There's been a significant number of headlines recently regarding how the American military will proceed in Afghanistan. The higher ups will make their decisions, and what happens will happen. But here's something I've been thinking about: How heavily would a military cutback influence unemployment?
I mean, there are approximately 1.3 million active military personnel right now (DoD). There are approximately 15.1 million unemployed (and another 9.8 million underemployed). So if 1.3million Americans came home without jobs, that'd bump up our unemployment total to 16.4million, or about 10.6 percent (or 17% if we calculate it the same way they did in the depression).
Now obviously all the soldiers wouldn't come home, and in truth I'm trying to make a point around the concept, not the actual #'s. But if you are a congressman or senator at some point you have to think: "Damn, if we end this war and that war and such, what the hell is my state going to do with all those soldiers at home without work?" And, conversely: "Gee if we sent more soldiers over that'd be a lot less unemployed people in my state." I mean, there are approximately 700,000 soldiers in reserve. Thats a lot of jobs....
Anyway, I guess I'm just realizing that the decision to ramp up in Afghanistan or to bail out is a lot more complicated than just our ability to accomplish our objectives.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Broken?
What am I trying to say?
The system is broken because of the unwritten way things are done. Earmarks and party lines cloud the ability of a senator or representative to actually represent the people he is supposed to. These public figureheads can't actually have an opinion of what should be done, because
1) if they do, it has to be in alignment with the people he is supposed to represent and
2) if they don't, can they really be fucking human? And
3) Once they are there, the only way to stay there is to make sure enough people like you.
Special lobby groups and financeers must also like you, or they will like someone else more and you won't be able to accomplish anything in your short term. So you have to battle between doing your job, being human, and not playing into any special interests. This is the sytem I'm talking about. Whats written, the constitution, I have issues with as well but thats not what we are talking about. For the sake of this argument, I support that. I'm talking about the environmental system that has been created around politics and the way people have to operate inside of it.
Because of it, AIG gets bailed out and their CEO gets a $3 million a year salary. 145 million was paid in bonuses to the division in AIG that performed the worst. On 65% taxpayer investment. I'm guessing that a majority of Americans did not support bailing out AIG, nor did they support any of the legislature that has been created, or enforced, in the AIG deal. So why did it happen? Does that question really matter if the people aren't being represented? I'm aware that economists know more about the economy than I do, and that there are far smarter people than me. But, again, who cares since I am the one that is supposed to be represented. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but isn't there a problem if my say on the matter isn't important because "dude with a doctorates in xyz says otherwise?" Wasn't our sytem actually created because "dude with a crown says otherwise?"
This is just one example, but how many do you need before you recognize that the system that is supposed to represent you isn't doing so? Thats an honest, open ended question. Answer it, how many? To be fair, counter it with asking yourself how many you need to see that do represent you in order for you to feel like its fair. You can't win em all, thats a democracy issue. For me, I see more that I dissent from than I agree with, and I feel like a large majority of the population, especially our generation, feels the same. We aren't represented, the things that are important to us are not getting funding correctly, the things that are less important to us, are. That simple statement, to me, displays a gap that I am not comfortable with and feel must be spoken about and, over time, changed.
Simple exercise time: I'm going to list 5 things that are important to me about our country. They are obviously broad, and everyone is going to have their own list. Next to each one I'm going to put a Y or an N, a Y indicating I feel like that issue is being represented and handled how I would like it to be, and an N indicates otherwise. Do so yourself, but make sure and list the issues first, THEN go back and do the Y and N thing. Also, I'm not going to rant about each one, just a simple explanation of why I feel this way.
1) Educational Funding
2) Personal Liberties protected from Government control
3) Sustainable economy
4) Sustainable Environment
5)Military presence
1) N - Schools are expected to do more and more with less and less. We are still using educational systems/structures.strategies from the 1920's.
2) N - See the patriot Act, Enemy combatant classification, DNF lists, and "transparency"
3) N - We don't actually produce much here in the U.S., see Derivatives.
5) N - We've created a half system to start going sustainable, but its being dodged legally through "credit trading."
4) Y - Our military does kick ass.
I'd never done that before. I just took a few minutes and picked my top 5. It was hard to come up with a 5th, but I feel that military protection is still on my list. I don't feel that 1/5 is good enough for a country and a system that is supposed to represent me. Again, I could be wrong, or in the minority, in which case my point is proved incorrect. I hope you've actually take a few minutes and thought about each question I asked about, they weren't rhetorical. If you haven't, do so, see how you feel.
