the site? Reading these will tell.

Engineering, environment, Politics

Some Environmental Thoughts

2 Comments
Progress is being made in the USA at reducing greenhouse gases. Is the situation really as dire as the media would have us believe?

Nowadays, when the media mentions “climate change”, the assumption is it’s human-caused. You never hear anthropogenic—i.e. human-caused. It’s just assumed that it is all human caused. No debate is tolerated.

Now, it’s obvious that human activities generate heat. If you rub two plates together or drive a piston up and down through its place in the motor, you will generate heat from friction. Consuming energy to move the plates or piston will also generate heat. Those who say that human activities have no impact on the plant aren’t really thinking clearly.

But I’ m not convinced that natural processes don’t have a bigger share in the changes taking place.

Some years ago, I dug into the data that says the climate is changing. That’s the first step: to verify that a change is taking place. Using only on-line sources, I was able to learn a lot, but I wasn’t able to learn the one thing I felt I needed to know: the placement of the climate measuring stations and the distribution of them around the world. I wanted to assure myself that the measuring stations aren’t placed in such a way that the aggregated data is skewed. Alas, I couldn’t find this information on-line.

Not that I think these stations are purposely placed to guarantee an outcome that someone wants, but the principle of due diligence requires that you determine this.

I then wanted to see what I could learn about any natural causes that might be adding to the climate change. It turned out that it was impossible to find any discussion or links to—or even reference to or citations of—scientific papers about natural causes of climate change. It seems to be a taboo subject.

I must say here that the internet is a vast library, and that maybe those papers are out there and can be found. But I couldn’t find them despite trying. What kind of natural processes? Well, what about decreasing volcanic activity resulting in less ash in the global atmosphere that prevents sunlight from reaching earth’s surface? What about the gradual slowing of the earth’s rotation? What does that do to the climate.

“Now you’re just being silly and disingenuous,” you say. “The slowing  rotation of the earth? Is it happening? And how could that result in climate change?” Well, yes, it is happening. Every now and then the official keepers of the atomic clock announce that a “leap second” will be added. This has been going on for a while. The length of a day has increased by a minute or two over the last 100 years. Before you say this is silly, that is 1/10th of 1 percent added to the length of a day. Small? Perhaps. But that means whatever part of the earth is in sunlight has sunlight 0.1 % longer than it used to, and the same for the part in darkness. What would be the result? Greater extremes, for sure. Longer sunlight means more heating, and longer darkness means more cooling. What is the net result?

And what if it is shown that, though the slowing of the earth’s rotation is small, after a few billion years some kind of point of no return has happened in how this impacts the climate? Let’s be sure of that before we ask people to make drastic changes.

One other thing I never see, and haven’t been able to find online, is life-cycle environmental impacts of different measures proposed. The current administration is really pushing electric vehicles. Sure, they don’t emit the type of greenhouse gases that internal combustion engine vehicles do. But power is being generated somewhere to charge the EVs. New transmission mains, even a whole new electrical grid, is needed to power these cars. What is the environmental cost of the vehicles themselves, the distributed charging infrastructure, and the distribution system upgrades necessary to make it all work with some reasonable similarity to the society we now have? This isn’t discussed.

I bring all this up because those who preach man-caused climate change want us to change our habits so as to reduce or, preferably, reverse these manmade effects. They frequently want to bring about this change by taxation. A carbon tax is most often proposed. In other words, if you can’t get people to change their behavior voluntarily, make it more expensive to maintain the old way of doing things rather than change to the new ways. Taxation is proposed to achieve this end.

Before these massive expenditures of a whole new transportation infrastructure happen, how about we do a lot of study and computer modelling on a macro, world-wide level to rule out every possible natural cause? Volcanic action. Earth’s slowing rotation. Probably some other things. Let’s have that public discussion, laying all the data on the table. Let’s prove through comprehensive studies what the environmental footprint is of those infrastructure changes—cradle-to-grave footprints brought back to an easily stated standard.

I’m going to have a couple more posts about this. They may not be consecutive, however.

book reviews, Politics

Book Review: Reagan In His Own Hand

Leave a comment
Love him or hate him, this is excellent reading of historical significance.

Today should be the day for my writing progress & goals report, but I may be AWOI (away without internet), so I’m writing this post early ad scheduling it for posting on May 2.

