Oregon - Another Lesson Not Learned

A number of years ago, when I was a commander in the Navy, the small staff I was on was asked by our Admiral what we might do to save some money – the Navy being in a ‘hunt’ to find some ‘savings.’  I suggested we stop collecting ‘Lessons Learned,’ fire those folks responsible for doing so and end all the associated work.  When I received a stupefied stare from the Admiral and everyone else to this suggestion, I responded ‘well, we never pay attention to them anyway, so let’s get rid of them.’  (I'm not certain the Admiral appreciated my "wit.")

Along the same lines, and a bit more eloquently, George Santayana famously remarked that ‘those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.’ 

And we keep having those lessons pushed back at us.  No better example are the ones that appeared on the news from three separate perspectives yesterday.

The first case was a court decision that ended the state of Illinois' complete ban on ‘concealed carry,’ the carrying of a sidearm (pistol) in such a manner that it cannot be seen by anyone else.  While this is a victory for the supporters of the 2^nd Amendment, there will be no change in Illinois for quite some time, as the legislature has 90 days to draft new legislation and, of course, more court actions will be taken in response to the court’s decision.

Meanwhile, the violent crime rate in Chicago remains, and the city may well reach 500 homicides this year.  Connect those two issues.  Criminals do not have concealed carry permits; violent criminals already are “exercising” the right of concealed carry.  The folks who aren’t?  That would be the law abiding citizens.

The second case was the appearance of the Chief of Police of Camden New Jersey on several news shows, discussing the murder rate in Camden, 20 times the nation’s average, the highest murder rate in the nation.  How easy is it for a law-abiding citizen to carry a pistol in New Jersey?  The answer is: it’s nearly impossible.  So, who has weapons in New Jersey, and particularly in Camden?  Bad guys.  And the police.  Who have been averaging, according to the Chief, a 30% absentee rate.

Third case, the shooting in the mall in Oregon.  First, it is a tragedy that two people were killed.  But the instructive point here is that the gunman killed himself before the police arrived.  So, add that into the mix.

It is said that the average police response time in New York City – where the police force has been working on this for more than a decade – is now 4.8 minutes (for serious crimes the 911 operator asks if it is serious).  This is among the lowest response time in the nation.  That is fantastic, and an incredible improvement over where it was just 10 years ago (a bit more than 7 minutes).

Here’s the catch: the average violent crime lasts 3 minutes, start to finish.  So, assuming you start the 911 call the instant the crime starts, the bad guy has 1.8 minutes to jog out of the area before the police arrive.  (Of course, this assumes that you can make call 911 while being attacked).  In short, the police will NOT save you.  Just as they didn’t save anyone at the mall in Oregon.  Just as they rarely save anyone involved in any sort of shooting or knifing or beating or choking.  In fact, the courts and the police will tell you it’s not their job to protect you individually from a crime, that that would be impossible.  Courts have routinely found that police forces cannot be held responsible in any way for a crime committed against a specific individual, that the police cannot be everywhere at once, and they cannot be expected to protect YOU from a criminal.

This is not to blame the police – 99.9% of them do a fantastic job.  But, it will still take them time to get to you, and almost assuredly the violent crime will be finished by the time they arrive.  For you, or someone you love, it will be too late.  Because you weren’t able to protect yourself – and the police will NOT get there on time.  Whatever else you take away from these events, remember that: in 99% of the situations you may find yourself facing, you and you alone are going to be the difference between how you come through the event: alive and well, beaten up, or dead.

So, think about it again: if half the people in that Mall had been carrying a concealed weapon, would the gunman have killed two people?  Maybe one of them would have lived.  Maybe, if the gunman knew that “everyone” in the city had a handgun, that a large number of people carried concealed weapons, maybe he would have thought differently about what he was doing, maybe he would have gone someplace else.

It is said that a well-armed society is a polite society.  Some may argue that.  But an unarmed society is simply a feeding ground for the criminals and slime of the world.  We have tried keeping firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens (that is what the laws do - keep firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens) in the belief that this twisted logic will result in fewer violent crimes – it doesn’t work.  Western Europe – with restrictive firearms laws that are the envy of any number of foolish legislators - has a violent crime rate that is substantially higher than the US, with some major cities in Europe with violent crime rates unmatched in the rest of the developed world.

Other nations have tried it as well.  In sub-Saharan Africa the only people with guns are criminals, terrorist gangs, rebels and the army.  The only people who are unarmed are the peaceful majorities.  The people who do all the suffering: the peaceful majority.  The answer from the power-loving politicians in the UN: make sure the peaceful majority can’t access any weapons.

Here are the two lessons of history for the day:

1)    You are the only one who is truly interested in your safety. 

2)    The police will not arrive in time to save you.

The Next Four Years - And Beyond

To those who read my blog a hearty thank you and an apology.  I have been busy with several issues, to include writing a book, and have not been diligent in finishing a number of items that I started.  Further, one might think that in the run-up to an election as significant as this one seems to be that it would behoove me to write more.  But, frankly, there are many who are more capable of writing about such things and I leave it to them.

I believe Governor Romney will win this election, though I encourage all his supporters to get out and vote – there is no such thing as a sure thing.  I hope the Governor wins the election and I believe he will be a good president – better than average.

That being said, as I said to a very pleasant fellow who came by the other day and encouraged me to vote, this election is not the end, it is the beginning.  We cannot and should not even try to delude ourselves that is it, to steal Churchill’s phrase, ‘the end of the beginning.’  No, this is truly the very beginning.

There is so much that needs to be done.  The list is long and I will only mention the key items:

We must institute steps that lead to a balanced budget.  The current plan – the one endorsed by President Obama (for which he claims to have reduced the deficit by $4 trillion) – looks forward 10 years and leaves the U.S. with a national debt of $24 trillion (down from a projected $28 trillion – hence the ‘reduction.’)  That means 10 more years of deficits greater than $500 billion each year.  We need to reduce that annual deficit to zero and beyond – the government needs to be running small surpluses.

