The New England Patriots are a very fine organization, they seem to have mastered all the best organizational theory, all corporations can learn from them, Bill Belichick seems to be a master of organizational theory. Did I say 'organizational theory'? Yes. I did. I predict a 41-10 victory for the NE Patriots in the Super Bowl, because of the superior organizational ability.
Monday, January 31, 2005
The Iraqi elections were a success because they happened. The Shiite 'secular' slate will take power as expected. The power of democracy is a scary thing. In some countries in the region democracy would mean a scary government comes to control, because religious fundamentalism is so pervasive in the 'middle east'. In Egypt a free election might result in an Iran-style regime. In Saudi Arabia a free election would shock the West because the fundamentalists would easily win in the home of Islam. Would we be prepared for that? The introduction of free voting into the middle east raises these questions.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
We are all waiting on the results of the Iraqi election. Of course Iraq has had elections before, just a couple years ago they had one and Saddam Hussien won 99.9% of the vote, it makes you wonder what kind of lunatics voted against him. It looks like the Shiite and Kurd vote may be heavy and the Sunni vote will be only extremely brave people. Very sad, such a chaotic situation, we can't protect our own embassy or green zone, 150000 troops are not hardly enough, remember in the 1991 Gulf War we had 400000 troops available, we even had a French armored division helping, if Bush Sr. had decided to occupy then we would have avoided the whole ugly decade of sanctions and the UN Oil-for-Food fiasco., saving many innocent lives.
Well, everybody complains about Iraq, I suppose that's not blogable news.
Why did we need to invade when we did? Not to avoid the sandstorms, since they hit during the invasion; to avoid the heat of summer, that's the most plausible answer. The UN inspectors had found nothing by February, 2003, and their judgement has proven all too true. But the Bush adminstration had faith in their instincts, they were sure Saddam was hiding things. Now we know that the Iraqi-omnipotent Saddam had entered into a phase of madness some absolute dictators fall into and was spending most of his time writing romantic novels during his final years. He may even have thought he was developing WMDs but it has been revealed that any such program was a corrupt sham his scientists were pulling, because corruption becomes the way of life in a degenerate regime.
Many people want us to pull out immediately from Iraq, what kind of country would result from that? It is an unknown unknown.
The invasion of Iraq ranks as a major roll of the dice with history; it seems to be a Pandora's Box of history, the whole consequences cannot be known. Great just what we want for our future, major uncertainties, after 9/11 we did not need to mess up our image which was highly sympathetic with unnecessary invasions of third party countries just because they had oil, or defied the father of the current president.
Well, everybody complains about Iraq, I suppose that's not blogable news.
Why did we need to invade when we did? Not to avoid the sandstorms, since they hit during the invasion; to avoid the heat of summer, that's the most plausible answer. The UN inspectors had found nothing by February, 2003, and their judgement has proven all too true. But the Bush adminstration had faith in their instincts, they were sure Saddam was hiding things. Now we know that the Iraqi-omnipotent Saddam had entered into a phase of madness some absolute dictators fall into and was spending most of his time writing romantic novels during his final years. He may even have thought he was developing WMDs but it has been revealed that any such program was a corrupt sham his scientists were pulling, because corruption becomes the way of life in a degenerate regime.
Many people want us to pull out immediately from Iraq, what kind of country would result from that? It is an unknown unknown.
The invasion of Iraq ranks as a major roll of the dice with history; it seems to be a Pandora's Box of history, the whole consequences cannot be known. Great just what we want for our future, major uncertainties, after 9/11 we did not need to mess up our image which was highly sympathetic with unnecessary invasions of third party countries just because they had oil, or defied the father of the current president.
Monday, January 24, 2005
Is there a need for the United States to style itself as the active agent for the advancement of democracy in the world, and if so is the current administration to right team for the job; this is a loaded question, of course, for those of us dismayed at the inadequate, hopefully not too disastrous nation-building in Iraq. But the Iraq model of occupation cannot be the template because our military does not have flexibility anymore, it is tied down to the existing commitments. If it were possible to bomb a nation into democracy, we still have plenty of uncommitted naval and air force power to shine that torch, and before you laugh remember Afghanistan; success there involved leveraging alliances with groups that served as the boots on the ground.