The book Reagan In His Own Hand: The Writings of Rondal Reagan That Reveal His Revolutionary Vision For America is a great book. I began reading it a number of years ago, got maybe 1/3 of the way through it, and stopped. Why? Because I found it very intense, and more politics than I wanted to read at that time. I picked it up again a couple of months ago and got back into it.

It’s still intense, but I was able to read the rest of it by choosing a manageable amount per day and read just that. The book contains typescripts of the drafts Reagan wrote mainly of his radio addresses from 1975-1980ish. He wrote these on legal pads, doing what we all do when we draft on paper. He crossed out and inserted. He reworded and moved things around. Some staffer must have edited it. Somehow, it all came together into a script that Reagan read on the radio.

The book includes some other miscellaneous writings. Some are from his early years pre-politics, some from time as governor, some drafts of campaign speeches, and I think one or two presidential papers. Always they were typed from Reagans own writings.

My only complaint about this book is that they typescript includes all of Reagan’s handwritten edits.  These would be of interest to a researcher who wants to study Reagan’s composition style. For me as a reader, they were distracting, something I either needed to wade through and read or attempt to jump over and get to what the final version was. I mostly did the latter.

Whether you love Reagan or hate him, this book is good reading. If you hate Reagan, pick up a copy, read through it, get angry, and feed your hate. At least you’ll be reading historical stuff. If you love Reagan, well, what better thing to have than something written by him rather than something about him?

5-stars. It would be 4.5 stars if that were allowed, the 1/2 star lost for putting all the editing stuff in the typescripts. But it’s not a keeper. I don’t anticipate reading it again. Out to the sale/donation shelf it goes.

Christianity, Politics, rant

The War on the Individual

Leave a comment

What would you do if you were reading a book and came across this  in it:

bowing at the altar of individualism, including individualist spirituality 

I encountered it in a book I recently read. I won’t say what the book is, nor why I was reading it.

Let’s just say that I’ve run across this concept time and time again recently. Individualism is bad. Rugged individualism is a sin. We need to expunge individualism from society and the church. You can’t do discipleship solo. I don’t understand this concept. But perhaps we need to take a moment and define what individualism is. A modern dictionary definition is:

1. the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.

2. a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.

Wikipedia has the following “executive summary” for their article on individualism:

Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology and social outlook that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual. Individualists promote the exercise of one’s goals and desires and to  value independence and self-reliance and advocate that interests of the individual should achieve precedence over the state or a social group while opposing external interference upon one’s own interests by society or institutions such as the government. Individualism is often defined in contrast to totalitarianism, collectivism and more corporate social forms.

Individualism makes the individual its focus and so starts “with the fundamental premise that the human individual is of primary importance in the struggle for liberation”.  Anarchism, existentialism, liberalism and libertarianism are examples of movements that take the human individual as a central unit of analysis. Individualism involves “the right of the individual to freedom and self-realization”.

Individualism has been used as a term denoting “[t]he quality of being an individual; individuality”, related to possessing “[a]n individual characteristic; a quirk”. Individualism is also associated with artistic and bohemian interests and lifestyles where there is a tendency towards self-creation and experimentation as opposed to tradition or popular mass opinions and behaviors such as with humanist philosophical positions and ethics.

I’m really having trouble finding anything wrong with individualism, based on these definitions. I don’t find the necessity of such extreme manifestations of individualism as anarchism or bohemianism.  For all conditions in society, you will find extreme examples, be that for individualism or the opposite. And, what is the opposite of individualism? Is it collectivism? Is it tribalism? Is it state-ism? Enquiring minds want to know.

The concept of self-reliance seems good to me. Don’t burden family or society any more than you have to. Can someone explain to me what’s wrong with doing for yourself to the greatest extent possible rather than burdening society?

Sometimes I think the war on people wanting to be unique individuals is an extrovert vs. introvert thing. Neither one fully understands the other, but I think extroverts tend to be more aggressive in trying to make the introvert be more extroverted than the other way around. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but as one who leans more to the introverted end of the spectrum, that’s what it seems to me. Sometimes people just want to be left alone, to do for themselves—to be an individual rather than one of the herd.

When I encountered “bowing to the altar of individualism” in that book, a clear case of over-the-top rhetoric in my not so humble opinion, I came close to throwing it in the trash. But I never throw any book in the trash, not even those I disagree strongly with. I have thrown out a couple that were cheaply made and had fallen apart, but not for disagreement.