We need to ‘enshrine’ those surpluses.  The Federal Government has shown beyond any shadow of doubt that it is a terrible steward of the people’s wealth and cannot be trusted with the power of raising debt.  The Constitution should be amended to preclude the use of debt in all but Congressionally recognized national emergencies.

Entitlements need to be reduced.  As painful as that will be, the simple numbers don’t lie: over the next 75 years the U.S. government is scheduled to pay out $211 trillion (yes, $211 trillion) in entitlements.  Remember, that number is over and above all routine government spending (Defense, highways, national parks and all of that).  That number is unsustainable.  There are two steps that need to be taken to survive this problem as a nation: we need robust economic growth – greater than 3% per year real growth (over and above inflation), and we need to reduce unemployment to less than 4% while increasing labor participation to greater than 65%.  In short, we need to create a minimum of 2.5 million new jobs every year, for at least the next 40 years – then the number per year has to increase.  To put that in perspective, between 2008 and today, the net job growth in the US is around 1 million jobs – so we are 9 million short for the last 4 years.  There are many incredibly painful interconnected issues: tax codes, healthcare codes, regulation of businesses – that will bear directly in whether we can sustain real economic growth.  Congress will have its work cut out for it.

We need to reduce the cost of energy.  Raw, basic energy is the driver of every element of the economy – and the cheaper it is, the more you can do.  We need cheaper electricity, and we need cheaper transportation.  We need to invest in oil, gas, coal, nuclear power, as well as any and all ‘renewables’ on an even playing field – economic viability is the only metric we should use.

The world, despite all the hopes of man, remains a dangerous place, and despite some recent reporting, is probably going to get more dangerous as certain technologies proliferate.  We need to be safe and we need to protect our interests and those of our allies and true friends.

Four huge issues: rein in government, spur the economy and set it on a path of long-term and sustained growth, move to energy independence, and protect the nation.  It can be done.  It will be a long and often difficult journey, and we are only – hopefully – beginning on Tuesday.  We must recognize that, after we ‘pop the champagne’ this week, the real work is just beginning.

Still, every journey begins with a single step, and Tuesday, we take that first step.

The Real Debate

The spin from some of the wonks was that President Obama may have lost the first debate on style, but he was the man of substance, while Governor Romney was ‘flashier’ or ‘more aggressive’ but his substance doesn’t hold together.  In the second debate President Obama was ‘more aggressive’ and won on points, or some such thing.  As with much that passes for news reporting these days, the stories could have been written days before and only marginally ‘tweaked’ after the debates.

So, here’s a simple thought about the ‘debates,’ politicians, like CEOs, baseball players, cab drivers, doctors, lawyers and everyone else should be judged on their performance.  As an old dead Roman guy said: Deeds not Words.

But performance can be misleading if someone ‘plays with the numbers;’ it can be difficult to compare one number with another because there is no consistency between the statistics.

Despite the oft mis-quoted remark that ‘consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,’* politicians must be judged on their performance, and held up against certain standards.  Some of those standards are nothing more than some basic facts, such as the economy.

Sports fans are well familiar with this problem, as they try to compare the performance of players of different eras: how does A-Rod compare to Aaron or Mays or Ruth given differences in the ball, in how pitchers were used, the length of the season (to include post season), changes in the ball-parks, etc.  Every sport has similar questions.  But every sport also provides some touchstones that speak to standards that translate through the years, a consistent ‘thread’ that helps ground the comparison: a football field is still 100 yards long, bases are 90 feet apart, the net is 10 feet up, and 3 feet high at the center in tennis, etc.  Because of this consistency we can begin to compare numbers and thus understand performance, we can begin to compare Don Budge to Roger Federer.  Though he last played football more than 40 years ago, we can look at the late Alex Karras (RIP) and review his stats, and watch a game film and appreciate just how great a player he was.

That is what consistency provides us.

Which leads us to the unemployment rate – and the Unemployment Rate.

We all know that the Unemployment Rate is now down below 8% (7.8%).  I believe it will fall further in the next month, probably to 7.6%.  This is because the folks at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) like their jobs and don’t want to be among the millions with no jobs. One web site asserted that the rate was:

Unemployment Rate = Number of Unemployed / Total Labor Force

But, in fact, most assuredly, that is not how the BLS is computing the ‘Unemployment Rate.’  And that is why I capitalized Unemployment Rate, because it is now a specific thing, not the actual percentage of adults in the US without jobs, but a weird, and heavily manipulated number that is created by the BLS, like reading sports statistics and trying to determine a quarterback’s rating.  It isn’t a real number, it is made up.  The significant difference is that we can find out how the quarterback rating is created, but the Unemployment Rate is some sort of State Secret.

If we really wanted to know how many people had jobs – against the number of people who want jobs (and against the people who need jobs – not the same number), we would need to go ask everyone in the US. 

That is hard, expensive and takes a long time.  So, the number that is generated is based on asking 60,000 US families and 160,000 US business about their employment status.  That would be okay as well, if we all then knew precisely what happened next.  But we don’t.  Because then, the BLS adjusts ‘those’ numbers to reflect other data, to include variations between the 50 states, month of the year and season (annual plantings and harvest affect job numbers in many states), the start and stop of the school year, and a number of other factors.  But, here’s the trick: each one of these variables is adjusted based upon standards that are known to only a select group of people within the BLS.  Certain numbers are routinely excluded.  For example, if you don’t have a job, and you are – within the definition of the BLS – no longer looking for a job (if you have been unemployed for more than 6 months and do not collect any type of compensation, for example, and are living with your brother or sister or mom and dad) you are invisible, you no longer are counted.

