ABC's of Political Reform
Over 24 Political Topics and 80 Issues of Reform to Clean Up American Bureaucracy!
by Stephen L. Rush
Premise For Reform
When the President takes the oath of office, he swears to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States (Art. II, Sect. 1, Para. 9). The Constitution is far more important than the office of the President, for without it there would not be a United States of America. That document gives life and purpose to this great country.
Equally important is the Bill of Rights, the guarantee of how governance by this document is measured. It is not sufficient to say that a new form of government has distinquished itself from the monarchy of England, but what kind of value this new government places on the people it serves.
From that perspective, anyone can say they can fix the problems within government, but the distinction is whether one actually serves the people they are sworn to. For, any presidential candidate can declare that he or she has the best method to reform American government, but many fall short of being true public servants.
of Stephen L. Rush
--> Current Issues
The Most Prevalent Current Issues Facing The United States In The 2008 Presidential Campaign
The Times We Live In
Americans have a dilemma spelled o-i-l. Petroleum-based fuel consumption is a major cause behind inversion layers heating up the global climate. Oil spills and refinery fires are responsible for many ecological disasters. The economy in the U.S. is tied to this foriegn key commodity. The War in Iraq has a lot to do with oil. Osama Bin Ladin funded Al-Queda attacks on the U.S. from his oil inheritance. The list goes on. However, the main issue is what to do when oil becomes scarce.
Current Big-E Issues:
Economy Energy Environment
Current Big-I Issues:
Iraq Immigration Oil Independence
Ethics & War in an Election Year Bank Bailout
Ethics & War in an Election Year
A question was once asked by a team of journalists whether America should pursue a “big or small war” policy, alluding to the handling of the war in Iraq. Aside from an extremely polarizing question, it is also a misnomer. The whole “big or small” mentality is divisive, but that’s not the main point. The war in Iraq is about two strategic decisions: how to handle a complex form of guerilla warfare, and the responsibility of its aftermath. How one handles the war in Iraq for either of those conundrums is all about ethical dilemmas.
In the course of my business experience, there were notably rare occasions that called for an ethical decision, and due to the absence of certain technology or legal intervention such ethical responses were not available and the next available ethical directive had to be chosen. The war in Iraq is being handled much in the same way: one ethical lapse after another – but not by choice. Simply put, the necessary technology and leadership for such demanding behavior does not exist. Here’s why:
1. Current technology cannot prevent civilian deaths in insurgent-type of guerilla warfare and current training cannot protect civilians from harm, either.
2. America has not derived a foreign policy that interweaves economics and ethics to augment the imbalance caused by key commodities that drive poorer countries to war, because the U.S. has not been able to break away from that itself.
For this reason, America is losing the propaganda front when insurgent targets hide among civilians in hopes of becoming a martyr, and when interests of other countries takes a back seat to American economic interest.
Realistically, America has not been prepared to fight insurgents because its old military guard did not change with the times when Vietnam called for new strategies and technology. That’s only part of it. In one sense, it is the fault of American leaders in government who failed to act when it came time to reconstruct Afghani provinces destroyed by Soviet helicopters in 1987. It is also the fault of American leaders who refused real support alternatives to oil when our own economy began to destabilize in 2007. But it is not really their fault, if one were to think about it.
Can America develop an ethical foreign policy regarding Iraq going forward? It is rare for a President to rely on existing political tools and change the outcome of a political conundrum like Iraq, because political ideology has only advanced as far as the rear-view mirror can look back. A President must also be careful how new strategies are presented, as the American people are often afraid of both a “prophet of doom” and “the untried and unproven”. Equally so, inventing new political strategies typically requires the personality of someone who an inventor or a business strategist who also happens to be politically inclined. Such a person is oftentimes hard to come by. In this election, as the Democrats head toward their convention, there is a trade off between nominating an experienced politician or having higher philosophical thinking. The foreign policy qualifications of Senators Clinton and Obama are radically different in that sense, and how they handle such crisis will ultimately determine what ethics evolve and emerge.
Obama has shown two leadership qualities that will be useful on matters concerning Iraq: diplomacy and ideology. He has shown he can be quite diplomatic. He showed tact and resolve concerning Reverend Wright that required carefully articulated allotments of dialogue. That means he was patient about giving the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, and when proven otherwise he then acted decisively. He has also expressed a willingness to speak to leaders of regimes. Not giving a voice to the aggressor makes war inevitable, because silence is an ultimatum. Obama understands this is the key component to making his foreign policy work and is at the heart of his belief that we can have lasting peace.