Complete self-reliance is, or course, impossible unless one can live in a remote cabin somewhere and have the skills necessary to live alone. If someone can do that and maintain their Christian faith, God bless them, let them do that. But the world’s population is too large to allow many people to do that. Mankind has to mix in society nowadays and has had to for a long time. But why not live as self-reliantly as possible? Why not, when encountered with a task that needs to be done, say “How can I accomplish this on my own?” rather than to say “Who can I get to do this with me?” Why burden society if I can do it myself?

I’m no hermit. I’m not fully self-sufficient, nor do I want to be. But I don’t bow at any altar of individualism and I resent that statement. I see the moral worth of the individual. I believe each individual needs to do his best to take care of himself first before seeking help from society. And I don’t see that changing.

One more book like the last one coming being suggested for me and…I won’t be buying any more from it.

book reviews, Politics

Book Review: The Search for JFK

2 Comments
A book that covers the years 1935-1947 in JFK’s life.

It’s no secret that I like to read about the life of President Kennedy. I’ve posted several reviews about him. My JFK collection is around twenty volumes. In my closet, on a book pile that I dig into from time to time and found The Search for JFK, a 1976 book by Joan and Clay Blair, Jr. At 671 pages, my copy of this is a good quality hardback bought at a thrift store. When I found it, it was, I believe, the only JFK book in the house I hadn’t read.

This book covers JFK’s years in prep school, university, pre-war, World War 2, and the start of his political career, the years of 1935 to about 1947. While these years had been covered in other biographies and histories, the authors felt that something was missing, that the true facts about this period in the president’s life had not been adequately documented.

So they poured over what was available at the (then temporary) Kennedy Library in Waltham MA. They interviewed over 150 people in the years 1973-74. Just a decade after the assassination and three to four decades after the years covered, many people were alive and willing to tell the story of how they intersected with JFK’s life. This included classmates, military comrades, fellow politicians, relatives, and the many women he chased/dated. Not everyone would talk with the authors. Some refused to answer certain questions. Some gave interviews only by phone or in writing. But the authors doggedly persisted, and a story emerged.

The authors have dispelled three myths about Kennedy—successfully dispelled, in my opinion. Those are:

  1. that Jack was a robust young man. Not true. His health was perhaps the worst of any president ever elected. Born with a bad back (forget the lies about football or PT boat injuries), frequently given to infections, requiring numerous and lengthy hospitalizations before he ever got to Congress, and finally beset with Addison’s Disease, Kennedy was a basket case, health-wise. His health should have disqualified him from serving in the armed forces, but his daddy pulled some strings.
  2. that Jack was a dedicated and brilliant scholar. That JFK had a superior mind is beyond doubt. But he was no scholar. He lost a couple of years of studies to illness. He never attended two schools that most biographers said he did. His writings were primarily done by others. His “cum laude” Harvard years were anything but stellar.
  3. that Jack was a war hero. I want to be careful here. As one who never served in the armed forces, I tend to think that all who did so should be considered heroes and deserve our respect and support. But what the authors have done is document the carefully crafted PR campaign that attributed to Jack things he never did, that glossed over the fact that the ramming of PT109 was likely due to Kennedy’s negligence—it was the only PT boat rammed in the entire war.  His hero status got him elected to Congress, which was never what JFK wanted. His father wanted it more than he did, and since the oldest son died in WW2, it fell to Jack to pick up the family’s political ambitions whether he wanted to or not.

Note that, while the book discusses the many women in Kennedy’s life, it does so in a discrete manner. Many other authors have covered his womanizing in great detail. I guess the Blairs decided they didn’t have to. The names of many are included; the reader has to guess at the nature of the relationships, or find another book to give the full story.

The book is well written and well worth the read. It is refreshing to read a JFK book that isn’t about the assassination. I’ve poured through enough of those. I do have one fault to pick, which is the authors used quotes a little more than I would have liked. I thought some of their selections didn’t actually add to the story. A little shortening of those and I’d be giving it 5 stars. As it is, only four.

But, is this a keeper? Will I ever re-read it? I’ve thought long and hard about this. I have a shelf full of JFK books. I’ve enjoyed reading them. While they all are history, a lot of that history happened during my lifetime, making it all the more interesting. But, in the spirit of dis-accumulation/decluttering/preparing to downsize, and given my age, the number of years I have left and the huge number of other books I want to read, I am unlikely to ever read these again and thus they have to go. Now that I’ve finished this one, I will list the collection on Facebook Marketplace and see if I have any takers.

