Publicity is the oxygen that fans the flames of jihadism and terrorism. The French police and countless media have successfully propagated and encouraged further acts of terrorism through their prolonged and detailed coverage of the stand-off leading to the death of this vicious terrorist. Even al Qaeda received lots of great press and coverage that is sure to enhance their image as an organization with international reach. Merah is almost certainly a "lone wolf," grass roots terrorist, associated with al Qaeda only through self proclamation. There must be dozens of young, potential jihadists who were impressed by the way Merah went down; jumping out a window, "guns a'blazing." I'm sure that Merah's family and admirers will have a full scrapbook of media coverage to add to their Merah shrine; the shrine of a martyr. Do you sense that there's something wrong with this picture?
Certainly, the public needs to know about terrorist threats and acts so they can be aware that jihadists are still around. In fact, they're never going to go away, especially as long as their exploits are so skillfully chronicled, complete with names and pictures, by the media and the police. When it comes to terrorism, especially at the hands of the lone wolves, the police can't do it all. They need the eyes, ears and minds of the general public who must exercise "situational awareness." When's the last time you read anything about how to practice situational awareness, if ever? You should know a lot about it so Google it. Your observations could save a life, or many lives. You just have to learn a few simple skills and care. It's the caring part that will make you effective and valuable in the effort to combat terrorism. Give it a try.
A small, but potentially powerful, step in the right direction would be to have the media and police avoid pictures and names of known or suspected terrorists. Why enshrine them as martyrs? Why create the desire in others to step up to the terrorist window? In the business world, a company often pays huge fees to get their name or product mentioned as much times as possible in as many forums as possible. Repetition works and professional advertisers know it. Every mention of al Qaeda in the press or on TV enhances their image and improves their financing. As private citizens, we have to recognize the negatives associated with mentioning terrorists' names and publishing their pictures and stop expecting the media to feed our morbid curiosity. Think about it. Once we know the name of a terrorist and see a picture, we're not any better off. The friends and family of the terrorist, however, will use the publicity to enshrine the terrorist and recruit look-alikes. Let's work to short circuit the flow of terrorism. Every little bit will help.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Was It Racism?
I am sick at the loss of Trayvon Martin, especially because the media has disclosed something of the circumstances of his needless death. Any loss of life is devastating. I wonder, though, how many young Black Americans died since Trayvon that I know nothing about. Facts would probably support that many of them were killed by other Black Americans. Thank God, the vast majority of these senseless deaths were not racially motivated. But they happened in nearly total obscurity. That injustices exist is irrefutable. There are racial bigots that exist in all racial groups and their warped views simply can't be tolerated; zero tolerance. That Trayvon was the victim of racial bigotry just isn't clear. I wonder if Zimmerman could have made a racial assessment, given what a hoodie hides. I'm not suggesting in any sense that Trayvon's death was justified. It wasn't, and nothing can change that! This tragedy could have resulted from extremely bad judgment, fear, panic, inexperience, trigger happiness, or even anger. That race was the only, or predominant, factor just isn't clear and still needs to be established. Until then, racial rhetoric and demands for lynch-mob justice are premature and unfair. To characterize this as racial murder is as unjust as when it were true. We owe it to the memories of Trayvon to be sure his death serves to eliminate injustice and guarantee the American dream for all.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Putting a Republican in the White House
As the Republican presidential nominee race unfolds, it pretty clear that a single nominee won't have wide enough appeal to become the next (Republican) president. CNN reports that the supporters of Santorum and Gingrich are essentially interchangeable, but will not support Romney. I suspect Paul's supports would go either way. For the Republicans to run a viable candidate against President Obama, the running mate will take on an importance seldom seen. I believe the strongest Republican position would be to field a Santorum/Gingrich ticket. The appeal combination (and combined electoral votes) just might do the trick. As the country's vice president, Gingrich would find time to really work the Congress as only he could be able to do. Let's face it, no matter what a candidate promises and feels is important, Congress will ultimately decide what gets done. In my opinion, Gingrich has the best chance of getting Congress to support the president's programs. As we've seen recently, unless one party can control both the Executive and Legislative branches of our government, gridlock sets in and no much will get done. Isn't it a dirty shame that Democrats and Republicans just can't put aside self-serving party politics to do what is good for America; to be patriots?! What a concept.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Health Care in America
If you intend to build a building on sand, you'd better lay the correct foundation. It's not impossible, but a true engineering challenge. For some reason, we insist on developing a much needed health care program for Americans without even beginning to determine if there's sufficient foundation and infrastructure to support a viable program.