The system is broken because of the unwritten way things are done. Earmarks and party lines cloud the ability of a senator or representative to actually represent the people he is supposed to. These public figureheads can't actually have an opinion of what should be done, because
1) if they do, it has to be in alignment with the people he is supposed to represent and
2) if they don't, can they really be fucking human? And
3) Once they are there, the only way to stay there is to make sure enough people like you.
Special lobby groups and financeers must also like you, or they will like someone else more and you won't be able to accomplish anything in your short term. So you have to battle between doing your job, being human, and not playing into any special interests. This is the sytem I'm talking about. Whats written, the constitution, I have issues with as well but thats not what we are talking about. For the sake of this argument, I support that. I'm talking about the environmental system that has been created around politics and the way people have to operate inside of it.
Because of it, AIG gets bailed out and their CEO gets a $3 million a year salary. 145 million was paid in bonuses to the division in AIG that performed the worst. On 65% taxpayer investment. I'm guessing that a majority of Americans did not support bailing out AIG, nor did they support any of the legislature that has been created, or enforced, in the AIG deal. So why did it happen? Does that question really matter if the people aren't being represented? I'm aware that economists know more about the economy than I do, and that there are far smarter people than me. But, again, who cares since I am the one that is supposed to be represented. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but isn't there a problem if my say on the matter isn't important because "dude with a doctorates in xyz says otherwise?" Wasn't our sytem actually created because "dude with a crown says otherwise?"
This is just one example, but how many do you need before you recognize that the system that is supposed to represent you isn't doing so? Thats an honest, open ended question. Answer it, how many? To be fair, counter it with asking yourself how many you need to see that do represent you in order for you to feel like its fair. You can't win em all, thats a democracy issue. For me, I see more that I dissent from than I agree with, and I feel like a large majority of the population, especially our generation, feels the same. We aren't represented, the things that are important to us are not getting funding correctly, the things that are less important to us, are. That simple statement, to me, displays a gap that I am not comfortable with and feel must be spoken about and, over time, changed.
Simple exercise time: I'm going to list 5 things that are important to me about our country. They are obviously broad, and everyone is going to have their own list. Next to each one I'm going to put a Y or an N, a Y indicating I feel like that issue is being represented and handled how I would like it to be, and an N indicates otherwise. Do so yourself, but make sure and list the issues first, THEN go back and do the Y and N thing. Also, I'm not going to rant about each one, just a simple explanation of why I feel this way.
1) Educational Funding
2) Personal Liberties protected from Government control
3) Sustainable economy
4) Sustainable Environment
5)Military presence
1) N - Schools are expected to do more and more with less and less. We are still using educational systems/structures.strategies from the 1920's.
2) N - See the patriot Act, Enemy combatant classification, DNF lists, and "transparency"
3) N - We don't actually produce much here in the U.S., see Derivatives.
5) N - We've created a half system to start going sustainable, but its being dodged legally through "credit trading."
4) Y - Our military does kick ass.
I'd never done that before. I just took a few minutes and picked my top 5. It was hard to come up with a 5th, but I feel that military protection is still on my list. I don't feel that 1/5 is good enough for a country and a system that is supposed to represent me. Again, I could be wrong, or in the minority, in which case my point is proved incorrect. I hope you've actually take a few minutes and thought about each question I asked about, they weren't rhetorical. If you haven't, do so, see how you feel.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Greatness
So what is it that makes someone great? I think of Michael Jordan and the stories I grew up listening to about his work ethic, how he didn’t make the team his freshman and sophomore years but spent those years working hard, so that he would eventually become the player who would go off to Chapel hill and make his mark. You compare that to the legend that he created with that work ethic, and what do you have? Is it greatness? Undoubtedly.
Sticking with basketball as a theme, look at Lebrone, Koby, Carmello…we’ve heard jordanesque stories about Bryant’s work ethic in Highschool and into the pro’s. But can any of us really say that these giants became great just by work ethic? Do you mean to tell me that Steve Erkle could spend that much time in the gym and see that type of success? This brings me around to my point, greatness. Where does it stem from? Is it inherent; a person is born with a greatness inside of them that needs to be unleashed? Is it created with the work ethic stories of Jordan, Bryant, and others? Is it based on what a person actually does, not where they come from, as in the case of Benjamin Franklin? Can someone just BE brilliant and amazing and have that light shine just as brightly as the person who works day in and day out at accomplishing it?