However, the progress of the establishment of democratic institutions in this world has been steady and very encouraging for the last 20 years, since the remarkable and template-forging People Power revolution in The Phillipine overthrew the archetypical strong man Marcos regime. Without any American military deployments, there has been what you might call successful organic native democratic movements in a very significant number of countries, upending right wing power monopolies in South Korea, Argentina, Chile, Taiwan and South Africa; the transformation of the entire Soviet bloc with another famous people power revolution in Romania and the submission of the Communists to Yeltsin in Russia, and the formation of stable responsible governments in formerly no-hope places like Uganda and El Salvador. Spain and Portugal are completely Europeanized, Serbia and Croatia tired of their demogogues, Turkey is a model of Islamic democracy, and even Mexico elected an oppostion government. Three years ago Indonesia lost its dictatorship, two years ago Georgia had its Rose Revolution, and this year Ukraine decided it was a modern Europrean nation. Every nation that modernizes finds itself transforming into a democracy. The Communist Party of China has found a way to ride the wave, but really the clock is ticking on their extended control. That nation has loosened up quite a bit from the bad old days, the party that crushed the students in Tientamin Square 16 years ago will have their day of reckoning, I predict it will be no more than 16 years from now, and Vietnam too. Still there are many places where democracy is a dirty word, particularly in the areas of religious fundamentalism, and we all know what I'm talking about. Is this what George W. Bush is talking about? Well, President Tunnel Vision is envisioning Iran and Syria, but awkwardly for him that region also contains friends, yes even family friends, who rule with very few pretenses about humoring the democratic impulse. Actually in that region there are cases where the prospect of a free election raises the spector of elected fanatics who could carry a larger majority than Hitler's vote in 1933 (what was that, 34%?).
So with the world turning towards civil government, but with many stubborn cases in the Mideast and Africa, where is it profitable for interventions by the Bush administration, which the whole world knows as a group with simplistic hamfisted impulses backed up by fire power? The problem is provoking a backlash, and what is the insurgency in Iraq other than a backlash? Of course this coterie of American leadership has had opportunities in Haiti and Liberia to prove how much it loves democracy, without prompting much of a commitment from it. One must face the obvious conclusion that they just wanted to take out Iraq, and everything else has been postured around propping up this move, from The Roadmap to the recent bombastic second Inaugaral Address. The grand principles are just a show, a case of just say anything you have to in order to justify the invasion fo Iraq, either for Bush's father complex or Cheney's oil complex, probably both. Maybe the overall effect will be positive, with emerging democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the problem is maybe it won't, because the flaw is the unrevolsed conflicts in both of these places. Iraq seems to be a kind of Pandora's Box, the continuing consequences of this troubled occupation throwing all plans into doubt. Across the border in Iran there was a very promising democratic movement, currently hobbled, and the confrontational situation between the Bush crowd and the mullahs have probably done nothing but harm to the future of the once-strong Iranian democratic movement, just playing into the hands of those who thrive on facing down America. Well, that may be an unfair statement to the Bush people, the theocrats were never going to just let Iran go the way the people wanted, they are truly religious, and their God doesn't want democracy, and the flippant materialistic TV culture that always accompanies it. Yes, the problem with democracy is that most people have no taste. The more democratic America gets the less prestige is attached to acting classy, because the people are ruled by their guts and groins. Leveling and the least common denominator is a necessary phase of equalization, but as time passes we can hope for improvements in the general consciousness of the masses, with education it happens. A fatuous consumer culture is an improvement on tyranny and human rights abuses, because at least the people get the taste for thinking for themselves. If the people just want to enjoy life as they see fit they should be allowed to, without know-it-alls telling them what to do, that kind of treatment just leads to frustration and resentment, which isn't good for anybody.
But at this point are there benefits attached to the threatening Bush "doctrine" (geez is it a doctrine? That's kind of an educated word for the simple policies of the administration). It really seems to be just words addressed to Iran and Syria, it's hard to believe they care what goes on in Zimbabwe or Myanmar, they've never shown the slightest interest in places like that, the non-headline making oil-free corners of the world. Bush is from Texas and I'm sorry but the Texan attitude is frankly offensively simple, I've worked with Texans and the bad taste lingers, with their corny awful jokes and callous selfishness. So what we have is just rhetoric bent to a purpose, maybe if they're lucky it has some positive effect, but one look at the wonders they've worked in Iraq cures any person of the belief that Bush means what he says in any practical way.
Well, I don't feel confident predicting the future, maybe the hamfisted Bush approach will have some lasting positive effect; Jimmy Carter's ineffectual administration left a lasting impression because of the principles he put forth, though in practice he backed the Shah.
If a vote were held in Saudi Arabia tomorrow I wouldn't expect any result other than an intolerant theocracy, does anybody other than a Saudi want that for the world's most crucial oil reserve? Does anybody expect the best from a free election in Egypt or Jordan? Maybe this is unfair commentary but there is reason to fear the worst. Look at Algeria.
The simpletons will run America for another four years, I hope their God has mercy on the rest of us.
