Political Arena - Do We Need a Third Force?

           Watching all recent and not so recent political circus in Washington, DC, a simple question comes to mind. Which party represents the middle class?
           Really, is middle class represented in the Senate and the House? Does any party look out for it, promote it's values, fight for it's well-being, provide any benefits to the back-bone of our society? Who actually stands for the middle class, irrespective of race, religion or no religion, ethnic groups and so on? The Democrats? Hell no. They just want to - or, as many say, rather claim they do - represent the "underprivileged". Most of them - or at least the left wing and the center - are carried away by ideology of neo-socialism, constantly bumbling about redistribution of income, free stuff for people who never worked in their life and for a strings of youth in new generation with not even intention to work. We constantly hear mumbo-jumbo about political correctness, rights of any new and than newer underdog groups etc. I can bet the next object of their care and promotional efforts will be the polygamists... And who is going to pay for this, the endless privileges which are granted to the underprivileged - who are currently much more privileged than your typical middle class folks. The answer is obvious, although most of the Democrats in DC, apparently with J.D., Master Degree or better seem to misunderstand that. Were these guys and gals - including infamous agitator of fairness and equality Dr. Reich - drinking beer or smoking pot while they taught Economics 101 in their Ivy League undergrad school?
         Now - before hard-core liberals accuse me of being a racist, gay hater or peg me with some more of their favorite labels, let me say this. I am all against discrimination of any possible group, be it race, ethnicity, religion, LGBT or polygamists.  I strongly believe our society is obligated to help disabled and elderly. I am all for equality in Opportunity. But not equality of income or possessions. They tried it in the USSR and their satellites. And they failed. Not only there was no equality. There was no freedom of any kind. There was no opportunity. And hundreds of millions lost their lives in the labor camps, in KGB shooting ranges or from starvation and abuse right there on the streets.
         Some say the Republicans are the middle class party. No kidding? In any unbiased view they are not. They mostly represent themselves, their political ambitions, their "principals" whatever they are. Take a look at Mr. McCain, their candidate in 2008 election. What they were thinking, we are electing a keynote speaker for retards conference? The party is in disarray, with arguably many "potential" leaders but no the real one. And with their usually unconvincing talk about entitlements, most of them fail to mention that the Social Security and Medicare are earned by people working for 30-40 -50 years, paying taxes in multiple shapes & forms, raising children and fighting for our country - so these people are really "entitled" to their benefits in later years. In short, the party is in ruins. Will it emerge from the ashes like Phoenix bird? Your guess - or analysis is as good as mine.
        Rephrasing Martin Luther King, I have a dream. I want a political party for the middle class, politically conservative but open-minded for needed reforms, socially liberal without promoting government dependency, fiscally responsible, founded based on middle class needs & wants. The party which will attract millions and millions from across America and make our country great again. Maybe moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats will split from their current associations, unite and create a nucleolus for it? Or am I really dreaming?
       

What US attack on Syria will achieve?

            The Senate and the Congress are poised to vote on President Obama's request to launch an attack on Syria. Let's stop for a quick moment and try to analyze what exactly the proposed military action is going to achieve. 
             1. Sending a message to President al-Assad that the usage of chemical weapons is wrong and "punish" him?
 Maybe, if his government was the one who initiated the attack. Okay, the evidence may show that sarin was indeed used - but by whom? Are we absolutely sure the so called rebels did not use the gas? Where is the evidence that it has been used by the military? Stating a national security reason to decline making this evidence public is not good enough. Additionally, does either side care about what's wrong and what's not while they kill each other? I don't think so.
             2. Will this stop the war and all the atrocities committed by both sides, as it's always done during a civil war?
By no means. It's not even intended to stop the Syrians from fighting. Nobody at either side will change their mind no matter what. Keep in mind, it's not merely political reasons they fight about, it's Shia as the ruling elite against Sunnis.
              3. Will this help the rebels, some of which are reportedly associated with al-Qaeda and some of them known to commit atrocities?
It could, mostly in their morality. Nevertheless, they would not like us any more than they do now. I'd say, not at all. Is that what we want?
              4. Are we going to go ahead and kill some people from the Syrian government or military? Which people exactly? What is the expected outcome?
              5. Will this help with American image around the world?
This attack will hurt it even more as Americans will be looked at as warmongers, exercising their power against a smaller and weaker country ones again. Were Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq not enough, no matter the cause?
              6. Will this show to everyone America's determination to be a "world's police"?
Yes it will, and this should undoubtedly add to the widespread hate and disgust about the policies of our country which is there already. Do we want that? What moral reason do we have for that role? And are we even capable of carrying it out both in present time and in the future?
              7. Are we trying to divert some harm to America? No, President Obama declared that he could not state there is an "imminent, direct threat" to American people from Syrian conflict. So why are we going to war, even a "limited war"?
              8. We talked the talk, now we want to walk the walk?
Come on, we are not going to start a bar fight. We are starting the war. Again. And with a cause that would not look so good a few years from now. Not even for many people currently supporting the action.
               Let's take a look around the world. G20 summit did not support it. European Union - ditto. The Arab League is against it. BRICS block (Brazil, Russia,India, China and South Africa), representing almost 3.5 billion people, are against it. British Parliament voted against it. France & some others support it, but is it just in political sense. Maybe they are willing to help with logistics as well. No, merci bouquet .You guys want to help - go to the front lines yourself. Or send your own bombers with your own pilots.
               So why are we even discussing that? Don't we have our own problems at home? Don't we have a budget deficit which prevents us from running some programs to help our own people? Wars are expensive. And even if no ground troops will be used this time, our people will die in logistics and other accidents. These are always on the rise under while carrying out military actions.
                And who could promise us that there is not going to be the escalation of war? How many times it happen in history, both ours & around the world? The conflicts start small & than grow on everyone like a mushroom. Let's call on Congress and Senate to stop that before it's too late.