After all this churning of data the BLS produces a number.  I suppose it is possible that the folks who work at BLS never thought about making their big boss happy, that the numbers simply ‘fall out’ of the formula and they publish them, month in, month out.  But, given that they have now admitted that they ‘somehow’ failed to include the data from California – the most populous state in the Union – and one that has been particularly hard hit by the recession and state government incompetence, do the numbers still seem credible?

The point is simply this: 45 months after taking office our real unemployment rate remains above 8%.  If you add in all the people who do not have jobs and have been – literally and figuratively - ‘discounted’ by the BLS, the total number of people who don’t have jobs but would like one is on the order 15 million (as opposed to the roughly 12 million represented by the number 7.8%) and an additional 8 to 10 million people who have part time jobs that want full time jobs.  Of course, there are even more people out there who would be willing to work if there were additional jobs (there are roughly 85 million Americans old enough to be in the work force and a significant portion of them would be willing to consider some sort of work if it were available).

The long and short of it is that the President has had nearly 4 years to work on the economy, and there is no better number to indicate progress – or lack of it – then the number of folks who have jobs and the number who want jobs.  The President’s performance – not in the debates but in His Job has been abysmal.

The results of the debates aren’t important, those are just words.  Let’s look at deeds.

* Emerson really said ‘a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,’ foolish being an important qualifier, and was speaking to the idea that many people – those with little minds - fail to recognize the differences between one situation and another and thus fail to recognize that when someone says one thing on day one and another thing on day two there can be a reason for that difference.

The Great Debate?

Well, Governor Romney did a great deal better then most people expected, particularly those who live off the pabulum that flows from the mainstream media.  More to the point of many (though it shouldn’t be) is that President Obama performed so poorly.

Should that have been a surprise?  I would suggest not.  Even a cursory review of Obama’s performance in debates in the past reveals that he has rarely been pressed hard by his opponents, and, more to the point, he has never been forced to defend his position.  Instead, he was always in one of two positions: someone who had grand ideas but had never been in an executive position and hence had no record he needed to defend; or two, someone in an executive position who used (or tried to use) his position to force through his position based on his executive power without really convincing anyone.  Thus, Obamacare, forced through against the wishes of the majority of the US population (and which just squeaked through Congress, was mainly drafted out of sight of nearly everyone and presented without detailed explanation.)  These simple facts, coupled with the twin realities of a coddling press and the fact that the Presidency is an office in which the occupant can easily isolate himself and insist on deferential treatment, means that President Obama was in fact facing a situation with which he has no real experience.

Can Obama do better next time?    

Certainly.  But it will require a few things:

Hard preparation: the President will need to bring in someone who is substantially brighter and tougher than John Kerry to play the role of Mitt Romney.  The questions must be tougher, the opponent tougher, the ‘practice audience’ must be tough and unforgiving.  And they need to ‘hit it hard’ over the next two weeks.  Assuming the President ‘has it’ in regard to this or that point is a mistake.

Dealing with his record for the last 4 years: the President has to address the floundering economy head on, telling the American people why unemployment is so high (and disregarding the nonsense perpetrated on the US by Department of Labor with the latest unemployment numbers); he must explain why – despite the fact that he added more than $1 trillion to the debt in the last 12 months – his economic path is the right one; he must explain why his health care plan will, in fact, work; he must explain why he, and he alone, can solve Social Security problems for the next four years.  Despite the nonsense published by his campaign, Mitt Romney isn’t telling lies, he’s simply explaining his program.  Obama has to show why the Obama program – despite the abysmal record of the last 45 months – is better.  Romney won the debate because he succeeded in explaining his program and Obama failed to defend his.

Recognition of his defeat: But the above requires that Obama and his campaign people recognize that Romney beat him fair and square.  The senior staffers who don’t acknowledge that should be fired.  And for his two or three closets advisors, in private, should start looking forward with a conversation that begins something like: “Boss, you got your butt kicked.  We have a lot to do to clean this up.”   It starts there; if Obama can’t get his head around the simple idea that Romney was better than he was, that he lost, then he will lose again.

So, here are a couple of predictions: if Vice President Biden performs poorly, and President Obama performs poorly in the second debate, “international tensions” will “force” the President to cancel the final debate.

Further, the President will search for any opportunity to target someone, no matter how tenuous the intelligence, who is ‘connected’ to the attack on Benghazi, and conduct some sort of attack – cruise missiles or B-2 bombers or SEALs or some other means.   Ideally, such an attack would take place the night of the (cancelled) third debate.

What's It All About?

To listen to some of the ads on TV for the various politicians it would seem that we have two men arguing about the same thing, only who is more committed to doing so:  Cut the deficit, cut unemployment, create jobs, grow the economy, reduce taxes, defend the nation, etc., etc., etc.  Both insist that they are the ones who will do it, while insisting that the other guy won’t.  Recently, President Obama has even come out a statement asserting that the problem ‘can’t be fixed from the inside,’ that it can ‘only be fixed from the outside.’

What does he mean by ‘insider?’  Well, he didn’t really elaborate, but the implication was a ‘politico,’ one of those people who ‘live and breath the Washington DC air,’ who have spent their entire lives in politics and who view everything through the lens of politics.

This seems a little odd for someone – President Obama - who has been an insider since he reached law school, and has been the DC ‘fast mover’ since he was the featured speaker at the Democratic National Convention in 2004.

But let’s look at it from another perspective.  People have been complaining about the deficit for many years (though, granted it hasn’t been this extreme relative to GDP since World War II), people have been complaining about the growth in entitlement programs (again, it is worse now), people have been complaining about the complexity of the tax code and the seemingly glaring inconsistencies.  And so on and so forth.  But no one does anything about it.  Even when President Obama had overwhelming majorities for two years in both the House and Senate, not only did he not do anything about it, he didn’t even pass complete budgets for those years.  (In fact, in January, win or lose, he will become the first President in history to fail to ever pass a complete budget; another historical first, along with the downgrading of US credit ratings.)