However, the progress of the establishment of democratic institutions in this world has been steady and very encouraging for the last 20 years, since the remarkable and template-forging People Power revolution in The Phillipine overthrew the archetypical strong man Marcos regime. Without any American military deployments, there has been what you might call successful organic native democratic movements in a very significant number of countries, upending right wing power monopolies in South Korea, Argentina, Chile, Taiwan and South Africa; the transformation of the entire Soviet bloc with another famous people power revolution in Romania and the submission of the Communists to Yeltsin in Russia, and the formation of stable responsible governments in formerly no-hope places like Uganda and El Salvador. Spain and Portugal are completely Europeanized, Serbia and Croatia tired of their demogogues, Turkey is a model of Islamic democracy, and even Mexico elected an oppostion government. Three years ago Indonesia lost its dictatorship, two years ago Georgia had its Rose Revolution, and this year Ukraine decided it was a modern Europrean nation. Every nation that modernizes finds itself transforming into a democracy. The Communist Party of China has found a way to ride the wave, but really the clock is ticking on their extended control. That nation has loosened up quite a bit from the bad old days, the party that crushed the students in Tientamin Square 16 years ago will have their day of reckoning, I predict it will be no more than 16 years from now, and Vietnam too. Still there are many places where democracy is a dirty word, particularly in the areas of religious fundamentalism, and we all know what I'm talking about. Is this what George W. Bush is talking about? Well, President Tunnel Vision is envisioning Iran and Syria, but awkwardly for him that region also contains friends, yes even family friends, who rule with very few pretenses about humoring the democratic impulse. Actually in that region there are cases where the prospect of a free election raises the spector of elected fanatics who could carry a larger majority than Hitler's vote in 1933 (what was that, 34%?).
So with the world turning towards civil government, but with many stubborn cases in the Mideast and Africa, where is it profitable for interventions by the Bush administration, which the whole world knows as a group with simplistic hamfisted impulses backed up by fire power? The problem is provoking a backlash, and what is the insurgency in Iraq other than a backlash? Of course this coterie of American leadership has had opportunities in Haiti and Liberia to prove how much it loves democracy, without prompting much of a commitment from it. One must face the obvious conclusion that they just wanted to take out Iraq, and everything else has been postured around propping up this move, from The Roadmap to the recent bombastic second Inaugaral Address. The grand principles are just a show, a case of just say anything you have to in order to justify the invasion fo Iraq, either for Bush's father complex or Cheney's oil complex, probably both. Maybe the overall effect will be positive, with emerging democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the problem is maybe it won't, because the flaw is the unrevolsed conflicts in both of these places. Iraq seems to be a kind of Pandora's Box, the continuing consequences of this troubled occupation throwing all plans into doubt. Across the border in Iran there was a very promising democratic movement, currently hobbled, and the confrontational situation between the Bush crowd and the mullahs have probably done nothing but harm to the future of the once-strong Iranian democratic movement, just playing into the hands of those who thrive on facing down America. Well, that may be an unfair statement to the Bush people, the theocrats were never going to just let Iran go the way the people wanted, they are truly religious, and their God doesn't want democracy, and the flippant materialistic TV culture that always accompanies it. Yes, the problem with democracy is that most people have no taste. The more democratic America gets the less prestige is attached to acting classy, because the people are ruled by their guts and groins. Leveling and the least common denominator is a necessary phase of equalization, but as time passes we can hope for improvements in the general consciousness of the masses, with education it happens. A fatuous consumer culture is an improvement on tyranny and human rights abuses, because at least the people get the taste for thinking for themselves. If the people just want to enjoy life as they see fit they should be allowed to, without know-it-alls telling them what to do, that kind of treatment just leads to frustration and resentment, which isn't good for anybody.
But at this point are there benefits attached to the threatening Bush "doctrine" (geez is it a doctrine? That's kind of an educated word for the simple policies of the administration). It really seems to be just words addressed to Iran and Syria, it's hard to believe they care what goes on in Zimbabwe or Myanmar, they've never shown the slightest interest in places like that, the non-headline making oil-free corners of the world. Bush is from Texas and I'm sorry but the Texan attitude is frankly offensively simple, I've worked with Texans and the bad taste lingers, with their corny awful jokes and callous selfishness. So what we have is just rhetoric bent to a purpose, maybe if they're lucky it has some positive effect, but one look at the wonders they've worked in Iraq cures any person of the belief that Bush means what he says in any practical way.
Well, I don't feel confident predicting the future, maybe the hamfisted Bush approach will have some lasting positive effect; Jimmy Carter's ineffectual administration left a lasting impression because of the principles he put forth, though in practice he backed the Shah.
If a vote were held in Saudi Arabia tomorrow I wouldn't expect any result other than an intolerant theocracy, does anybody other than a Saudi want that for the world's most crucial oil reserve? Does anybody expect the best from a free election in Egypt or Jordan? Maybe this is unfair commentary but there is reason to fear the worst. Look at Algeria.
The simpletons will run America for another four years, I hope their God has mercy on the rest of us.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
I live near Boston and have been following tonight's breaking red alert story about the dirty bomb terrorists who were smuggled over the Mexican border. The smuggler ratted them out? But why would such poeple reveal their plot to this guy and let him live? Are we seeing a feint to distract from another target?
On the John Batchelor radio show tonight he had a guest who said the Brownsville area smuggling king is connected with an East Boston gang of foul repute. Illegal aliens can't just drive to where they want to end up, somebody has to handle the domestic freight. This might make Boston a target of convenience.
Today is both Inaugaration Day and a Muslim Feast.
On the John Batchelor radio show tonight he had a guest who said the Brownsville area smuggling king is connected with an East Boston gang of foul repute. Illegal aliens can't just drive to where they want to end up, somebody has to handle the domestic freight. This might make Boston a target of convenience.
Today is both Inaugaration Day and a Muslim Feast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)