Could hard working be a liberal principle?

           Paul Begala ran a piece on CNN site with another typical attack on Sara Palin. Now I am not going to defend Mrs. Palin here. I am not even a huge fan of her; I am just amazed how liberals wouldn't let go a single word by the woman without making fun of her and trying to paint a decent human being and the mother of five into a carton character.
            The thing I would like to talk about is the issue of hard working. Mr. Begala is trying to place hard working into a long list of liberal values. Although I was tempted to write an immediate response to this rather amusing statement, I could not do so without first laughing for quite some time. Paul Begala is a skillful political consultant and a commentator; he can make up a case that the Sun shows from the West in the morning (and maybe it is in a political sense) and that it's good to NOT read Fox News site before  going to bed at night (this could be true as well as one would learn too many disturbing things). But hard labor is not a liberal thing. It simply ain't and never was.
              Now don't get me wrong. Many liberals themselves - and I assume Mr. Begala is one of them - are very hard-working people. I will leave alone the substance and the value of their work - that's a topic of a separate article. They may be working hard; they just never PROMOTE hard work. They can convulsively talk ad nauseum about feminism, the rights of sex minorities, social justice, tax increase for "rich" (that would be everyone who is making a decent living) and their favorite topic - protecting the underdog in all areas of life in our society. And at some point in history every single one of these issues even made sense. I've already written about the fact that a few generations back liberals used to carry a good case of liberty. Not anymore; they are just stuck back in history. At this point, America, with all the usual calamities of a real human society is still one of the best democracies on the planet.. Yes, we had to implement the Patriot Act. And we have to fight terrorism and crime, inasmuch as Mr. Begala's types are trying to protect many of the perpetrators as pure at heart and just being provoked by the system. So the liberals more or less successfully could claim the aforementioned issues like something they are always arguing for. Inside the boundaries of servicing (or rather, dis-servicing) the underdog they are at their own turf. But the hard work? The liberals always talk about GRANTING benefits to all possibly imaginable "underprivileged". More social benefits but no community service for them. Longer unemployment coverage but no classes to teach marketable skills. Better medical insurance for people who never worked. More food stamps without working for them in some shape or form. More free rides. More protection. But never more work.
              Yes, our society has to provide help to underprivileged and less fortunate. That's why donations and volunteering always were and still are so popular in America. We need to help people get back on their feet. We need to provide help for the disabled. We have to keep Medicare and Social Security up and running. We must care for people in need. But we could not afford any more to encourage reliance on government or somebody else. I realize most liberals have a master degree or better. Did they forget to take Economics 101? If we constantly take from some sources, eventually we will suck the wells dry. And we are already quite close to this point. Somebody has to produce things and make money if they are to be given away to the needy. So, with the obvious exception of disabled and elderly, people with no means have to be taught how to fish and encouraged to go fishing rather than just permanently be given the fish and made to expect it for granted. Even Jesus did not do this on a daily basis.
              Mr. Begala has got to be kidding. Hard working is not a liberal slogan. Maybe he was simply trying to make a joke. In this case he succeeded all right.