In comparison, these qualities of character are a formidable challenge to the experience of Clinton (and McCain). Leadership experience is heralded as a strong case for what credentialed politicians can bring to the office of President in troubled times, but at the expense of giving us the same results as their predecessors. The American people will have to ask whether experience outweighs diplomacy in this nomination, and which one of those criteria is a better indicator of policy follow-through. Even policies are in question this election. Whether policies should be familiar or experimental tend to be a question of how comfortable the people are with them - right up to the point in time when they fail a major test under pressure. Keep in mind, the legacy of the rear-view mirror never manifests what it cannot see. Meaning, it is my personal opinion that the rear-view mirror policy cannot promote tomorrow’s ethics for the Iraqi with yesteryear’s political tools.
It will be interesting to see if Obama is the one to promote that change. Apologetically, this may not be a completely impartial perspective on who would be most qualified regarding the war in Iraq. However, it does pose questions that are hard to ignore.
Securing Economic Justice
The economy always appears to be doing better on the surface than what is churning in the undertoe. That sounds scary, but we are a ways off from economic depression and at any time there is a bridge that can create an artifical plateau across to a point where the economy is on the rise. Economists are quick to point out how much money is being injected into the economy, as well as Bush’s move to falsify and then stop reporting Producer Price ABCIndex. The economy is surviving on refinancing - although not very well as we can see, but it is not production. The dollar is being deflated because China is no longer buying U.S. T-bills, while the trade deficit continues to climb. The Feds are buying back our own debt by printing more money. This is not healthy. It is called a bubble, like Tech Stocks a decade ago and the recent Housing Crunch. Bubbles tend to burst because they are full of hot air and no substance. The U.S. dollar is being deflated just like currency in England and France before it. Without intervention, the economy will crash most likely by Oct 10, 2011 as projected by the Kondratieff Wave (see Kondratieff Wave Domino Theory). However, we have learned extreme measures like tarrifs and other political gimmicks no longer work in our complex global trade economy. Given these facts, whoever is elected president in 2008 had better be a candidate who at least understands the economy to do justice toward all Americans.
Okay, it is admitted that the point of presenting 50 economic correctments is to provide a discussion on methods that can shorten the Economic Winter. The idea is to tweak different facets of the economy so that each pillar is let down gently and disproves my Domino Theory of Economics as an absolute. Americans hate Prophets of Doom, but the U.S. hates it worse when someone knew better, but said or did nothing to prevent disaster. That is to say, if I dare speak out. However, there is a message of hope because it is known what needs fixing and how.
Therefore and in my opinion, the economy needs to first offset the inverted population pyramid and then hold back the negative growth caused by outsourcing. First, to inject an artificial population, some of the homeless can be put to work using a corporate voucher program. Next, gang members can be hired to learn trades and remove blight. However, artificial population infusion is only part of an intricate solution. To deal with the effects of outsourcing, America needs to start insourcing to lower-cost rural area personnel, making use of satellite offices and telecommuting. It would also be a good idea to promote growth through technological advances. Those advances can be in the form of new incentives to automate bridge construction and emissions efficiency. Production in steel manufacturing can also be given a boost by introducing U.S.-exclusive modular home construction products to third world countries that are experiencing rapid growth. It does not stop there. NASA can be given an aggressive manned exploration mandate, paid for with the government loans for retooling. These are just a few ideas (see Making Financial Sense).
Consider how important the issue of the economy will be when something happens to it, knowing the government was already aware of the pending crisis. Most voters remember very well how our leaders failed during events like Mount St. Helens, California Energy Crisis, and Hurricane Katrina. The American people are looking for leadership that is proactive because they have lost faith in career-minded politicians. Since the economic winter is predictable, it stands to reason that voters will elect a president who understands the economy and perhaps even has an idea of how to fix it. America needs a candidate destined for greatness, who will not only ensure that banks do not get inundated with defaulted loans, and not merely devise new economic solutions like FDR did, but also care whether baby boomers can retire with peace of mind.
