I finally finished George Friedman's The Next 100 Years.It was not so hard to read as the time it took me implies. I read several other books during this time, too. What was difficult the the science fiction flavor his projections had. It felt a little Star Trekky after about 2050. I could not, however, to the end of it get past the feeling that the advances in space, robotics, and energy that will allow the United States to remain the greatest nation on earth are all being jeopardized by the current administration. Our economy is still in the tank, people are still loosing their jobs and homes, and Obama still wants to take over our health care system and bankrupt the county. He is still undermining national security, tying the hands of the military at war in Afghanistan, and trying to let gays serve openly in the military. He still plans to halt the space program, and today I read that that is going to cost 23,000 more jobs. At least.
And where is our future headed if our security and economy are devastated to the point that it will take a generation or more to recover, if we ever can?
Friedman's starting point for his future scenario is that politicians and rulers are essentially limited in what they can do with their power. He compares it to a chess board where theoretically there are an infinite number of moves, but realistically there are only so many that will allow a player to win the game. And all rulers and politicians play to win. Until now.
It would seem that Obama is willing to loose the game in order to make certain moves that support his ideology. His thinking must be that if he succeeds with health care legislation, even if he and his party loose the next elections, he will have accomplished great things that future congresses and presidents will not be able to reverse. The problem is he may be right, and in doing so, he will insure the destruction of this great nation. But what conservatives see as destruction, Marxists view as victory. He is no Bill Clinton whose objective was purely political, just stay in office so back track if necessary. No, he is an ideologue who has won public office to change America, and he means it in the most literal way. It is not about him, although without a doubt he is taking every advantage of all the trappings and pleasures of the office. For Obama, it is about the cause which means he is not playing by the same game plan Americans are use to their president's playing by. He is not a politician in the traditional American sense of the word. He is an ideologue in the scariest sense of the word.
Health care is going to pass, by hook or crook, or both, and the future of this country is going to look nothing like the greatness that Friedman imagines in his book.
Also reading P.D. James'sTalking About Detective
Fiction. Have to lighten up a little.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
On Faith
Let me just say it. God is good. I thought about a separate blog for my thoughts and musings on faith and God and Christianity in general, but I am not going that. My reasoning is simple. My life and politics are not separate from my faith so neither need my blogs be separate. In fact, my life and politics are quiet decidedly colored by my faith.
Today I am visiting Crossroads Church in Nampa, Idaho. This is my sister's family's church and I really like it. They have choosen to be a church that preaches, teaches, and lives a radical Christianity.
I also started reading Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God by Francis Chan. It starts out with the very idea by which I want to live my life. That is a radical Christianity. One that convinces people that God is real in my life, that my life is different in a way that cannot be explain by anything else.
John Wesley was on to this very idea back in the 18th century when he wrote about Christian Perfection. To Wesley, Christian Perfection was achieved when life is lived in pure love, that love spoken of in Deuteronomy and in Matthew, the one that loves the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strenth, and our neighbors as ourselves, that life out of which all things are motivated and animated by the love of God in our hearts.
Crazy Love is going in that same direction--life lived in love with a holy, all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal, fair and just God. Just think about that. To love and be loved by a God that big. If we unpack just how big our God is we cannot help but live a radical Christan life, and that is where I want to be.
Today I am visiting Crossroads Church in Nampa, Idaho. This is my sister's family's church and I really like it. They have choosen to be a church that preaches, teaches, and lives a radical Christianity.
I also started reading Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God by Francis Chan. It starts out with the very idea by which I want to live my life. That is a radical Christianity. One that convinces people that God is real in my life, that my life is different in a way that cannot be explain by anything else.
John Wesley was on to this very idea back in the 18th century when he wrote about Christian Perfection. To Wesley, Christian Perfection was achieved when life is lived in pure love, that love spoken of in Deuteronomy and in Matthew, the one that loves the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strenth, and our neighbors as ourselves, that life out of which all things are motivated and animated by the love of God in our hearts.
Crazy Love is going in that same direction--life lived in love with a holy, all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal, fair and just God. Just think about that. To love and be loved by a God that big. If we unpack just how big our God is we cannot help but live a radical Christan life, and that is where I want to be.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
On Politics
It is late, for me anyway, because I go to work way too early, but I am listening to Hugh Hewitt on a station from Hawaii. I do love the internet. He happens to mention that there was a revolution going on in Iran, but CNN was running wall to wall Clinton stents. It occurred to me that I had not seen very much on Iran all day. There where only a few articles on Drudge early today, then nothing new.
Now, I know there is a big time difference thing, however, I cannot believe that we are ignoring the good people of Iran who are willing to risk prison and death to free their country from the evil regime that rules them.
For our part, the President of the United States of America, the great enemy of Iran, let his spokesman announce that the administration did not believe that Iran had really produced the enriched uranium as they have claimed today.
Thirty years after the Revolution that produced this dangerous regime, it is unconscionable that the United States would ignore what is going on in that country.
Maybe there will be more news tomorrow. Maybe our president will start to lead.