And, I’m also not likely to buy any more. Well, maybe one I saw today on Amazon, if I ever find it used. Then no more.

book reviews, Politics

Book Review: Conversations With Kennedy

Leave a comment
The conversations took place from about 1957 to 1963, but the book was published in 1975.

I have a fairly good collection of books about JFK, most of them read, several reviewed on this blog. One I hadn’t read yet was Conversations With Kennedy. It’s by Benjamin C. Bradlee. At the time the events of the book took place, Bradlee was a columnist with Newsweek magazine. Later he would go on to be managing editor of the Washington Post newspaper, a sister publication, and gain fame in the Watergate era.

When JFK was a senator from Massachusetts in the 1950s, recently married to Jackie, he was a neighbor to Bradlee, a few houses away in the Georgetown area of Washington D.C. Similar in age, similar in political views, and from relatively the same social circles, the two men became friends. They met socially, sometimes with their wives, sometimes alone or with Robert Kennedy or others. At some point in the relationship, fairly early on, Bradlee began taking notes on their conversations, realizing they could well be of historical significance. This continued when Kennedy became president in 1961.

Now, this arrangement sounds unethical to me. How could Bradlee, who wrote on politics for Newsweek, sometimes on JFK himself, befriend the person he’s supposed to stay neutral on? He could pick up behind the scenes info that no other reporter could get. But, if JFK was his friend, could Bradlee really write objectively on him?

Kennedy knew what he was doing, however, and I’m sure cultivated the friendship to foster positive press. Sure, he probably genuinely liked Bradlee and his wife and children, but still, the relationship smacks of unethical behavior by both men. But should reporters and journalists be required to give up or avoid friendships just because of their jobs? I wonder.

The book is well-written. Most of the chapters are short, as the notes were not extensive. Bradlee is a good writer. The information is of importance in history and is worth knowing. I’m glad that I read the book.

I rate this book 5-stars. But is it a keeper? It’s a mass market paperback, cheaply made, and a few pages at the front are falling out. On the other hand, I have an extensive collection of JFK books. I think for now I will add this to that collection, but I’m seriously thinking of getting rid of them all, selling them as a lot. I have one more to read (I think only one), after which I may just sell them. So this will go on the shelf for a short time.

America, Health, Politics

So Tired Of Covid Protocol Arguments

2 Comments

“I’m not wearing a mask. I’m a free person and you can’t make me! The government can’t make me! I won’t be a sheep like you!”

“If you don’t wear a mask you are purposely killing people. Murderer!”

These are the two ends of the covid argument, and I’m sick of it. The rhetoric is way over the top on both sides. It’s the same for the vaccines, though, if anything, it’s even worse for the vaccines. People yelling past each other on each of these issues, not only on social media, but in real life as well.

I’m trying to ignore it as much as I can. I’m a reasonably intelligent person and don’t really feel like I need the government telling me what to do. They are a good data-gathering organization and, if they will just do that and make the aggregated data available and easy to find and understand, without hiding any data that might argue against some kind of prevailing wisdom. I can then make good decisions. I did that. I received a vaccine (J&J was the one being offered at the place where I went) and, since the resurgence in covid cases I’ve gone back to wearing a mask in public.

But the question I have is do people not know how to get what they want? It’s an old business adage: “Do you want to be right, or do you want to get what you want?” The idea behind this is sometimes you might be right and lose the argument or not get what you want. A hypothetical: You’re a Republican and want to put a campaign bumper sticker on your car. But you want to get business from a certain city and the mayor is a Democrat. So, to get what you want (more business and more profit) you don’t worry about being right (displaying a Republican bumper sticker). Don’t worry about being right; instead get what you want.

On social media, George Takei posted this:

Telling me you are proudly unvaccinated is like telling me you’re a drunk driver. You’re not a patriot. You’re not a freedom fighter. You’re a menace.

Does Takei really think this will convince people who have resisted getting the vaccine to now get it? Is this how you win arguments? I don’t think so. I suppose Takei feels pretty good about himself. In a witty way he called those who refuse the vaccine idiots. But he is, in fact, hurting his own cause. No one is going to decide to get the vaccine because George Takei calls them a menace. Because Takei speaks this way he will cause some who were on the fence to do the opposite of what he wants them to do. So I say to him, “George, learn how to get what you want rather than be right.”