Why, despite all the talk, is nothing being done?  Simply because all of this is, at least to those in power, is theater.  This election, perhaps more than any in recent memory, is about power.  The simple truth is that the President, and many of the leaders in the Democratic Party, is more concerned with power than with any of the problems facing the US.  Simply put, if they were asked a simple either - or question, would you trade your position in office for an elimination of the budget deficit, they would answer no.

The root of this whole mess however is that this election isn't about Republicans and Democrats, its not about foreign policy or tax policy or entitlements; this election is about power, and about the ruling clique holding power - an amorphous association of career politicians, main stream media, academia, a major slice of bureaucrats, and certain elements of the private sector that have long been in cahoots with the government (think GM, elements of the Banking and Housing industries, some union leadership, for example).  The split on the polls are laughable, with poll after poll samples so badly skewed that most of them represent no real data at all.  If President Obama wins in November - and I don't believe he will - it will only prove that those in power can manipulate the organs of government to maintain control - a fact we already knew.  Few if any of the senior members of the Federal Bureaucracy really care if there is a debt problem or a default or a ten year recession or a global depression.  What they care about is whether they maintain, and if possible increase their span of power.  

Where does that leave us?  First, we need to vote in November, vote to remove the incumbent from the White House, and to turn over control of the Senate.  Then we need to hold the Republicans accountable.  And vote them out in 4 years if they fail to improve the state of the nation.  But, more importantly, we find ourselves in a position that is really no different then where most countries have found themselves from time to time throughout history.  What is does beg is the question: What do we really do?  It suggests that there needs to be a few amendments to the Constitution to wrest more power from the 3 branches (and maybe also bringing the '4th branch' (the Federal Reserve) under some sort of control that is responsive to the citizenry.  We must limit the power of the government to tax, limit the power to spend, limit the power to pass eternal legislation, and finally limit the power of the executive to create de facto legislation under the title of ‘regulations.’  Actually, all of that is possible.  But WE THE PEOPLE will have to do it, because the guys in power don’t want to let go.

Some Common Sense on Spending...

Submitted into the Congressional Record, Fall 1949, by Congressman Clarence J. Brown, R - Ohio, who claimed that it had been written by "a prominent Georgia Democrat" (thanks to JB):

DEMOCRATIC DIALOG

Father, must I go to work?
    No, my lucky son.
We're living now on Easy Street
    On dough from Washington.

We've left it up to Uncle Sam,
    So don't get exercised.
Nobody has to give a damn-
    We've all been subsidized.

But if Sam treats us all so well
    And feeds us milk and honey,
Please, daddy, tell me what the hell
    He's going to use for money?

Don't worry, bub, there's not a hitch
    In this here noble plan-
He simply soaks the filthy rich
    And helps the common man.

But, father, won't there come a time
    When they run out of cash
And we have left them not a dime
    When things will go to smash?

My faith in you is shrinking, son,
    You  nosy little brat;
You do too damn much thinking, son,
    To be a Democrat.

Libya, Egypt, Yemen, et al

We begin by noting the brutal murders of the Ambassador and three other Americans – staff and support for the Embassy.  These acts, and the storming of the embassies in several other countries, are intolerable and unless the governments of the respective countries condemn them immediately, in the strongest possible terms, and then take every possible step to round up those responsible, the US should take steps to alter the relationship between the US and that country (note: the other guy already has).  It is little solace to their families and friends that the dead were heroic and noble.  It is also of little note in trying to determine what happens next.  But several points need to be made.

First, and it must be said: This was predicted.  Everyone seems to willfully forget that this kind of behavior had been quite accurately forecast, and equally ignored by the President and the Secretary of State.  Both government officials and others, writing publicly in blogs and journals (including this author), noted over the past 2 years that: 1) we did not have a coherent policy in the Arab world; 2) providing moral and military support to rebels without knowing who they were was likely to recoil against us; 3) complicity in the overthrow of an ally would in no way endear us to those who led the overthrow; 4) wishful thinking as to the future of these various countries was a miserable substitute for a meaningful plan that had real ‘teeth’ in it; and finally, the Muslim Brotherhood may be many things, but it most assuredly is not a friend of the US, and would sooner or later get around to attacking US interests.  The administration has failed on these issues.  Saying otherwise is a lie.  When several US embassies have been overrun, when the US flag is torn down and al Qaeda’s flag is flying over a US embassy, when an Ambassador is killed inside a US Consulate – you have lost that round Mr. President.  That is YOUR failure.

Second, it should come as no surprise to any sentient being that September 11^th is a day when the US embassies ought to be not only aware of what is happening around them, but that also a good day to take extra precautions and a good day to have some prepared responses – both from an information management perspective and a security perspective.  The administration failed on this issue.

Third, while there was clearly a sense that things might happen on the 11^th, the intelligence community apparently failed to penetrate the Muslim Brotherhood sufficiently to learn of the plans to coordinate demonstrations.  This is not a failure of case officers; this is a failure of the senior personnel who set the guidance for the various agency offices around the world.  Is the Muslim Brotherhood on the list of organizations of interest to the intelligence community?  Certainly.  But it is now also clear that the level of effort/acceptable level of risk calculus failed.

There is an old saw that goes: ‘Once accident, twice coincident, three times enemy action.’

Simply put, anyone who believes that it is simply coincidence that independent riots in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Sudan and elsewhere sprang up within 24 hours of each other, all directed at the US Embassies is beyond naïve.  But again, this is not ‘news’ to many in the intelligence community.  There has been clear concern about this type of action for years.  But the question is this: was enough done to ensure that the US had reliable sources inside the Muslim Brotherhood and other like minded organizations who could keep our people informed as planning developed for this kind of operation?  Clearly, the answer is no.  The fact that we are holding this conversation is proof. 