And if so, which do we respect more? Certainly we’ll see the same paradoxical views of the bourgeois and the proletariat; one awarding the path taken, the other the destination arrived at. Which is it? Does it come down to, then, where we (the audience of greatness) come from? I have a hard time with that. My brain wants to impose a uniform right, something that shines as good, better, best in every circumstance. Perhaps this need to contrast is born of our desire to be great ourselves, out of a need to understand how to accomplish it. Or maybe its just an exercise in futility to try and get it at all. My point.
Could there be a 3rd view, a time where Jordan just was. Where Bill Gates just did. Where Franklin just existed. And the focused improvement stopped. A time where, they were great, and existing in their greatness was a constant improvement, not born of a need to achieve, but of a pure existence. I doubt I’ll ever have the chance to ask the men I mention above, but the concept still intrigues me. I feel that if we arrived at that state, a place where by our very natural existence we improved, not consciously, but organically, that anyone could then shine as brilliant. I have to impose another opinion, that in the times where we organically shine, the light shines brighter than anything we could have worked at, anything we could have drawn up with our consciousness.
I think of my times on the basketball court, when I’m firing on all cylinders, and sometimes I rethink the things I did in the moment, the times when I’m playing out of my head and just existing. Those are the moments that make me feel this way, when I KNOW there is no way I could ever have intended to do the things I was doing, they just happened. Now, basketball is one of my creative outlets, but pick yours. Think of something that you just fall completely into; art, music, video games, poker, sports, flirting, sales, learning, anything. I only have my experiences to draw on, but don’t you love it when you just ARE in your element? Don’t you feel like the things that come out of it are so much grander than anytime you push yourself to do it?
Obviously you had to push to get to that state of existence, but the greatest greatness truly comes out when you just flow, when you just exist. Perhaps I’m being redundant, but this is what I want to aim at. I want to just be. So what’s the challenge, what’s the hardship? Well, I could always be wrong. And there is an obvious oxymoronical quality built into this view; aiming at greatness by not aiming at all….I didn’t say it was perfect nor complete. However, I want to try and cling to this view, to trend that direction, to let my life BE great, not work to make it great. Lets see what happens.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Choices
I often wonder how other people make decisions. What is the process your noodle runs you through to help you decide A or B, this or that? For many people I feel it is a process of pro's and con's; morality, reality, logic, emotion, etc all weigh in and create an equation such as
Action X = Outcome Y + Consequence Z
How do you feel about that? Personally I can't help but wonder why we do it this way. I feel like we focus more on the outcome and the consequence than on the action itself. Whatever happened to doing what you felt you were supposed to do, just because? Is it an American thing, where we don't want to eat the responsibilities of our actions that cause us to focus on the consequences? I talk to friends about what they want to do with their lives or relationships or even insignificant things and what I tend to hear is "well I want to do this, but I think that will happen if I do." Why does that matter?
Here's a different look at it. What if we were to do what we felt was the right thing to do, each and every time. And, instead of even thinking about the outcome and/or consequences, we just went with it. Have you ever done that? To me it seems like a much simpler equation:
Action X = Right Choice
Now, the question probably ensues, "but how do I know if its the right choice if I don't think about the consequences or at least think I know how it will turn out?" To this I would answer, "you're thinking about the question incorrectly." Right choice doesn't mean that it will be the most convenient to you, or have a favorable outcome. When we look at the outcome and consequences, all we are usually doing is making sure we can live with the inconveniences our action will cause. So, lets remove those elements, as the equation above shows us.
What happens? It could happen that you get better and better at knowing what the right choice is. Can you really tell me that you DON'T want that in your life? Also, it may just make us a little more accountable for our actions, teach us how to take full responsibility. Again, you don't want this? Lastly, and here's the real winner for me: If I'm always doing what I feel is the right thing, will I ever feel guilty about my actions? Will my consience war with me? Could it just so happen that by doing the right thing, the responsibility we do have to take grows easier and easier and, may in fact, diminish over time?