Petroleum Energy Independence
Recent events are showing signs of an eminent global struggle for petroleum. China's GDP growth is 9.4% according to Time, and India's will be 10.4% (if it can be sustained) based on Finance Professional's projections, with both of their demands for oil increasing at the same rate. Iran is now offering their oil in Euros as of March 2006 and creating competition for the U.S. Dollar for the first time, tipping the scales of the already weighted-down trade deficit. Top economists suggest the reason for going to war in Iraq may have been over economic strategy and not weapons buildup at all. Global oil pockets have peaked, an assessment by top economists who have kept track of how much crude can be pumped out without additional forced pressure. The CNN Presents segment on oil issued an emphatic warning that all of these signs are leading up to a devastating and irreparable crisis in the summer of 2009, long before wars over the petroleum supply causes its premature extinction in about 13 years. On the other hand, SUV purchases are on the rise, there is no real fuel/energy or plastics alternative, while serious infrastructure and regulation is a ways off, and government is unsure how to compensate for pressures from this rising global oil demand.
Current analysis suggests our infrastructure lacks sufficient means for implementation of any solid petroleum energy independence plan before the next administration change, that is to say if President Bush the lesser has such a plan. To start off, finding more petroleum has its limits. Drilling in open ocean is too impractical and Alaskan exploration is too environmentally beleaguered to be considered cost-effective primary sources. During California's energy crisis, utility companies offered co-generation, where older diesel-fueled and environmentally-unsafe generators could be connected to newer, cleaner, more efficient power so that a marginal increase in output could be achieved.
Alternative sources of energy and fuel do not fair much better, partly because O.P.E.C. maintains the prices of crude below a certain threshold so it is never economically feasible for the U.S. to stop its addiction. Ethanol may very well be derived from renewable energy, but it is unprofitable and Brazil must subsidize its production. Matter of fact, only 1% of the needed 300 square kilometers of solar panels exist, clean coal is a myth as long as mercury continues to be part of the conversion process, wind power is rather an eyesore for such an inconsistent power source, nuclear waste at best is currently unmanageable*, and the instability of liquid hydrogen is a consumer's nightmare. The reality is that America needs a plan. *(Nuclear power is unmanageable without tested bioremediation technologies to replace Yucca Mountain storage).
Without a plan today, an oil crisis could throw America's economy into a tailspin by collapsing the already fragile climate of slowed productivity, population inversion, and gross trade deficit (See Securing Economic Justice) (CNN Presents, We Were Warned: Tomorrow's Oil Crisis, August 12, 2006). A politician without a plan for crisis forewarned is really making a statement that they do not care what happens to Americans, not to mention how it is not very shrewd when they later use the office to save their own skin. In this case, however, all we can afford is a last-minute solution. The best course of action would be to proceed now with what we know to do and then to do it the best way we know how, and make course corrections along the way. The U.S. must make initial steps, or independence from oil will remain a dream until it is all gone and SUV museums become commonplace.
First, America must match the combined growth rate for both China and India with fuel conservation and conversion, so as not to upset the economies of our trading partners while America prepares for oil independence. The President-elect in 2008 must already work with the incumbent, Congress, farmers and manufacturers to push renewable ethanol, hybrid fuel-cells, clean diesel, and hydrogen fueled engines in both vehicle manufacturing and gas station facilities, in order to deliver a preemptive strike against the looming oil crisis in the year to follow. Incentives can assist in the voluntary recent-consumer recall of SUV's and vehicles with low MPG before offering new vehicles to the general public. Once in office, the new President can issue government loans to owners of fleets and offer alternative vehicles as fuel becomes available, so as to coincide with the resulting turbulence in demand without breaking the back of smaller businesses. Also, loans could then be granted to farmers currently not producing that wish continue their subsistence by converting to ethanol. In addition, owners of non-computerized vehicles will be offered classic car registration or engine pressure analysis in lieu of smog testing to get inoperative cars off the road faster, with assistance for low-income and single parents. However, fuel conservation and conversion is only part of the plan and energy alternatives must be made ready as well.
Second, the U.S. must increase solar and wind power as soon as would be reasonable to do so. Production of at least a third of the projected solar panels must begin immediately for placement in unprotected parts of Nevada and California deserts. These panels are important to aid in cooling the Earth as well as replacing outdated forms of energy, sufficiently to reduce nuclear dependence if possible. Possibly, cat walks and wind turbines can be placed in synch with the solar panels so as not to damage the soil further and impact global warming even further. Although this is not a complete environmental solution as far as understanding the needs of the desert climate, it is a step in the right direction by providing alternatives to petroleum-based energy, reduction in smog, and securing the future financial security of environmentally-proactive companies. This gives these companies a fighting chance to explore research and development to achieve a necessary total solution.