But the question is why?  Are our case officers incapable of finding sources who could penetrate these organizations?  To the contrary, the facts have shown that they can.  It can be difficult, but it can be done.  So where was the failure?  There can only be one answer: failure of leadership: in the intelligence community, in the State Department and particularly in the Oval Office. In the Intelligence Community it is a combination of not enough case officers, not aggressive enough leadership, risk averse leadership, and a desire among the very senior members of the intelligence community to view certain elements through politically correct lenses all contributed to this current problem.  And all of these issues are, in the end, a failure of leadership – the leadership of the IC and a failure of policy at the very highest levels of government. 

In the State Department it is a willful disregard of the simple truth that many people not only disagree with the US, they hate us and want to do evil things to the US. The Administration can seek to point fingers, and can assign blame to a wide range of forces – including I am sure (somehow) the last President, but the fact remains that multiple US embassies were unprepared for assault, 4 good people are dead, several US embassies were at least for a short time overrun, US interests have been damaged, and the US strategic message has been badly mauled by the public image of rioters on top of embassies, US flags being burned, another flag flying on our flag poles, and our Ambassador being dragged through the streets.

But finally, this is the President’s fault.  While the President plays golf, produces campaign ads, and appears on talk shows, he fritters away any sense that the rest of the world needs to take seriously the President of the United States.  Mr. Obama, as much as you believe it is about you, it isn’t.  Someday, hopefully soon, you will no longer be the President.  But there will still be a president.  That office is more important than you, as hard as it is for you to grasp that.  You need to take seriously the office and your responsibilities.  That means you are not supposed to be high-fiving talk show hosts or practicing your one-liners, but trying to lead.  You have shown yourself to the mob as frivolous and vacillating and weak.  That is what they will read out of this – weakness.  And weakness does not lead to peace, it leads to violence and war.  We already have seen the violence start – Thank you, Mr. President, Good Job.

This disaster is yours – no one else did this.  You have had more than 3 years to establish your foreign policy and it is now close to a burning wreck.  And your answer is to go to Vegas, and to have your minions attack your opponent because he pointed out that the US response to this disaster was week.

This is a foreign policy disaster of high order.  It has the possibility of getting worse.  People should be fired, policies need to be changed, and You, Mr. President need to show the world that you are going to start taking seriously all of your duties, not just campaigning and doing the things you like.

Neil Armstrong

A good man, a great American, a Navy fighter pilot (VF-51) and the first man on the moon; died August 25^th, 2012.  About 25 years ago I ran into Neil Armstrong – or sort of did.  I was sitting in an airport lounge waiting for a connecting flight.  A man and his family walked in and several people recognized him and immediately a small crowd gathered around him.  The man was the head coach of a professional football team that had won the Super Bowl the year before.  I sat and watched the light flurry of noise around this man.  After several minutes I noticed another man, sitting against the far wall, watching the scene, a slight smile on his face.  I stared at him for a second and realized it was Neil Armstrong.  I was about to get up and walk over to him when a small ‘voice’ inside told me to stay seated: something told me that he was enjoying the idea that he was ‘unrecognizable’ while the coach of a football team was nearly instantly recognized.

It is far too easy, at this distance in time, to think that the entire Mercury – Gemini – Apollo effort was a ‘given,’ that of course it would work.  What the NASA spaceflight team, and the astronauts did, was remarkable by any measure.  And the men who flew and led those missions were exceptional characters.  And in listening to them and reading their various books one thing stands out again and again: they all had the highest regard for Neil Armstrong.  We need to remember him, we need to remember what they all did, and we need to consider what they did as an example of what we are capable of if we put our minds to it.

His family said it best:

"Honor his example of service, accomplishment and modesty, and the next time you walk outside on a clear night and see the moon smiling down at you, think of Neil Armstrong and give him a wink."

NEIL ARMSTRONG - RIP

General Dempsey, OpSec and Citizenship

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs thinks that “If someone uses the uniform, whatever uniform, for partisan politics, I am disappointed because I think it does erode that bond of trust we have with the American people.” This is in response to some citizens – all of whom have served the nation either in uniform or as intelligence officers, none of whom are now working for the government – who castigated the Administration for what they believed was using the actions of military personnel (and in particular the raid on Abbottabad that resulted in the death of Usama bin Ladin) for political gain, while leaking operational details that they believe place at risk US personnel.

There are several points that need to be made.  The first is that whoever was advising President Obama to say what he said, and use the phraseology that he did, in regard to the raid, belongs on Ted Mack’s Amateur Hour.  Every President gets the chance to shine in the glow generated by the deeds of others – it goes with the job.  But if they want to take advantage of it to best effect, the answer is to say a whole lot about ‘them’ and ‘those guys’ and point at a bunch of folks around you who did all the real work, and use the word ‘I’ as little as possible.  When someone asks you “What was your role in all this, Mr. President?” you shrug and say “Me, I didn’t do anything, I just sat there and signed the order they put in front of me.  These guys did everything.”  And while that is, for the most part, true in every case, everyone will nod and say “Damn, he’s humble, but they couldn’t ‘a done it without him.”  So, for the buffoons in the White House who let the President do this, go back to high school – you need to start all over.

Second, while the security and OpSec issue is serious - glaring, the guys who are running the video suffer from a similar – though not as egregious – problem: simply put, they look petty by focusing too much on the President.  Forget the President for just a second; if you hate him, fine, that’s politics and democracy, we are all free to love or hate our elected officials, and I certainly don’t have any love lost for the President or many in Washington.  But the issue is OpSec – not the President.  Stick with the issue, focus on the facts and the events, and if there is ‘stink’ that should belong on the President or someone else in the administration, it will eventually find its way there.  Your credibility rests on your professionalism, so, stay professional.  You can call for better Opsec, you should call for better OpSec, you can call for the President to do a better job providing OpSec, but you maintain the ‘high ground’ by focusing - as a friend of mine says - ‘like a laser beam on OpSec.'  As for the President (and much like the President’s own statements), sometimes, understatement of some facets of an issue is the best way to make an impact.  In this particular slice of the issue, less is more.