I guess you now have an idea about how I try to make decisions. It's not perfect, of course we're going to make the wrong choice along the way. But you do get better and better at it, and the peace it affords your brainpan and heart is well worth it.
Action X = Outcome Y + Consequence Z
How do you feel about that? Personally I can't help but wonder why we do it this way. I feel like we focus more on the outcome and the consequence than on the action itself. Whatever happened to doing what you felt you were supposed to do, just because? Is it an American thing, where we don't want to eat the responsibilities of our actions that cause us to focus on the consequences? I talk to friends about what they want to do with their lives or relationships or even insignificant things and what I tend to hear is "well I want to do this, but I think that will happen if I do." Why does that matter?
Here's a different look at it. What if we were to do what we felt was the right thing to do, each and every time. And, instead of even thinking about the outcome and/or consequences, we just went with it. Have you ever done that? To me it seems like a much simpler equation:
Action X = Right Choice
Now, the question probably ensues, "but how do I know if its the right choice if I don't think about the consequences or at least think I know how it will turn out?" To this I would answer, "you're thinking about the question incorrectly." Right choice doesn't mean that it will be the most convenient to you, or have a favorable outcome. When we look at the outcome and consequences, all we are usually doing is making sure we can live with the inconveniences our action will cause. So, lets remove those elements, as the equation above shows us.
What happens? It could happen that you get better and better at knowing what the right choice is. Can you really tell me that you DON'T want that in your life? Also, it may just make us a little more accountable for our actions, teach us how to take full responsibility. Again, you don't want this? Lastly, and here's the real winner for me: If I'm always doing what I feel is the right thing, will I ever feel guilty about my actions? Will my consience war with me? Could it just so happen that by doing the right thing, the responsibility we do have to take grows easier and easier and, may in fact, diminish over time?
I guess you now have an idea about how I try to make decisions. It's not perfect, of course we're going to make the wrong choice along the way. But you do get better and better at it, and the peace it affords your brainpan and heart is well worth it.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
"The best solution to the problem"
I feel like we have lost the ability, or at least the desire, to ask ourselves "is this the best solution to the problem?" Even if we do ask the question, we often integrate current solutions into our answer, typically manifesting an improved answer, but not the best.
I'm not going to go into why or how we've arrived here, though I will have to think on those subjects, but allow me to illustrate some examples:
Money is the most renewable resource in the world. Time is the least. 99% of people work in a setup where they trade their least renewable resource for their most renewable one. In ancient bartering days, these people would be getting royally ripped off...thats like trading water for sand in the middle of the Sahara. How then, can I justify ever working an hourly job again? What is the solution?
If the combustion engine had never been invented, what would our solution be to the transportation issues we face? We all know we are using up exhaustible resources with our current solution, but all we are doing is improving what already exists; thatis switching to hybrid fuels, electric cars, etc. But they are still automobiles. What other solutions exist to get a person rapidly from A to B en masse?
What about housing? We use our homes to provide shelter from the elements, storage, a place to put a bed, park our cars, store and prepare our food, entertain, bathe ourselves, etc. If you made a list of all the functions a house performs, could you construct a better solution to the problem?
I will quote a friend, albeit abstractly, and paraphrase in this way:
"Am I willing to give up everything that I know in order to discover that which I don't?"
I'm not going to go into why or how we've arrived here, though I will have to think on those subjects, but allow me to illustrate some examples:
Money is the most renewable resource in the world. Time is the least. 99% of people work in a setup where they trade their least renewable resource for their most renewable one. In ancient bartering days, these people would be getting royally ripped off...thats like trading water for sand in the middle of the Sahara. How then, can I justify ever working an hourly job again? What is the solution?
If the combustion engine had never been invented, what would our solution be to the transportation issues we face? We all know we are using up exhaustible resources with our current solution, but all we are doing is improving what already exists; thatis switching to hybrid fuels, electric cars, etc. But they are still automobiles. What other solutions exist to get a person rapidly from A to B en masse?
What about housing? We use our homes to provide shelter from the elements, storage, a place to put a bed, park our cars, store and prepare our food, entertain, bathe ourselves, etc. If you made a list of all the functions a house performs, could you construct a better solution to the problem?
I will quote a friend, albeit abstractly, and paraphrase in this way:
"Am I willing to give up everything that I know in order to discover that which I don't?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
