Skip to main content

Thoughts - Part II

Continuing from http://used-ideas.blogspot.com/2013/03/thoughts-part-1.html

K.  All I here these days on political news is talking points from both the left and the right. On the left there must be solidarity of the President's message. No deviations.  No doubts. No alternatives are allowed.  The rich must pay their fair share; you may have "built" it but the government supplied the schools, roads, and other infrastructure.  Obamacare is clearly controlling and even reducing costs.  We must invest in America.  On the right most talking points concern taxes (i.e. no new ones), the magnitude of the debt, the repeal of Obamacare, the massive regulations, and of course gun control.    There is not one hint, one scintilla of compromise, excepting on immigration reform, a quest issue by both for votes. 

L.  We have always had conservatives and liberals.  The one is much like the other, with differences measured slightly in the degrees of the programs they pass. This is why they could do business - get along, pass legislation, fight another day.  Now we have the right and the left, both extreme versions, respectively. These groups don't like each other, and don't get along.  Both have strong beliefs they are on the side of the just.  Both believe they have found the only solution(s).  And both believe they are reasonable about it; only the other side will not compromise, code for fall over.   Recently emerged in the USA are the far right and the far left. These ultra-extreme groups despise each other. They have no interest in compromise or agreement. Their interest is in power.  These are the polarizing forces in our politics, each trying to literally suck in their more moderate colleagues. And each is succeeding in far greater measure than one might imagine.

Case-in-point.  Rham Emanuel, mayor of Chicago, made the now infamous statement, "Never let a crisis go to waste."  We have a crisis at hand with the bombing in Boston.  How will this horrific tragedy be used by the extreme groups, far left and far right?  Is it too soon to ask?  Probably.  After all, there is no longer any grace period given for healing, or for mourning.  No time is given to bury the dead.  No time is given for reflection and meditation. This event, like others, is quickly wrapped into patented and mindless talking points.

It has already happened.  Steny Hoyer, House minority Whip, indicates the fault lies with the sequester.  Amazing as it sounds, there it is.  The precise quote, made by Hoyer at his weekly press conference is ""I think there are multiple reasons for ensuring that we invest in our security both domestic and international security. That we invest in the education of our children, that we invest in growing jobs in America and don't pursue any irrational policy of cutting the highest priorities and the lowest priorities by essentially the same percentage... "I think this is another proof of that, if proof is needed, which I don't think frankly it is."
We are not here to criticize Hoyer or his comments, just to recount them.  We are considering the larger issues of politicization of this crisis.  Let's look at the possibilities.

From the left:
  • The public deprivation of funds owing to the sequestration has led to a diminished security vigilance of possible threats.  
  • We clearly need the need for a national police force to oversee potential domestic terrorism. 
  • We need more cameras everywhere to thwart covert attempts at terrorism.  
  • We need the constant surveillance of our cities by drones.  
  • We need to invest more funds in national security.
  • With more gun control, this clearly would not have happened.  (A stretch but someone will point to it.) (Juan Williams)
  • This is why immigration reform is so important.  (Chuck Schummer)
  • Domestic extremists tend to be on the far right. (Chris Matthews)
  • Pressure cookers should be regulated.
From the right:
  • Obviously, the weak foreign policy of the President has encouraged such bold acts of terrorism.  The USA is neither respected nor feared by any terrorist.
  • The war on terrorism must be prosecuted robustly both here and internationally. It is not. Look at the tragedy in Benghazi.  Terrorists killed key US personal with no fear of reprisal. They were correct.
  • Terrorists, knowing they will be prosecuted with US citizens rights, have been emboldened to perpetrate any acts of terrorism - and live to rejoice in their heinous acts. 
  • American homeland security is an abject failure.  Compared with the vigilance of other nations, this is just another example of leading from behind, or worse, not leading at all.
  • Mirandizing these terrorists is misguided.
It is as though all these camps have are their talking points.  Every event must be muscled into one of them. Every event must be contained within the scope (or depth) of their thinking.  Originality?  Forget it.  Reflection?  Never.  Independent observation?  What's that?  There is no point, no crisis, no news story that will not so fit. If you want evidence we now live in the PUSA (the Polarized United States of America), you have it.
M.  Trust, as a currency in political agreement and compromise, has vanished.

N. At times the news channels obsess too much over a single event - almost always a tragedy.  Endless interviews are scheduled with almost anyone willing to face the camera.  Video shots are reviewed time and time again.  But they cannot do otherwise lest being charged with insensitivity.  Only when the ratings drop off do the channels restore normal news coverage.

O. One thing I've learned about some people over the years, is that if they hate you and wish to destroy you, there is nothing you can do to alter that wish.  For some there is no forgiveness and no forgetting.  There is no act of kindness, no helping lift them from suffering, no rewards or awards that will alter the wish.  The only limitation on what they will do is constrained by their personal moral ceiling - namely just how far they will go. This applies to individuals, to groups, and to nations with targets the same.

P. Four nice things about checking out of the hotel.  You're going home.  You don't mind if you've used up all the coffee packets supplied. You don't have to tidy up. You get an extra free mini-bar of soap. :)
As wonderful as checking out may be that one doesn't want to do it too often.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Behavioral Science and Problem-Solving

I.                                       I.                 Introduction.                Concerning our general behavior, it’s high about time we all had some understanding of how we operate on ourselves, and it is just as important how we are operated on by others. This is the wheelhouse of behavioral sciences. It is a vast subject. It touches our lives constantly. It’s influence is pervasive and can be so subtle we never notice it. Behavioral sciences profoundly affect our ability and success at problem-solving, from the elementary level to highly complex wicked problems. This is discussed in Section IV. We begin with the basics of behavioral sciences, Section II, and then through the lens of multiple categories and examples, Section III. II.     ...

Where is AI (Artificial Intelligence) Going?

  How to view Artificial Intelligence (AI).  Imagine you go to the store to buy a TV, but all they have are 1950s models, black and white, circular screens, picture rolls, and picture imperfect, no remote. You’d say no thanks. Back in the day, they sold wildly. The TV was a must-have for everyone with $250 to spend* (about $3000 today). Compared to where AI is today, this is more or less where TVs were 70 years ago. In only a few decades AI will be advanced beyond comprehension, just like TVs today are from the 50s viewpoint. Just like we could not imagine where the video concept was going back then, we cannot really imagine where AI is going. Buckle up. But it will be spectacular.    *Back then minimum wage was $0.75/hr. Thus, a TV cost more than eight weeks' wages. ------------------------- 

Small Schools

In a NYC study it appears that smaller schools have a higher graduation rates that the large megaschools.  Research has found that 70% of students from small schools graduated on time, while just 61% of the students who were turned away managed to earn diplomas in four years. Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/city-small-schools-better-on-time-graduation-rates-report-article-1.1436692#ixzz2dAnomes6 However, large schools are far more efficient in terms of facilities, because they are less costly (per student) to operate and maintain.  So, what can be done in light of this striking new discovery?  The simple answer is to turn the large mega-schools into smaller institutions.  This can be achieved by simply creating many schools within the large one.  A norm for centuries within universities with their colleges of disciplines, but for varying majors, it does create local communities within a large setting.  Here is the proposal....