That being said, you need to show that the issue is OpSec.  The word has now come out in the press that a member of the raiding party has written a book about the raid.  Further, it has not been cleared by either the DOD or CIA, as it must per the documents that everyone must sign.  If these reports are accurate, that is a violation of the rules and shouldn’t be tolerated.  Further, assuming that the book contains additional details of the raid, it too constitutes a breach of OpSec and you should condemn it as well (again, assuming that the facts released in the paper are correct).

As for the Chairman – he sounds like he’s ready to retire.  Maybe he hasn’t kept up with US history but one or two soldiers have run for office in the past, and their comments on military duty have figured in their campaigns.  Some of them were fairly senior officers: Eisenhower, Grant, Jackson, Taylor, etc.  All were supported by other military personnel as they ran their campaigns, using their professional reputations for political purposes.  Others who served include Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt, and well, you get the picture.

And one other point: the guys who are commenting are not on active duty.  They are citizens.  General Dempsey: do you think that folks who leave active duty shouldn’t be involved in politics?  Or that folks who were in the military and who are now engaged in public life shouldn’t refer to their military careers to establish their bona fides?  It makes me wonder what planet you are from.  And what Constitution you swore to protect.

Here’s a little something from some other general who led the army in wartime, a fellow who knew a little bit about ethics, and leading men and a nation through difficult times.  Maybe General/Citizen Dempsey has heard of him:

“When we assumed the soldier, we did not lay aside the citizen.”  - George Washington

Oscar Pistorius, Ray Kroc and President Obama

He didn’t do it.  He didn’t perform the surgery, he didn’t make the prosthesis, he didn’t force him to go outside and play with his brother, he didn’t change the rules of the International Olympic Commission, he didn’t pick the South African track team, he didn’t make the uniforms, or the blades, or fly the airplane that got the team to London.  In fact, once you consider it all, Oscar Pistorius didn’t do much of anything.  At least if you use President Obama’s logic.

Because that is exactly President Obama’s argument about business.  Substitute mentors, parents, business partners, infrastructure and joint ventures and you have precisely the same argument.  Let’s face it, that’s a pretty goofy argument.

The simple truth, and one understood by everyone who watched even a few minutes of the Olympics or read even one or two articles about it, is that Mr. Pistorius is a remarkable guy, with a lot of grit, and we should all tip out hat to him.  What he has done is remarkable.  And HE did it. 

Every step has been a struggle, every step a challenge, every step an opportunity to quit.  No one else kept him from quitting, no one else did the training, no one else ran those races.  It is an example we need to take to heart, and no one more than President Obama.

The fact is, the market place is as unforgiving as the running track.  If you don’t put in the time, don’t train, don’t watch your diet, then you won’t win, you won’t place, you won’t even show. We all know that the small businesses fail at alarming rates: 50% fail after 5 years, 70% fail after 10 years.  But here is a better statistic: the average billion dollar per year business lasts 12 years.  Only 12 years.  Of course, there are some that get bailed out by the government, and some get absorbed by other companies or merge with other companies, and in some of those cases the stockholders do well.  But many just unravel, and fade away – even when everyone is working hard some don’t make it.

Consider that of the original Dow Jones 30 Industrials of a century ago, only one remains on the list – General Electric.  The others are gone.  Or consider how many aircraft companies were in business in the US in 1945 and how many remain today.  Airlines, shipping firms, steel corporations, etc., etc., etc.  They get started, some survive, some thrive, and then many unravel and die off, their remains bought up by their competitors.

What part of that did the government help in?  What part of that was a ‘gimme,’ a term with which the First Golfer should be familiar?  The problem with many politicians is that they have so little exposure to the real world and the real economy that these facts mean nothing to them.  For many in the White House, the idea of a Ray Kroc risking every dime he had, and committing every waking moment for years and years, to buy five hamburger restaurants from the McDonald brothers is an alien concept.  More disturbingly, they don’t seem to see that Kroc’s acceptance of risk, his willingness to not accept things as they are, but to act on his own despite what anyone else might think or say or do, is the essential foundation stone of progress – economic, technological or cultural.

Oscar Pistorius would understand Ray Kroc, and vice versa.  The problem is, President Obama and his staff understand neither of them.

Syria

The situation in Syria is going to get worse before it gets better.  We all need to accept that it will also go in directions we have not anticipated.  And we need to accept that we – the US – are now involved, and in a major way.

We saw in the press that a White House source announced that the President approved support to the Syrian rebels and, in one way or another supports the ouster of President Assad.

Assad is a butcher, and the world would be better off without him.  But we need to be clear as to what the President just did: he de facto declared war on Syria.  And he declared unlimited war.  Calling for the removal of the current government is the true definition of unlimited war.  Simply put, there will be no negotiated settlement.  All well and good if you are prepared to pay for the costs.  But what that effectively does is remove any inhibitions on the part of the other party in the fight.  It means the fighting is going to get dirtier, and it means that if the other side can strike at you he will.

Syria of course, is not acting alone.  Syria has a strong ally in Iran, and, Russia and China have both found it politically expedient to back Syria if for no other reason then it is of low (Russia) or no (China) cost to them, and it is of significant political cost to the US.  But it also speaks to what may be happening in the region: the political maps are breaking down.

Over the past nearly 200 years the world – and the west in particular – has become quite fond of the boundaries as drawn on the map.  In the few cases where they have been changed the change has usually been accompanied with some reference to the borders having been ‘drawn by British politicians sitting in London with no regard for the people who live here.’  But the simple truth is that throughout history boundaries have always been drawn by generals and politicians with as little regard as possible to the people of the region at hand.  From Ramses II and Hattushilish III through Alexander, Julius Caesar, Hadrian, Charlemagne, Genghis Khan, all the Mogul emperors, up through Saddam Hussein, borders have been regarded as things to be crossed and then redrawn.  Syria in particular is perhaps the most redrawn parcel of land in history, with nearly every great or want to be great empire in history occupying that land.  The land itself is currently occupied by a patchwork of people who view themselves not as ‘Syrian’ but Sunnis, Shias, Alawites and Druze, as Arabs and Armenians and Turks, Palestinians, Kurds, Assyrians, and Circassians.