I want to suggest an alternate approach. It’s the approach our church took. First, a little history. When the pandemic hit in March 2020, our church ended in-person services. Services went on-line. Sometime around June 2020, they began services in-person but continued on-line and did not encourage in-person attendance. The sanctuary that seats 600 was reconfigured to seat less than 100. Masks were required. Physical distancing was required. Life groups didn’t meet in person. Hand sanitizer was everywhere. Then, in September 2020, we increased seating in the sanctuary just a little. That’s when I went back to in-person church. Then, somewhere around Jan-Feb 2021, things opened up a little more. People started coming back in larger numbers. We still physically distanced, but masks were mostly done away with.

Then, somewhere around June 2021, covid cases began spiking in northwest Arkansas. A few people went back to wearing masks. A few vulnerable people went back to on-line church. In July the church re-instituted a protocol, a recommendation, to wear masks in any part of the church where you couldn’t distance from others. But this was all made voluntary with a request/strong suggestion that you do this. And, since that was re-instituted, we have had 100 percent compliance with these voluntary standards. 100 percent compliance. Maybe some who can’t wear masks or won’t wear masks decided to stay away or attend on-line.

Our pastor wrote a blog post about this. It’s worth reading.

An Open Letter To My Church

It’s a little long, but not so much. I hope you read it. Here’s the salient point in it.

I looked around the lobby this past Sunday and everyone was wearing masks, complying with the recommendation of our board. This happened not because you were forced, but because you believed the wellbeing of your neighbor was more important than your personal comfort or freedom.

My point is that beating up people, insulting people, shaming people, to convince them to wear a mask in public, be vaccinated against covid, or practice physical distancing won’t work. It won’t. But giving them information and explaining to them what you think is right, what you hope they will do and want them to do, for their own good and for the good of the community, will result in people doing what you want—to a much larger extent than shaming/insulting/belittling.

expatriate life, Politics

Remembering Kuwait As Afghanistan Crumbles

2 Comments

[Dateline 26 August 2021, the 24th anniversary of Dad’s death]

Remember the oil wells set afire by Iraq? It really happened. Here’s Lynda in June 1991 when she went back to Kuwait as a Red Cross nurse.

A mere five days ago, the Afghan national army collapsed. They’d been fighting the Taliban for years in a broad civil war, backed up by our equipment, money, and a handful of troops. Why did they cease fighting? I have a thought on why. Perhaps I’ll speculate on that in another post on another day.

In light of that, a massive air evacuation has been ongoing since then. News reports are saying as many as 90,000 people have air lifted out. If true, it’s a tremendous achievement. But it needed not have happened. Other courses wee available. Perhaps I’ll speculate about those in another post on another day.

Then, today, bombs went off near the airport in Kabul. At least twelve American servicemen are dead, and an unknown number of Afghanis and other foreigners. News reports indicate they were set off by suicide bombers, with detonation locations selected to inflict injury and embarrassment to us. News reports are horrific.

This is all so familiar to me. It was August-December 1990, thirty-one years ago, that Iraq invaded Kuwait. At that time we were residents of Kuwait, though we were in the USA on annual leave when Iraq attacked. Some of you might remember that, though because of our involvement, my memories are sharp. At that time you only had four news outlets, no internet, no social media, no You Tube. News was somewhat scarce. What had become of our many friends in Kuwait, American and foreign?

Negotiations with Sadam Hussein resulted in the release of some Americans while others were taken hostage to various military targets in Iraq, thinking that America wouldn’t bomb places where they knew their citizens were. The planes began arriving at our Airforce bases, and we watched people deplane. Every plane had people we knew on it. We even saw one of Lynda’s best friends, who had been Sara’s 2nd grade teacher, deplane in London.

Eventually, Secretary of state James Baker conducted other negotiations, and those who had been held hostage were released in early January 1991. On January 17 Operation Desert Storm began. The liberation of Kuwait was on. The occupation of Iraq, and trying to change it into a democracy similar to ours, began, Twenty-three years showed that they would never become culturally like us.

I went to Kuwait in Jan 1988, Lynda and the children joining me in March. In the six or seven weeks I was there without her, three different terrorist bombs went off in Kuwait City. I heard two of them. They were set off at a time and place where they made a statement but didn’t hurt anyone. The third bomb was being delivered when it went off, killing the two delivery men and burning a nearby palm tree.