Third, complete alternatives need to be explored. Perhaps coal mining companies can be urged with incentives and regulation to pursue fume mining and other environmentally-friendly energy sources instead. Energy from breakdown of plant life, methane gases from cattle, or heat sensors in the desert may be some options. Waste Management's design for methane extraction from landfills should be mandated industry-wide, anyway. Fumes reclamation will not be enough, however. A consideration is Wise Landfill's legendary ethanol from trash, when they actually get up and running and if they can prove they can make 4 times as much ethanol (click on Ethanol Discovery). Otherwiese, NASA and other agencies can be called upon to deal with the threat of the petroleum energy crisis beyond known measures and determine options not yet explored in a way that catapult environmentally-friendly energy to the next level.
This entire course of action would be the sensible thing to do. To those that might suggest such action requires too much planning, should be the ones to apologize to Hurricane Katrina victims that thought there was never enough planning. To those that might suggest such preventative action would be unnecessary and that the crisis will correct itself, President Hoover used that same argument and idly watched as thousands of Americans died from starvation. To those that might suggest how Presidents FDR and Richard Nixon both said they had a plan when they were really bluffing, may not realize that 27 well-designed plans are spelled out here. To those that might suggest that no one would ever vote for a candidate who cannot convey a simpler message, I say bring it on. Let it be known there is one man who cares enough to get the job done and Americans know it.
Ethanol's Potential Toward Freedom
There has been a lot of talk about Ethanol lately. Ethanol has potential since it is derived from renewable energy, and its carbon-dioxide by-products do not produce additional carbons because they are created from photosynthesis. Ethanol however, has some problems with its inception.
Ethanol may very well be derived from renewable energy, but it is currently so unprofitable that Brazil must subsidize dollar for dollar. One solution is to provide farmers with subsidies currently going to pay farmers not to produce. The idea is, if we are paying farmers not to produce solely for the purpose of maintaining price-equalibrium, then why not pay them to produce ethanol and restrict their products from the open market? That may be one solution.
Subsidies may work, but the additional resources needed to produce enough fuel for typical U.S. consumption may be overwhelming. Here is a table of recent U.S. Consumption, in 1,000's of barrels:
(per James Hamilton, UCSD)
That means the Daily Average U.S. Gas Demand is 9,333,930 Barrels. That is a lot of fuel to go around.
Producing plant sources for Ethanol may yet be the biggest hurdle even with subsidies. With each cyclical increase in overall surface and ocean temperature in the Earth, global warming is sucking dry our water sources, meaning drought for our crops will be imminent. Greenwaste in landfills produces Xylitol Hemicellulose for sugar, which does not ferment and cannot produce Ethanol. Kitchen Scraps in landfills are too expensive to process. That does not leave much hope.
Even if that much Ethanol could be produced, there are infrastructure gaps in the plan. FlexFuel solutions are available in some places, but may not enough to put a dent in the problem. At the time of this writing, General Motors has over 2 million E85 cars on the road nationally, but has carefully selected specific regions for distribution and accommodates only 1% of the total driving population. Ethanol is not readily available in 38 out of 52 key U.S. cities (27%), and only predominant in 5 of 39 most heavily-populated states (13%). GM is committed to new refueling stations upon purchase of FlexFuel cars, but only through local dealer promotion. Not very encouraging, indeed. (http://www.marketingymedios.com/csn/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002876358)
With all these uncertainties, yet something has to be done to prepare America for the impending energy crisis of 2009. The good news is, chemists and horticulturalists are looking into additional ways to extract ethanol fuels from a variety of sources (click on Market Share). Even before that takes place, Americans should demand of this nation's government and corporate leadership to build up the infrastructure for such an eventuality. Contact us to get involved in a letter-writing campaign to Congress!
George F. Will, in his column The Last Word, did a great job of framing a trick question in the form of an answer when he wrote on “Inconvenient Koyoto Truths” (Feb 12 Newsweek). He is not the only one. There are other scientists and commentators who have picked apart Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth". However, Mr. Will does a better job of defining our fears.
He discusses the stigmas behind global warming: how people tend to think that human intervention is behind it, but went on to say how this change in climate is well within the range of geological record, and we do not know the amount of actual human contribution behind it, and we do not know the economic cost of correcting it. Both sides of the debate focus only on differences or similarities, so let me spell it out. What he does not say that reduction of glacial mass increases the fresh water content, which raises the sea level for places like Florida, New York, and Japan, while at the same time raising the temperature of the water and creating more hurricanes and more violent ones from Texas to Florida, from Florida to New York. He also does not say is that reduction of glacial mass reduces salinity, and salinity controls things like the speed of the ocean’s current which in turn controls fresh upwelling of oxygen that controls the fish population, and fewer fish means more mercury content per fish and unintentional over-fishing.