In fact, much of the Middle East is a similar patchwork, which upon close examination is further splintered into tribes, huge family networks in which people have real allegiance to their extended families ahead of any allegiance to country.  If you have closely followed the events in Libya over the past several years you have probably seen tribal names such as Awaqir and Misurata and Obeidat – tribes that had major roles in the power structure of the Qaddafi government.  But these tribes can trace their heritage back in time for centuries and centuries, many to before the founding of Islam 1400 years ago.  And it is important to recognize that for many of these people there is little real devotion to nations or boundaries, particularly when that nation, such as Syria, was physically ‘constructed’ by treaty after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, ruled by France, and then gained independence 66 years ago (1946).

But, there is much more to this current problem.  It would seem, in fact, that the violence is already spreading across borders.  There have been intimations that the governments of one or more regional powers played a role in the attack on Assad’s cabinet meeting on 18 July, which killed the Syrian minister of defense and at least 3 other senior members of the cabinet and pushed Assad to seek sanctuary outside the city.  (For the record, this should not be labeled as terrorism; these men were all legitimate military targets as they are all parts of the command and control process of the government.  War may be ugly, but whoever did this didn’t target civilians, they attacked the government.)  Just several days later there was a similar attack on Saudi Intelligence headquarters in Riyadh.  Was it retaliation?  Was it coincidence?  That hardly seems likely.  Was it done by the Syrians?  Or did they have assistance?  If so, who?  Iran would seem to be a good bet, though certainly not a given.

The point here is that the situation is escalating.  And spreading.  The US needs to be well thought out and deliberate.  Perhaps covert aid to the rebels in Syria is appropriate.  But, the US needs to have a clear plan.  One of the problems with wars is that they seldom go the way you want them to go.  And the less your investment on the battlefield the more likely that is to be true.  When you try to fight wars cheaply and through proxies you have essentially no control as to the course of events, you are simply adding gasoline to the barbecue.  And so our ‘plan’ needs to have enough ‘branches’ that there are well thought out – and ‘executable’ – options in the event this war takes a different direction then the one we want.  And if we haven’t done that planning, or there are branches we can’t execute – for whatever reason – then we shouldn’t be doing this.

Politics inside the ‘Beltway’ is fine, but wars require professionals and clear assessments of real risk, not ‘hip-shots’ and stories leaked to friendly reporters so that the administration can look tough for voters.

And meanwhile we have a White House staffed by people who can’t seem to keep their mouths shut, who don’t appreciate the value of secrets, and really seem to believe that it’s all just a game being played in newspapers and TV news shows.  At a time when we clearly need some professionals in the White House we appear to be watching the recreation of ‘Ted Mack’s Amateur Hour.’

Whose Job Is It?

There is a tenet in law, repeatedly restated in courts, that says that the police are not responsible for your individual safety.  To make sure we are clear, the point of the courts is that if a criminal attacks you, the police can not be held accountable that 1) there are criminals on the street, 2) that one attacked you and 3) that you were hurt.  The police provide security to the society, they act as a deterrent to criminal behavior writ large, and they investigate crimes and arrest those believed responsible for crimes.  But they are not responsible for protecting you specifically and individually.

That makes some sense, whether we like it or not.  The police can’t be everywhere and they can’t prevent someone from doing violence to you, no matter where you are or what time it is.  So, to repeat, the police are not responsible for your individual security.

So who is?

I ask this simple question in light of the evil acts of some gunman in Denver and the tragedy he caused.  Simply put, who was responsible for safety and security of those in that movie theater?  The courts will provide one definitive answer: the police weren’t.

Now, an argument can be made that the answer then is to disarm everyone.  That may sound good, but the track record of that kind of behavior isn’t good.  In those societies where there is little private weapon ownership – say Western Europe – the result has been a significant increase in violent crime.  One of the clever half-truths of some in the media when they talk about this kind of thing is to report the murder rate in the US and compare it to the murder rate in Europe – the US rate is higher.  But what they leave out is that the violent crime rate as a whole is much higher in Europe then in the US, ranging from roughly 20% higher to more than 400% higher, depending on which country you pick.  This is true across all of Europe – including Scandinavia, usually the darling of those calling for change in the US.  Only in Switzerland can you find consistently lower murder and violent crime rates over the years.  And Switzerland is the land where every home is armed.

The economist John Lott has produced a study on the effects of handgun ownership (More Guns, Less Crime), chock full of statistics.  No one has made any serious effort to refute his statistics or his analysis.  Simply put, when people are armed, crime rates drop.  The more who are armed, the lower the crime rates.

So, back to the question at hand: who is responsible for protecting you?  The answer is simple: you are – and no one else.

These two trains of thought – the Police are not responsible, private firearm ownership reduces crime – need to be brought together.  This is an unpleasant idea to some and probably will raise some eyebrows.  But simply ask yourself this question: would 14 people have died in that theater last night, and would another 50 have been injured, if half the adults in that theater were armed and knew how to use their pistols?  The same can be asked about other public shootings, such as the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords on January 8^th, 2011, during which 6 people were killed and another 13 wounded.

No firearms law in the world would have prevented the evil creeps in either case from starting the shootings.  The courts have made it clear that the police cannot be expected to be everywhere and stop every criminal before he acts.  But an armed citizenry could be expected to act.  It might also give criminals a bit more to think about if, when they look down a street, they knew that essentially every one of their potential victims was armed.

Who DIdn't Get Where on Their Own?

The President made an interesting statement the other day in Roanoke, VA.  I will quote it exactly:

"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me - because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t - look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.”  

The statement is, if taken literally, true.  No one got anywhere on his own.  There are mothers and fathers, brothers, sisters, cousins, teachers, etc., etc.  There are all sorts of people who help anyone grow and develop in life.