On Books.
George Friedman's The Next 100 Years is really wild by the time he gets to the year 2040. "Star Wars" meets geopolitics in the future. Japan is attacking the United States in another Pearl Harbor, but in space against the United State's very own Battle Stars. The purely hilarious part is how they destroy the Battle Stars.
Friedman makes the point that prior to WWII, the Japanese negotiated right up until the attack, and then attacked from aircraft carriers using torpedoes in a harbor thought to be too shallow for them to be effective. And they did it on a Sunday when sailors were on shore leave or sleeping, taking us by complete surprise at every level.
Similarly, Friedman purposes circumstances in 2040 that involve a sneak attack in a manner no one thought was possible at a time when the government was on vacation and the military was focused elsewhere. It is ingenious, except that now we know, so no one should be surprised. I think that is his point in writing the book--to give a heads up to what the future could look like.
Since his predictions are based on predictable geopolitical actions by historically predictable governments, it is probably a fairly credible estimation of future events.
The most compelling example to me is this attack by the Japanese on the United States. It is not just history repeating itself, it is a timeless scenario because the Japanese in his scenario hurl car size moon rocks through space to knock out our Battle Stars. Just take a look at film of street violence in the Middle East today, and see rocks being hurled at well armed and armored riot police. People without guns or bombs or missiles still throw rocks; it will be no different in 2040, according to Mr. Friedman. I think he is onto something here.
Now, I know there is a big time difference thing, however, I cannot believe that we are ignoring the good people of Iran who are willing to risk prison and death to free their country from the evil regime that rules them.
For our part, the President of the United States of America, the great enemy of Iran, let his spokesman announce that the administration did not believe that Iran had really produced the enriched uranium as they have claimed today.
Thirty years after the Revolution that produced this dangerous regime, it is unconscionable that the United States would ignore what is going on in that country.
Maybe there will be more news tomorrow. Maybe our president will start to lead.
On Books.
George Friedman's The Next 100 Years is really wild by the time he gets to the year 2040. "Star Wars" meets geopolitics in the future. Japan is attacking the United States in another Pearl Harbor, but in space against the United State's very own Battle Stars. The purely hilarious part is how they destroy the Battle Stars.
Friedman makes the point that prior to WWII, the Japanese negotiated right up until the attack, and then attacked from aircraft carriers using torpedoes in a harbor thought to be too shallow for them to be effective. And they did it on a Sunday when sailors were on shore leave or sleeping, taking us by complete surprise at every level.
Similarly, Friedman purposes circumstances in 2040 that involve a sneak attack in a manner no one thought was possible at a time when the government was on vacation and the military was focused elsewhere. It is ingenious, except that now we know, so no one should be surprised. I think that is his point in writing the book--to give a heads up to what the future could look like.
Since his predictions are based on predictable geopolitical actions by historically predictable governments, it is probably a fairly credible estimation of future events.
The most compelling example to me is this attack by the Japanese on the United States. It is not just history repeating itself, it is a timeless scenario because the Japanese in his scenario hurl car size moon rocks through space to knock out our Battle Stars. Just take a look at film of street violence in the Middle East today, and see rocks being hurled at well armed and armored riot police. People without guns or bombs or missiles still throw rocks; it will be no different in 2040, according to Mr. Friedman. I think he is onto something here.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
On the Weather
A couple of days ago, I asked rhetorically how "these people" got to be in charge. Today my question is "How's that 'global warming' working out for you all in the four feet of snow back east?" Amazing. Wonder if they will complain about all the carbon emissions produced to dig them out and keep them warm. (Except they did save some where the power was out.)
My other question is not rhetorical. I am completely serious. How do we get rid of these people and how fast can we do it?
November can't get here soon enough.
On politics.
I read a good article by Michael Medved this morning at www.townhall.com "Obama's Undeniable Intelligence Makes Him More Dangerous - and More Vulnerable" in which he cautioned conservatives not to underestimate or dismiss the intelligence of president Obama. He argued that the man is clearly very intelligent, and I happen to agree. I also agree that that makes him dangerous.
I have been pondering Obama's recent statements that he is open to Republican idea on fixing health care, and here is why I see his intelligence as dangerous. He can use words to mean things that if taken at innocent face value seem to say one thing, but when run through the Obama-speak decoder, mean something else entirely.
Just one example, then listen carefully to what he is saying next time he talks (you won't have to wait more than ten minutes or so,) and try to decode for yourself what he really means.
When he says that he wants to see all the best ideas of the Republicans and when he says he is willing to listen to anyone who has good solutions, what he really means is that he will listen, yes, of course. The problem is his definition of the best idea or a good solution will be entirely different from the Republicans because the starting premise of each party is completely opposite. The Republican ideas and solutions are based on the premise of individuality, free markets, and liberty. The presidents ideology is based on government, government, and government which adds up to community, government, and tyranny.
Therefore, the Republican free market solutions will never be good solutions to the Marxist president who believes that free markets are the problem in the first place.