Racial overtones of crime in America

             Another vicious crime is on the front lines again. Two black teenagers and one white senselessly murdered in Oklahoma 23-year-old Australian baseball player Christopher Lane just for the fun of it. 
             Although local police was able to apprehend the suspects almost immediately, initial reaction from media was very wimpish. And not surprisingly so. The victim is white and on a success track, the main suspects are black (the white kid, Michael Jones, was behind the wheel in the car used by two others while shooting at Mr. Lane). So what is there to draw the public attention to? Even Bill O'Reilly, authoritative as always, plainly rejected the racial aspects of the crime. Most media made a quick reference to it without mentioning the race of the suspects, and the whole thing appeared on the news probably just because a victim was a promising foreign athlete.There were attempts too brash the murder away as "local news".
             But than the situation quickly became less manageable. Christopher Lane was shot from behind just for the kicks of it and most of America is disgusted by the crime. Crying family members of slaughtered Australian were shown on TV. Former Australian Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer  and some others practically called for boycotting America. The CNN, usually not eager to report crimes involving blacks perpetrators, published a reference to white-hatting remarks made on twitter by James Edwards Jr., the guy who allegedly pulled the trigger. 
            When Hispanic young man Edward Zimmerman killed black teenager Trayvon Martin-  in self-defense, according to the court verdict - multiple race hustlers like Al Sharpton and their liberal friends from MSNBC and other countless outfits immediately called for protests. Demonstrations, although mostly peaceful, were organized in many cities. Racial discrimination became the word of the day and many on the left threw themselves into political speculation trying to put their usual rhetoric into additional polarization of our society. Even term "white Hispanic" was created. Trayvor Martin has been pronounced a one more victim of a white man. Even, regretfully, President Obama weighed in on the issue mostly in support of Trayvon Martin.
             Just a few days after the verdict, three black teenagers committed a brutal attack on 13-year old white boy on a school bus and left him with black eyes and broken arm. They were given nine months probation, a slap on the wrist. Besides a few conservative websites, nobody protested. The crime was practically dismissed by both the law and the society.
             Now crimes by young black males are getting on some front pages. We'll see if any good conclusion will be made by Al Sharpton and the others. Jesse Jackson already placed some ambiguous entry on twitter after saying to Breitbart News that these two cases could not even be compared.
            Each day brings news of another attack of black kids on whites. 88-old WWII vet has been beaten to death by two black teenagers. I am pretty sure neither this case nor killing of Australian athlete would get as much media attention as Ed Zimmerman's. Media, mostly controlled by liberals, would do a usual disservice to black communities, to young generations of all races and to our society at large by refusing to bring public attention to tremendous problems in some communities. And because of that many people who really care could not offer any viable solutions. Not only the victims suffering from these terrible crimes. Suffer kids which don't get proper upbringing. Suffer their families. Suffering is waiting around the corner for the other young ones which will follow in the steps of  mindless criminals. 
           One the main problems is deterioration of families across all races in America. Unfortunately, the black community suffers most from the absence of a father figure for the growing kids. It would be great if  black youth (along with the young people of all races) will be given  some great role models to follow. But who are going to be the ones? Al Sharpton? Jesse Jackson? Some entertainers who promote disregard for the law? Even my opponents will laugh at these propositions. But there are numerous prominent people who, given the chance, could be promoted by media and community organizers as role models for the black kids. Dr. Carson, Bill Cosby, Condoleza Rice and Don Lemon, to name a few. It would be just one solution among many to revitalize black communities, some of which are in deep disarray.
             
            

College education - how good is it?