We enrolled the kids in the American School of Kuwait for the completion of their third and first grade years. In the parents’ packet was information on where we would find our children if for any reason they had to evacuate the school property. That hit us hard. The Iran-Iraq war was still going strong. We sometimes saw tankers smoking out in the Persian Gulf. Lynda and I had a discussion: what would happen if the war spilled over into Kuwait? What could the US government do for us? We decided they could do nothing; we were on our own.

So here it is again Another Islamic country that we tried to help has blown up in our face. Iran in 1979, Iraq-Kuwait in 1990, and Afghanistan from 2001-2021. We send in our military, or our influencers and try to change them into a country that is culturally similar to ours. It doesn’t work. Their culture has been set for more than a millennium. I time of trauma followed by a decade or two of our influence is not going to change them. Once we are gone—and at some point we will always be gone—they will revert to their long term culture. If they oppressed women before we were there, stopped doing that while we were there, when we are gone they will again oppress women. We can’t change them in two decades.

They say we are getting out. I hope we are getting out. We could have done it better, a whole lot better. We should have done it better. I hope we don’t ever go back in.

America, Politics

January 6, 2021 – Part 2

1 Comment

So, in my last post I laid out the things I wanted to know, what I was able to learn, and what I haven’t been able to learn. In my research I’ve been really surprised at the difficulty of getting the facts. Even just the number of people at the rally and the number of attackers. That should be easy to find, but it’s not. I’m going to interrupt this post and go look for that again. Be back in a minute. … Neither the New York Times, CNN, or Wikipedia indicate the number of people involved. One Wiki reference say it’s impossible to know how many people were at the rally. Sure, estimating a number of people is difficult, but estimating ranges are possible. Why has no one estimated how many were 1) at the rally, 2) showed up at the Capitol to protest, 3) took part in violence at the Capitol, and 4) actually entered the Capitol? I think these numbers are very important to draw conclusions about what happened and why.

We know what happened: Following a Trump rally, a mob showed up at the Capitol, became violent, breeched barricades and thin law enforcement lines, entered the Capitol, and vandalized it. The various chants and statements reported indicated that they intended to do harm to members of Congress. Maybe that’s so, maybe it’s bravado. I’m glad that MOCs and VP Pence were protected from harm.

I’m suddenly tiring of discussing this. About two weeks after the attack I had come to the conclusion that the thing was pre-planned. I see now that the FBI and other groups have come to the same conclusion. Obviously, if it was pre-planned it wasn’t incited by the president’s speech that morning. That doesn’t mean, however, that Trump’s rhetoric over the period between the election and the speech didn’t move the attackers to plan it out. I don’t know if we’ll ever know that for sure.

I don’t wish ill on any MOC. But I find their indignation over the attack of their own building to be too little too late. They care about themselves, not us. When their overpaid asses are in harm’s way they demand protection. But when your little building is being burned they could care less. They talk about the Capitol being a “sacred” place and they believe it. Sorry, but it’s not sacred. Or, if it is, we have let the government become way too powerful. To me the Capitol is just a building, like any other. It’s no more sacred than Jane’s Nail Salon or Tony’s Pizza Shop. All should be protected. But that’s just violence against property, some say, which is different than violence against people. I understand that 23 people were killed in riots in 2020 and over 2,000 were injured. Many of those were business owner’s whose only sins were to be located in the wrong place and try to defend what they had taken a lifetime to build. Others were law enforcement officers, trying to keep the peace. Others were protesters themselves. 2,000 people injured, 23 dead. So don’t tell me that was violence against property.

I’m more than ready to get rid of every member of Congress and start fresh. Their hypocrisy is overwhelming. I’m so tired of them.

And tired of the news media who filter the news and keep us from learning the truth. Please understand. I’m not saying that the media is involved in a conspiracy, that they colluded to withhold any facts that might be favorable to President Trump. I don’t believe they are guilty of collusion or conspiracy, but that they are guilty of groupthink. In their hatred of Trump they all think alike, they all do the same things. So yes, I think the media purposely misled the nation.

So we have a Congress more concerned about their own house and person than your house and person. And we have a news media more concerned with their own agenda than telling the truth. And this is why I believe the U.S.A. is on its way downhill.