The best idea to cover the uninsured by letting people buy into Medicare early or by expanding the already existing Medicaid program to cover more people will never be a best idea because those solutions would not expand the role of government or include illegal aliens or untie insurance from employment, all of which are presidential goals, but not Republican goals.
Bipartisianship is not one side giving in completely to the other sides position, as the president suggested the Republicans wanted to have happen. But it is not what the president wants either which is for the Republicans to give up the principles they believe in in favor of the presidents principles just because his side won the election.
We are Republicans and conservatives because we have rejected the notion that community trumps the individual, that governments work better than free markets, and the tyranny is better than liberty.
Now that you have a clue about how to decode the language of bipartisanship and working together for the American people, try it on your own and see if you too can catch a glimpse of the real President Obama. It will, no doubt, leave you asking "how do we get rid of these people and how fast can we do it?...if you weren't already asking.
My other question is not rhetorical. I am completely serious. How do we get rid of these people and how fast can we do it?
November can't get here soon enough.
On politics.
I read a good article by Michael Medved this morning at www.townhall.com "Obama's Undeniable Intelligence Makes Him More Dangerous - and More Vulnerable" in which he cautioned conservatives not to underestimate or dismiss the intelligence of president Obama. He argued that the man is clearly very intelligent, and I happen to agree. I also agree that that makes him dangerous.
I have been pondering Obama's recent statements that he is open to Republican idea on fixing health care, and here is why I see his intelligence as dangerous. He can use words to mean things that if taken at innocent face value seem to say one thing, but when run through the Obama-speak decoder, mean something else entirely.
Just one example, then listen carefully to what he is saying next time he talks (you won't have to wait more than ten minutes or so,) and try to decode for yourself what he really means.
When he says that he wants to see all the best ideas of the Republicans and when he says he is willing to listen to anyone who has good solutions, what he really means is that he will listen, yes, of course. The problem is his definition of the best idea or a good solution will be entirely different from the Republicans because the starting premise of each party is completely opposite. The Republican ideas and solutions are based on the premise of individuality, free markets, and liberty. The presidents ideology is based on government, government, and government which adds up to community, government, and tyranny.
Therefore, the Republican free market solutions will never be good solutions to the Marxist president who believes that free markets are the problem in the first place.
The best idea to cover the uninsured by letting people buy into Medicare early or by expanding the already existing Medicaid program to cover more people will never be a best idea because those solutions would not expand the role of government or include illegal aliens or untie insurance from employment, all of which are presidential goals, but not Republican goals.
Bipartisianship is not one side giving in completely to the other sides position, as the president suggested the Republicans wanted to have happen. But it is not what the president wants either which is for the Republicans to give up the principles they believe in in favor of the presidents principles just because his side won the election.
We are Republicans and conservatives because we have rejected the notion that community trumps the individual, that governments work better than free markets, and the tyranny is better than liberty.
Now that you have a clue about how to decode the language of bipartisanship and working together for the American people, try it on your own and see if you too can catch a glimpse of the real President Obama. It will, no doubt, leave you asking "how do we get rid of these people and how fast can we do it?...if you weren't already asking.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
On Economics
Wow, has the stock market taken a pounding today. The fallout from all the Obama talking and not producing is becoming starkly clear. Between the Dow falling back below 10,000 and the 800,000 plus extra jobs lost, things are bleak indeed.
To quote Mark Levin, "WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO MY COUNTRY!!!!"
And on another note, I joined Facebook today. People do spend too much time there. And I tried to use the much touted Portland Oregon public transportation system today. What a joke. No place to park. The system seems to break down at the point where you need to leave your car. Nice try, guys. Long live the automobile! If I don't drive to the point where I catch the train, I have to spend an hour on the bus. So it becomes a two hour trip to the airport which is really only twenty or twenty-five minutes away. Makes no sense.
To quote Mark Levin, "WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO MY COUNTRY!!!!"
And on another note, I joined Facebook today. People do spend too much time there. And I tried to use the much touted Portland Oregon public transportation system today. What a joke. No place to park. The system seems to break down at the point where you need to leave your car. Nice try, guys. Long live the automobile! If I don't drive to the point where I catch the train, I have to spend an hour on the bus. So it becomes a two hour trip to the airport which is really only twenty or twenty-five minutes away. Makes no sense.
On Books
I am reading The Next 100 Years by George Friedman. In the "Russia 2020" he points out the importance of Poland as a buffer between Western Europe and Russia on the Northern European Plain. He purposes that the United States will come to the aid of Poland if Russia flexes her muscles in the direction of Poland and the Baltic states. I was struck by how wrong he might turn out to be if Obama remains in office past 2012 or if the threat is made before he leaves office in 2012. Obama has already canceled missile defense system for Eastern Europe that was promised by the Bush administration. It was to be sited in Poland and the Czech Republic particularly. Friedman predicts a geopolitical scenario for the next 100 years in which the United States remains a world power. I posit that if Obama remains in the White House and the Democrats maintain control of Congress, the United States is going to completely collapse under the weight of overwhelming debt and underwhelming support for our allies around the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