               Early this year,  Susan Adams published an article at Forbes related to college education.
It calls a college professor's job the least stressful among professionals. Well, the stress level depends not solely on a job description but on many psychological, mental and physical characteristics of an individual. Let's rather take a look at how useful are our college educators to their students and by extension to our society. Are they trying to create more good members of our society? Do they teach something which will assist college grads in the job market? Are they able to provide students with any valuable knowledge, something good to utilize later on? Do they try to develop a mindset, skills or desire to get them, logic or anything else which is supposed to equip their auditoriums with methods of life-enhancing - both for themselves and the society at large? I can go on and on. Do they educate people on how to make living and survive in the real world? Do they even know something about the real world?
               As you have already guessed, my answer would be unequivocal "NO" for any of the above. And I am going to prove my point right here.
                The so called "academia" is supposed, mainly, to play a social function of research and education providers to the rest of us and to all other industries. Some people may even argue that academia is one of the main movers of a civilization. In this post  I will leave the topics of research and civilization alone and concentrate solely on an education function. Think about it. Education means preparing someone to become a useful, knowledgeable and independent member of society. What our colleges do instead, and charge outrageous money for that? Being part of academia, they mostly supply a set of courses which in the best case would be more or less purposeful for someone with a goal of becoming a member of the same academia, and in the worst case, plainly useless. Why is that? Because curriculum is created by people who stepped out of real life a long time ago - or even never placed their foot into  it. That's why so many of them are pushing for the liberal or even communist-like agenda. That's why it's so difficult for a person with conservative views to find a college teaching job - in academia, which is supposed to embrace any diversity, including political. That's why so many of college grads come out of their schools brainwashed with socialistic ideas and only later in life, after being able to make their own observations, begin drifting to more realistic standpoints. But again, in this post I am not going to jump into a political discussion.
                Before you accuse me of being an advocate for converting colleges into vocational schools or neglecting the importance of theory, I will tell you that it's not what I am proposing. I think most of us do need to absorb and comprehend the theoretical aspects of what we do. But, outside academia, we need a much smaller portion of theoretical knowledge than colleges are feeding their customers - and students are their customers. And for much lower price. How many times have you heard: "All I need for my job I either learned on the street or directly right on the job"? Yes, being street-smart is a big help in life. But you would not learn the skills of an IT developer, dentist, financial analyst or nurse on the street. Would you acquire them at a college? Hell no. You will get them ON THE JOB.
               One of my family members is a successful young professional in the field of law. He says that out of three years in his (considered pretty good) law school, the only valuable time was four-month practice in a prosecutor's office. A friend of mine, who is a PE (professional engineer), says that she could not remember a single thing from her college years which could be applied to her work as an engineering consultant. My own experience as IT professional tells me about the same. A lot of people say they had plenty of fun during the school years. Some say their college education has broaden their horizon. Some would assert they are much more rounded-up and better talkers.Thank God! But is it supposed to cost so much as it does?
               Now the school cost is a separate issue and I may address it in some other time.  At this moment we're taking about applicability of college education, which is rather close to zero. And I am not even touching the subject of liberal arts, medieval history or history of various ethnicitis, Shakespearean theater and other maybe interesting but rather rarely utilized courses. How many specialists on Rembrandt's art could be employed in our country? Maybe a few lucky hundred...How many accounting clerks, editorial assistants, sales and marketing people, management consultants and folks working in every imaginable field literature majors? Their name is legion.
               I know that everyone with a tenure or people on the tenure track will viciously attack this viewpoint. But let's formulate a simple question: why do we need them? Why do students need them? And why do we have to pay their salaries - either directly, in private colleges, or through the taxes, in public ones?
                In fact the colleges go into the right direction by increasing the percentage of adjunct professors in their faculties. During the last 20 years, the absolute number of full professors increased by 30% but their percentage in the faculties decrease in half, from 45% to less then 25%. Good trend but without the right thing in mind. Colleges are trying to cut cost. And to better handle their faculty members if they are not cutting it. The goal should be to attract as many successful professionals to teach the students. After all, pretty soon  - and in every imaginable filed - they will constitute the pool of people who will serve as creators of our future as a country.
               There could be a million solutions to do that. Students could go for practice, or internship, into real organizations for a few months and than take a month of theoretical or horizon-opening courses. Or they can be at the practice for four days a week and spend one day at the Alma mater. This is a plain technical issue. But steering in this direction should benefit everyone: students, their parents, companies, entire society and eventually even colleges themselves.