What he holds back from saying is how the rate of global warming is 10x, 100x, and even 1,000x faster than what we find in the geological trends and ice records, and rapid change affects species like Elkhorn coral that provide the ocean many benefits, whose migration patterns are generational, but the algae’s migration that they feed on is immediate based on temperature. He also does not say that we do happen to know how to slow down carbon output within our economic means through conservation and smart purchases, let alone the advent of recent business strategies and technology working on tomorrow’s solutions. He also forgets to point out that we tend to care only about an oil crisis when it happens and the choices we make today not only affect the environment, but our pocketbook. He also conveniently does not mention that his philosophy is aligned with waiting for mother nature and the economy to correct itself, the opposite of every elementary school book lesson on Edmund Burke’s “The only thing left for carbon emissions to triumph, is for responsible men to say 'the problem with the environment does not matter'”.
President Hoover subscribed to this “do nothing” attitude regarding the economy while 10’s of thousands of Americans starved and a business strategist like FDR had to replace him. For a modern comparison, only regarding the War in Iraq does Bush the lesser subscribe to Preemptive Action, but continues to disregard Katrina victims, the environment, congressional corruption, the economy, the voters, the nation. When Chicago was a glacier and when the Vikings farmed in Greenland has nothing to do with the negative externalities weather can play on our current economic and social situation. Yes, it is true that scientists of the 1950's said the Earth was going to freeze over, but they also believed smoking was good for one's health due to limited technology at the time. Mr. Will, America believes your convenient truth, and America believes we need another career politician in the Whitehouse. Yeah; right. Voters know we need a business strategist who has a plan to save us from the War in Iraq, the looming Oil crisis, the approaching economic winter, Congressional corruption, Social Security bankruptcy, health care implosion, environmental disaster preparedness.
Cause and Effect
Let me put it another way by attacking the "mocking of carbon emissions". The debate over "whether carbon is the cause of global warming or the effect of it", stems from the fear that "attacks on our economic way of life for some unproven factor are unnecessary." The fact that serious climate change is occuring in 1/8th the time (by conservative estimates) in comparison to geological climate models, proves man's influence. The Earth has experienced climate change like this over 10,000 to 1,000 year cycles, but not in just 100 years. Scientists suspect carbon is the cause of climate change because of its vast relationship to a variety of mechanisms: photoplankton and algae, ocean currents and inversion layers, as well as other conditions on Venus. Evangelical voters also point out how the book of Revelation in the bible even predicts a plague of carbon emissions - how the 9th chapter describes an airplane and a car using language of the day to describe "smoke from the tail of a horse and grasshopper with people in their bellies". So if carbon is the most likely suspect, then we should change our habits however we can with the technology we have; environmentalism does not have to be at the expense to our way of life. Let history decide if that was the right course of action, because there is no advantage to waiting for calamity to befall us when we can do something to avert it. Scientists have concluded should nothing be done there will be consequences, although that could mean a range of calamities still unknown.
The National Geographic Magazine, October 2007, reported on how to cut emissions - but without concern for the economy. They proposed a model of how much carbon is spewed out in parts per million, and determined a "should do" laundry list to abate those numbers. Essentially, this game plan is somewhat a loosing battle because it is not a reachable goal as it is proposed. China and India are exponentially producing additional carbons and do not appear to be slowing down. A U.S. policy would have to embrace not only holding or merely reducing America's emissions, but would have to adopt a policy that makes up for emissions produced by outsourcing production to other economies that do not support environmental measures, in order to accommodate this ideal. That would require a minimum of nine strategies for reducing a billion metric tons of carbon each, just to keep the assumed average global temperature increase below 5°F. This plan is based on the climate model that shows a 9°F increase will be catastrophic, and below 5°F would keep the Earth in isostatic balance hopefully before reaching an undefined tipping point mechanism (based on Dr. Richard Alley's findings in ice core samples).
The only way this plan is doable is if all the proposals are based on existing technology, but that is not true. Nat'l Geo. proposes 15 strategies, 5 of which are still in some stage of research and are a political nightmare. Ideas such as coal efficiency without mercury, deep ocean methane basin extraction, and sequestered carbon storage are a ways off from being perfected, not to mention how unfeasible it would be to reduce travel, stop deforstation, and conserve the tilling of decomposed matter. However by fundamentally altering Nat'l Geo. recommendations, it is possible to legislate some similar strategies, such as: doubling gas mileage or more, new construction efficiency policies, hydrogen and carbon capture technologies for bio-fuels, storage-free bio-remediation nuclear energy facilities, midwest wind-generation for previously unsubsidized farmers, solar power designed to absorb heat like glaciers, ethanol fuel generation from solid waste, 100 year forest rotation policy, and coastal desalization. Those economically sound nine measures could reduce carbon emissions by 170ppm and would barely keep carbon levels from reaching the tipping point, but just enough at 4.95°F above norm. That would be cutting it a little close - but without having to give up our way of life or sacrificing the economy. Whew!