But that is not what the President was talking about.  The President (and his supporters who have rushed to defend him since this statement) means simply that government funded infrastructure, government regulation, government funding of various industries, etc., have all been the sine qua non of economic development in the US.  In short, no government, no economic success.

The President is partly right.  He is also completely wrong.

All economic development beyond the most basic barter economy is predicated on government.  The purpose behind the social contract that we all share is that because we (and more to the point, our ancestors) agreed to come ‘out of a state of nature’ and establish societies that allowed the establishment of governments to perform certain functions (security, money supply, certain public services such as licensing and deeds and standards, etc.), each of us was thereby freer to pursue individual pursuits, to concentrate on one set of skill rather than having to do – in essence – each of those things ourselves.  Aristotle spells it out quite clearly.

No one is disputing Aristotle.  And so, in that sense, the President was right.

But the real issue is simply this: the government isn’t what causes the individual’s pursuit of industry or the individual or collective economic success.  That’s backward.  It is the individual’s industry, and the individual desire for economic success that comes together to develop a collective solution to certain fundamental issues (security, legal framework, standards, infrastructure, etc.) that results in the creation of a government system – and a bureaucracy.  The government is the servant of the people, created by them, for them. 

So, rather than the individual succeeding by standing on the back of government, it is government that wouldn’t exist without the individual.  As I said, backward.  President Obama would have been more accurate if he had said:

"There are a lot of powerful, successful American politicians who agree with me - because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t - look, if you’ve been successful in politics, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by politicians who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there – people who pay for all those politicians.”

Here’s the point Mr. President: you didn’t get THERE on your own.  You are there, and this government is funded, by a lot of smart, hard working individuals who over 236 years, and still today, have labored and sacrificed and funded this government, and elected officials, and sent them to Washington, and all the state capitals, and all the towns and counties, to do specific jobs, to act as dutiful and conscientious servants of the citizenry, to carry out the tasks assigned, not take from those who sent you, and for whom you work.

President Obama would do well to remember that the Constitution begins ‘We the People.’  The people do not work for the government; the government is not ‘in charge.’  Government is the servant.  He should try to remember that.  As Lincoln put it: Of the people, by the people, for the people.

No, Not Today

There are many people saying that the end is nigh: we can begin with the adherents to the Mayan calendar, move through all the people who advocate hoarding gold, add those who can present a cogent discussion of the rise and fall of the ‘American empire’ and ‘imperial overreach,’ throw in the reasoned arguments of those who point out the growing size of our national debt and the massive unfunded, government mandated annuities that en toto are 9 times larger than that national debt, and finish with the academics who, with an almost childish glee, talk about the decay of America, and the realignment of international power to a multi-polar world where the US would be just one among many nations.  Some suggest that there may even be a darker future, one in which the very nature of democracy in the US is replaced by a ‘savior’ who will seize power and set himself up as dictator.

All of these futures are possible.  But all require a choice.  All require that we acquiesce in the drift of events, that we let the debt overtake us, we let weak-kneed politicians in Congress and the White House continue to spend our future and that of our children and children’s children for current votes, that we let a lack of leadership in the White House fritter away our position in the world, that we let a demagogue arise and usurp the powers of the Constitution.

Perhaps.  But Not Today.  That is what we must repeat every day: Not today.

None of these events is inevitable, none is driven by dark, mysterious forces, none simply appears on the scene with all of mankind watching in amazement.  Nations rise and fall not because of ‘forces or history’ or ‘accidents of geography’ or the presence of some virus.  Nations rise and fall because of the force of will of the individuals in that nation.  Augustus did not simply emerge, Augustus made choices, he took advantage of those around him and those around him let him so act.  The United States is not an accident, not a serendipitous sequence of events, but a result of the choices of our citizens and the product of a series of decisions – among them the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

 

Every day we have to push back.   We need to struggle to fix our problems before they present an opportunity to new Caesars.  Perhaps we need to consider amending the Constitution, further defining and narrowing the powers of government.  But we need to act; each one of us must choose to act.  Chesterton once observed that every generation is potentially the last, that every generation, every man stands on the precipice.  It is only through our choices that we can prevent doom.  It is also only through our choices that we can continue to shape the future of this great nation, that we can build a nation better and greater, freer and more productive, than any that has come before it.  It is our choice: we can decide to decline or we can decide to rise.  It is through our choices that we forge the future.  As it is with man, it is also with our Republic.  It is through our choices and our actions that we can prevent the gloom from overtaking us – as individuals and as a nation, that we can continue to lead the world forward, to be that ‘City on a Hill’ as John Winthrop said nearly four centuries ago.

There are those who wish to change the nation, to make it less then exceptional, to make us simply one among many, to even reduce our liberties, makes us all dependent on the government, to teach us to turn to the government first for a solution, rather than to ourselves.  In the name of freedom they actually wish to quietly usurp our freedom, to control our fortunes and our futures, to dictate to our children, and make our nation subject to the whims of unnamed regulators in Washington, or at UN Headquarters in New York, or worse, in Brussels.  They would not only sell our freedom and our nation’s birthright, they would sell our future.  To these we must answer: Not Today.

Loss of freedom always begins slowly and begins with people agreeing to small steps, to small accommodations that usually involve some increase in security or care at the cost of a seemingly insignificant loss in personal freedom.  This is not new; it has always been so.  Over time, the accommodations grow until the citizens, like the frog dropped into the pot of cool water on a hot stove, find that they are now surrounded by true dangers to their freedoms and even their lives.  But at any time the citizens might have stood up and said ‘No, not today.’  Government, the organs of power, the huge bureaucracies, must always be viewed as our servants, not our masters.  We – the People – must remember that we have the power, not them.  And when they seek more power, when they seek to reach beyond the boundaries we have established, it is our duty, on the peril of our very lives, to say ‘No, Not Today.’