The famed and ill-fated "Obama Care" was developed by politicians for politicians in a void without so much as a glance at existing programs that have worked over many years. In nearly every viable health care program there is a partnership between government, health care providers and private insurance agencies. Government's role is to control the costs of medical treatment, not allowing them to spin out of control. Health care providers must accept a relatively narrow pricing scope for their services. Insurance companies must be both protected and controlled so they can make a profit while insuring the health of America. The government needs to get into the act of collecting payments from both employers and employees. Unfortunately, there will be a time period before the health funds will mature to the point that it can pay medical costs for all Americans. During that transition period, the government has to step in and pay the bills. This simple fact makes government control of costs imperative. I hate to imagine what administrative monster would have to be created, but such a huge and complicated program can never work without strong guidance and management.
I don't have solutions. It's clear to me, however, that an American medical care program is essential and way overdue. How to keep it out of the political process will be the greatest challenge. Building a painful and radical infrastructure of price controls will be an equally challenging problem. Administering and controlling it all takes the prize as the most challenging. I wonder how close we really are and if we have legislators willing to do the non-partisan things necessary to help and protect all Americans. Somehow, I can't believe it's possible. But we must!
The famed and ill-fated "Obama Care" was developed by politicians for politicians in a void without so much as a glance at existing programs that have worked over many years. In nearly every viable health care program there is a partnership between government, health care providers and private insurance agencies. Government's role is to control the costs of medical treatment, not allowing them to spin out of control. Health care providers must accept a relatively narrow pricing scope for their services. Insurance companies must be both protected and controlled so they can make a profit while insuring the health of America. The government needs to get into the act of collecting payments from both employers and employees. Unfortunately, there will be a time period before the health funds will mature to the point that it can pay medical costs for all Americans. During that transition period, the government has to step in and pay the bills. This simple fact makes government control of costs imperative. I hate to imagine what administrative monster would have to be created, but such a huge and complicated program can never work without strong guidance and management.
I don't have solutions. It's clear to me, however, that an American medical care program is essential and way overdue. How to keep it out of the political process will be the greatest challenge. Building a painful and radical infrastructure of price controls will be an equally challenging problem. Administering and controlling it all takes the prize as the most challenging. I wonder how close we really are and if we have legislators willing to do the non-partisan things necessary to help and protect all Americans. Somehow, I can't believe it's possible. But we must!
Republicans
This year's Republican primary race is a trip. If we could combine all four of the remaining contenders, we would have a strong and invincible candidate to face President Obama in November. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.
Romney has very successfully demonized "insiders" and painted both Santorum and Gingrich with the broad-brush "insider" label. Even Paul is "tainted" by this image. How wrong can we be? In today's nasty political environment, an "insider" has a much better chance of getting his or her way with Congress. After all, the promises political candidates make are only as good as their ability to convince (or cajole?) Congress to pass the necessary legislation. Even then, we'll need a favorable Supreme Court to make the legislation stick.
Sound complicated? It is. Our form of government has become extremely complicated and interdependent on all three branches. No single branch can "make it happen" alone. If a presidential candidate makes a bunch of wild and wonderful promises, the reality is that they will only see the light of day if Congress so desires. Are you beginning to see how an "insider" may have a better chance of getting things done? Gingrich may not be the most favored candidate, but he is probably the more knowledgeable about how to get legislation passed. In fact, I bet he knows enough about the many secrets in Congress to get just about any legislation passed that he wants. Did you ever wonder why so many Republicans cringe at the thought of Gingrich as President?
Romney has very successfully demonized "insiders" and painted both Santorum and Gingrich with the broad-brush "insider" label. Even Paul is "tainted" by this image. How wrong can we be? In today's nasty political environment, an "insider" has a much better chance of getting his or her way with Congress. After all, the promises political candidates make are only as good as their ability to convince (or cajole?) Congress to pass the necessary legislation. Even then, we'll need a favorable Supreme Court to make the legislation stick.