Rebuilding An Exit Plan For Iraq
Is the War in Iraq turning out to be another Vietnam conflict in the making? President Bush was chided when he threw up his arms and gave his military commanders the order to "do whatever they think is best" early Fall 2006. However, it is almost understandable how that he does not have a plan for exiting Iraq. One would have to understand all of the dynamics of the War in Iraq to propose a clear solution for pulling out.
The current problems in Iraq are grim. Armed forces in Iraq cannot even keep their footholds because there are not enough troops on the ground to leave an area secure. The Syrian and Iranian insurgent underground are sneaking in resources and manpower across the untame desert. Also, propaganda by the terrorists is used to gain recruits for insurgents. Our own military personnel are unknowingly helping the terrorists with every reported rape and civilian death. Recent Iraqi polling reveals that the citizens of Iraq will feel safer when American troops leave, but hopeless economically. This present situation does not allow for rebuilding the country's infrastructure and training Iraqi police because a concentrated effort and improved conditions are required. To top it off, historians are saying that we will leave another Yugoslavia-like fractured region in our wake if we simply pull out without bringing lasting change. Not to mention, economists surmise our presence in Iraq is more than likely a means to secure economic stability in the region should China's growth rate interfere with the available oil supply. It may not help that the geology of region suggests that petroleum is the only natural magma-lubricant keeping the Tigris and Euphrates from drying up.
What is missing is how to deal with all of these components, not just the guerrilla warfare. It was not until my international experience involving fighting sexual murders that there was a propelling need to think in terms of multi-fronts. There are 6 fronts here: border security and mobile strongholds, Iraqi citizen casualties and terrorist propaganda, as well as infrastructure reconstruction and police training. All of these need to be sufficiently dealt with to successfully gain control on behalf of the Iraqi government. To treat the guerrilla warfare aspect as the only front to this war is misleading, and ultimately the reason it resembles the Vietnam War. This conflict is complex like a lump of coal turned into a diamond, with the exception of having no heat to crystalize it under pressure and having no cuts to form its brilliance. Without the intense pressure and a skillful blade to hewn out a road, Iraq is no closer to an Easternized version of a Republic.
Now that it is understood what the situation is and what it requires, American leadership needs a strategy. To deal with the terrorism, one cannot hope to gain ground with traditional guerrilla warfare tactics and bankrupt old-world war strategies. Guerrilla warfare is not a fair fight, but terrorism is a whole other level of fighting and must be dealt with accordingly. Krepinivich proposed an oil-spot strategy that secures an area by gaining citizen support and leaks out from a central point. Yes, this technique is slower than in traditional war scenarios, and this technique is not something the American military is trained to do because of the expense in time and manpower, but it is the correct course of action for Iraq and it needs to be implemented, and will actually result in fewer deaths. The propaganda front will also require a serious pledge to increase human rights: protect civilians through zero body count, issue weapons that peer around corners, keep utilities infrastructure uncontaminated and functional, and denounce "Fight for the religion of Allah" by ascribing it as a form of prayer only. This is the skillful blade spoken of earlier.
Another strategy that would work in Iraq is my Red Fire Ant deployment technique that uses the enemy's strengths as a weapon, essentially using our weaknesses against them. One example of turning the tables is providing jobs to civilians to change Iraqi citizen perception of the economic disparity. That is not an easy task by any means, but a necessary one. Now Osama's son, Omar Bin Ladin and his wife Zaina Alsabah, wish to broker peace and should be granted an open dialogue to see their intentions and reactions, as well as their hopes and requests. Peace talks might work best if the United States were not so concerned with petroleum, because, it would be far better to change the basis for our economy from relying solely on oil than to destroy the lives of people in other nations to protect our economic interests. That will not be easy since alternative energy sources must influence at least 44% of our nation's economic structure before tipping the equalibrium of this key commodity. Another example is seeking participation with Kurdish tribal militia or recruiting gang members to defend Iranian borders. Together, these strategies along with 6 flanks will gain serious ground and provide the means for exiting Iraq gracefully. However, these strategies will only work if the next President of the United States is practiced at knowing when to use escalation to negotiate for peace, as funny as that sounds - and I am not advocating war.