The "sentence" of Bradley Manning

              Congratulations to all the supporters of unrestricted free speech for everyone, including military personnel & keepers of classified information! Infamous private first class (now just private to be dishonorable discharged) Bradley Manning was given 35 years in prison. So he will be free in 6 because he already spent in jail close to 4. What a celebration of permission to bubble up whatever you know to the entire world, no matter the consequences. Who cares, let's just publish whatever you know on Wikileaks. No matter that people will die because of your inability to understand what is a national or military secret. No matter that our enemies will benefit from it. And yes they will as although Manning was cleared from intentionally helping the enemy charge (which I think is ridiculous but accept it as a word of court), there is no doubt his misdeeds greatly helped the enemy of all kinds. According to his prosecutors, Manning's actions "created grave risk, disrupted diplomatic missions and endangered lives". Julian Assange, the biggest anarchist and traitor of all times, rejects this claim. Well, this only adds validity to it.
             Slap on the wrist to a traitor, what a great encouragement to everyone on the far left, trying to enhance our liberty but in fact curbing it from every direction. Mr Manning applied for presidential pardon. Well, he lives in a great country, which he betrayed multiple times over, and he is within his rights on that. But I have a dream the prosecution will appeal that parody of court-marshal decision, and I do hope this "sentence" will be increased rather than eliminated. And before someone will accuse me of being bloodthirsty, I will tell you this. People in more than one country will die because of this. Mindless individuals with no sense of responsibility whatsoever and liberal agitators with an agenda to create a global anarchy will encourage anyone with a knowledge of military, intelligence, diplomatic and even crime-fighting secrets to make a full disclosure to public at large - around the planet. Yes, believe it or not but no operation in aforementioned fields would ever be planned and conducted without tons of classified information.  That is how it always used to be in history, in any society. And that's how it will continue to be done to achieve a slightest chance of success. Seems obvious - that is, of course, if you are not in favor of anarchy. And if you are, you won't like it if God forbid it'll kick in. You want to check it out - go ahead and spend some time in Somalia. Or Chechnya. Just make your arrangements with a funeral home upfront - provided any piece of you will be shipped back by the folks out there.
            Now I would like to make some reference to people which help treason criminals like Manning in the media. Of course, they do have the right to exercise the 1st amendment. But if they actually help traitors by spreading their information and transferring them through the country lines - than we have to be reminded that in law this is called "being an accomplice after the fact". One of the most active in this field is Glenn Greenwald, associated with Guardian. His spouse David Miranda, a Brazilian citizen, was detained by UK authorities for a few hours in an airport - and sent back to Brazil for physically transferring highly classified information to UK. Jeff Toobin, a CNN legal analyst far from being conservative, compared David Miranda to a drug mule Now, Mr. Miranda has to be grateful that no terror charges were pressed against him. But maybe we may have to take a more close look at Mr. Greenwald. There should be some limits to dangers and harm permitted to inflict on his own country by an American citizen.

Glenn Greenwald's Take on Investigative Journalism

          Once again Glenn Greenwald showed us how a smart excellent-educated individual could have a completely screwed up perception on simple things. Like need to reflect on issues before discussing them. Like "don't bubble out everything you learned to the world at large". And  -  let's call the things by their actual names. Like treason. A clear-cut act of treason commited by army private Bradley Manning.
         Now I don't think anybody would expect  good Gleen to understand what would it mean to put your life on the line, like it was done in American history - and still is done now - by many thousands of men and women. And nobody would require that Glenn - who, by the way, has been greatly benefited by American system - would in turn feel the sense of real patriotism. Everybody who follows politics knows well enough that Glenn Greenwald would not go to the battlefield to fight for our liberty. He chooses another battle - to extend his full support to Mr. Manning, either a mindless young man in search of his own popularity - or your typical renegade, a felon convicted of a whole bunch of crimes, the worst of them is putting in great danger the lives of his comrades-in-arms. Although I think not to many folks who ever served in uniform will call this man a comrade. He is a traitor, pure and simple. Even Jeff Toobin, legal analyst for CNN and New York Times, who by no means could be called conservative, fervently disagreed on CNN with Greenwald on this issue. So why Mr. Greenwald and his friends have chosen to support him?
            Before anybody on the far left will accuse me of opposing the 1st Amendment, let me state clear that I am completely in favor of Mr. Greenwald's right to express his opinion, no matter how outrageous it seems to a lot of folks. I am even glad he and others at his side continue showing to America their disrespect for the people in American uniform and their disregard for the lives of men and women who serve their country in harm's way - so that we all know where everyone stands. But why do they do that? In his discussion with Jeff Toobin on Anderson Cooper's show, Mr.Greenwald called Bradley Manning's publishing of 750,000 highly classidied army and intelligence documents an act of "investigative journalism". Really? So displaying those documents by an army private to everyone in the world, including our worst enemies is not a treason? It's not an act of betrayal? It's not a violation of the military pledge which Mr. Manning took voluntarily upon himself? You've got to be kidding.
            The thing is that Glenn Greenwald, without acknowledging it, subscribes to the old ideas of anarchy, where there is no laws, no rules and no law enforcement. I would love to see how Mr. Greenwald - and great many of his genossen -will survive in these circumstances.