Sound complicated? It is. Our form of government has become extremely complicated and interdependent on all three branches. No single branch can "make it happen" alone. If a presidential candidate makes a bunch of wild and wonderful promises, the reality is that they will only see the light of day if Congress so desires. Are you beginning to see how an "insider" may have a better chance of getting things done? Gingrich may not be the most favored candidate, but he is probably the more knowledgeable about how to get legislation passed. In fact, I bet he knows enough about the many secrets in Congress to get just about any legislation passed that he wants. Did you ever wonder why so many Republicans cringe at the thought of Gingrich as President?
Same-Sex Marriages
Marriage is a solemn vow between two people to "love, honor and obey." Clergy and civil authorities don't "marry" people; people marry themselves. The others are merely witnesses for either Church or State, or both. Whether same-sex marriages are "immoral" or "unnatural," as some may believe, is simply not relevant. If the vows are made, there is a marriage. If the marriage vow is broken, the culprit will answer to God.
The entire discussion of same-sex marriages stems from people who believe they can define "immorality" for others and who don't have a basic understanding of what really constitutes "marriage." To condemn same-sex marriage is to play God.
The real argument today centers not around whether there is a "marriage" between two people, rather whether laws defining the rights of married people will apply in a same-sex situation. This takes the concept out of the religious realm and lays it at the feet of the state. If a state chooses to provide legal witness, status, support and protection to same-sex unions, it's a done deal. So let's stop moralizing at the expense of others.
The entire discussion of same-sex marriages stems from people who believe they can define "immorality" for others and who don't have a basic understanding of what really constitutes "marriage." To condemn same-sex marriage is to play God.
The real argument today centers not around whether there is a "marriage" between two people, rather whether laws defining the rights of married people will apply in a same-sex situation. This takes the concept out of the religious realm and lays it at the feet of the state. If a state chooses to provide legal witness, status, support and protection to same-sex unions, it's a done deal. So let's stop moralizing at the expense of others.
Abortion and Birth Control
Let's plunge into a "social" issue that's emotionally charged and generally characterized by people talking past each other instead of trying to understand the real point. There is a fine line between "what I thing" and "what I think others should think and do." If I hold a belief or position on a subject, it's mine, all mine, and I don't expect others to influence others. I do hope, however, to cause thought and enhance understanding.
I personally don't believe in abortion and believe that human life begins at the moment of conception. That having been said, I also believe in the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy for a reason that only she knows. I would argue that Beethoven's contribution to music would have been lost forever had he been aborted for some very good reasons. In the end, however, the pregnant woman must make the decision. I would resist, however, the use of taxpayer funds to support abortion of any kind, leaving that issue to organizations which are privately funded.
The recent discussions on birth control amaze me. Again, any person should have the right to use whatever birth control method that is mutually acceptable to the partner. Like abortion, birth control is a personal choice that must be financed by the individual or, again, privately funded organizations. No one should be told to use birth control as no one should be forced to purchase it for employees, family members or anyone else. I cannot support the use of government funds in any way to prevent pregnancy.
In both above issues, we tend to exercise the "freedom" so often mentioned in today's political discussions. "Freedom" is essential and should be guaranteed, not financed, by government.
I personally don't believe in abortion and believe that human life begins at the moment of conception. That having been said, I also believe in the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy for a reason that only she knows. I would argue that Beethoven's contribution to music would have been lost forever had he been aborted for some very good reasons. In the end, however, the pregnant woman must make the decision. I would resist, however, the use of taxpayer funds to support abortion of any kind, leaving that issue to organizations which are privately funded.
The recent discussions on birth control amaze me. Again, any person should have the right to use whatever birth control method that is mutually acceptable to the partner. Like abortion, birth control is a personal choice that must be financed by the individual or, again, privately funded organizations. No one should be told to use birth control as no one should be forced to purchase it for employees, family members or anyone else. I cannot support the use of government funds in any way to prevent pregnancy.
In both above issues, we tend to exercise the "freedom" so often mentioned in today's political discussions. "Freedom" is essential and should be guaranteed, not financed, by government.
Why I do This
This is new to me so bear with me as I struggle through blogger infancy. I tend to see this medium as a place to record my often passionate and emotional thoughts about a variety of issues. I hope to share a little about who I am and what I think. If you don't agree with me or see life as I do, I'm prepared to learn and to change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)