Escalation vs. Terrorism
Now terrorism does not play by the rules, and whomever becomes the 44th President had better understand one thing: the effect of escalation on conflicts provoked by terrorists. Terrorism exploits escalation, like an inverted sense of duty where conflict is welcome and negotiation is infuriating. Escalation as a negotiation tactic is a necessary tool, whether in business, politics, or in most warfare, but one cannot demonstrate it in a war on terrorism and then expect to see the same results that one is accustomed to as a leader.
Not many people can relate to the effects of escalation in warfare, but similar dynamics of negotiation strategy also works for business. As a businessman, there are times in my experience when negotiations have failed between the parties involved. When attention is not given to the concerns addressed, and the party across from the table are not prepared to negotiate a fair and equitable agreement or settlement, escalation is used to evoke urgency of expense or pending lawsuit. At that moment, one needs to weigh whether the meeting should be escalated for the purpose of exposing the decision maker or forcing their hand to act favorably.
Now, the decision maker for a particular project or business concern may not be the president of a company, and it becomes important to find at what level who is responsible for what. Oftentimes, a corporation will send to the meeting those who have expertise in a particular field of study. Whether financial advisers, legal counsel, and/or corporate managers make an appearance, the first meeting usually involves the people who report to the decision maker in some fashion, and each case is somewhat different. Typically, such advisors do not have the authority to negotiate and communication breaks down when they convey the meeting points to the decision maker, resulting in an unfavorable decision and the need to escalate. There are other occasions when it becomes necessary to use escalation as well, either to force their hand or to test the waters. Testing the waters is used to see if they would be willing to "play ball", although used infrequently compared to its counterpart due to its toxic nature. Either of these in my experience, are preceded by finding the decision maker more often than not.
The techniques of escalation differ, such as throwing down the "argumentative card" or the "legality card" like a skillfully calculated game of poker. This game of reading the tone of the meeting and its people present, requires experience to know when to use each card - as well as how to deal with the outcome when things get out of hand. And, things will get out of hand because escalation is a necessary evil due to how its very characteristics are meant to break down communication. A breakdown of communication injects seriousness into the claim against that corporation's assets when policy is not otherwise affected by principle. Escalation is a powerful tool to make beneficial course corrections in corporate thinking, if one has the stomach for the negativity and display of manhood.
Corporate policy and bureaucracies of a country are very similar, with the consideration that foriegn policy is 1,000 times more cautious, and for that reason makes the art of escalation a requirement for any U.S. President. In a way, it already is. American politics in the era of broadcast journalism uses attack ads as a litmus test for politicians seeking statewide or national office. What negative ads do, however unpleasant, is test the ability of a candidate to respond to escalation. The general public does not care for negative ads, but they work in the sense that any given politician is exposed to one of the darkest and most necessary tools in the family of negotiation. Whether dealing with lobbyists or national leaders, a good politician has to be able to hold his own and not take any garbage from the other side. This is proving ground for leaders - to avoid faux pas and accidental wars in the future.
Escalation in war is a lot like business and politics, where policies, principles, and legal issues are exploited. The medium used for business and politics are simply conduits of communication and have just as many similarities, but it is the language of war that is radically different from the other two. To be clear what is meant when I speak of escalation and war, every action makes a statement to be identified by discernment - not in the military sense of increases in armaments and troops.
During the cold war, at the height of the Cuban Missle Crisis, escalation was a form of communication between U.S.S.R. and U.S.A. The leaders of both countries were gauging what the other was thinking, how the other was reacting, and attempting to sort out the other players who might be interfering with that communication. Both Premiere Khrushchev and President Kennedy were unfamiliar with this new language, and greatly struggled to learn every nuance. During the blockade imposed on incoming ships bound for Cuba, when President Kennedy gave an order to the Admiral of the Navy fleet "There will be no shots fired at enemy vessels," the Admiral took that order in consideration with the Rules of Engagement the countries agreed to shortly before. The Admiral took it upon himself to fire warning shots, thinking that what the President meant by "not firing" was "not attacking", and ultimately sending a mixed signal to Premiere Khrushchev as to the intentions of the Americans. The language is different for war, but escalation is the same game as in business and politics.
Escalation is a serious matter, and the President cannot use this executive priviledge, the power of escalation, for just any occaision that suits one's mood. For reasons of common sense, escalation comes with a price because it can only be used to avoid war when the risk is outweighed by the threat. However and as was said, terrorism reacts differently to escalation. Instead of creating an atmosphere of seriousness, escalation as a reaction to terrorism is more like how lions expect their prey to resist until they are worn down. It's expected; it is welcome. Terrorists use attacks against their character, against their cause, and against their citizens as propaganda for hate. For them, the opposite applies to the guidelines for escalation and fresh ideas like Red Fire Ant strategy must be employed. The War in Iraq, therefore, is not merely about having an exit plan but is about knowing how to navigate to the exit.
To be honest, it was not apparent to me until after the 2006 midterm elections how escalation as a form of negotiation plays as big of a roll in policy on the War in Iraq as it does, because it has not ever been articulated in that context before. Know this, this revelation occured because of being well-versed at this, being able to apply business meeting concepts to what was happening in the news - as those two events intersected. Americans may not know they need to elect a President who is already practiced at negotiation and who understands the dynamic of how escalation affects terrorism: if the War in Iraq is to succeed. The experience of each nominee for President, whether a leader in business or politics, must match this qualification. It is my sincere wish that my plan for Iraq is on the hearts and minds of every voter.
Promoting Immigration Liberty
Illegal immigration has come to the forefront of current issues due to the strong showing by Latino-Americans to boycott work and march in the streets early May of 2006. The issue concerning immigration policy in America is essentially civil rights verses border security, although it may really come down to whether amnesty worker visas should be distributed to existing illegals - at the expense of legal citizens and their tax dollars. Legal-Americans do not want to have their portion of honest-earned taxes to end up providing services to these illegals. Candidates running for President in 2008 will have to choose whether they care more about fixing the problem of immigration or for the people crying out for human rights. Historically however, this is not the first time immigration was such a hot topic.
As long as there are jobs that exploit the cheap labor provided by illegals who can earn more than in their own country, there will be immigrants in search of a better life. Keep in mind how this trend was compounded by the U.S. government when importing illegal aliens about 65 years ago to prevent more riots caused by the agricultural price wars (1936 Salinas Valley Lettuce Strike, 1942 Bracero Program). Then the U.S. started paying farmers not to produce shortly thereafter to drive economic stability.
Expensive innovation is not always a viable option either, due to the price equilibrium. Innovation was an expensive option then, and certain produce was cumbersome to handle and had to be hand-picked anyway. Presently, robotics would be too expensive for most types of agriculture and would end up causing the same economic turmoil that started the lettuce strike in the first place. The truth is, illegals and subsidies have kept food on our tables and cheap labor provides half of the resources needed for stable price equilibrium.
Therefore, the issue here is not merely one of civil rights of illegals verses legals, but the underlying concern is really an economic one. Of those who are concerned with their hard-earned tax dollars going towards providing services to these illegals, it has been "part of the cost of doing business" as far as the economy is concerned. However, that does not mean injustices do not exist, and an immigration solution should still be devised that best fits the needs of all those involved.
Now realistically, having a tighter border normally would take a back seat to the economy. That is to say, only until the issue of security comes up and further complicates the issue. When the issue of security comes up, then those who have not sorted out the issue become concerned with whether employer crack-down would be more effective than stationing troops. But that argument is comparing apples to oranges, understanding that effective immigration control is not the same issue as border security.
So, the issue of illegal immigrants is really about four issues: border security and civil rights, plus economic stability and taxpayer burden. With all these different angles being so intricately woven, it may be difficult to discern what the best course of action is. Normally, the attempt would be to remove any offensive component to find common ground, but this may be one of those subjects where discernment may be insufficient to address the entire scope of the interests. Instead, what would work well for all four issues will have to be a dynamic plan that puts forth common sense solutions mixed with compromises.
First item of concern is how to deal with border security without infringing on the rights of individuals. Border security is important following 9/11 attacks, and the National Guard can accommodate human rights concerns with a combination of proper training and non-lethal force alternatives. Second, it is important to maintain the same level of economic stability, without encouraging abuse of government programs geared toward the poor. Guest worker visas can provide the infrastructure and controls for just that - with new qualifications and guidelines that ensure sufficient agricultural tax dollars are allocated toward indigent care services. This is not to far off from the plan that President Bush put forth, leaving speculation as to why National Guard human rights training, indigent care provisions, and employer crack-down were left on the table. Perhaps only someone who cares would notice that subtle difference. At least President George W. Bush's plan is more understandable now that it has been articulated.
Want Big Government?
The argument over big government verses little government is little more than a trick question. This essay is not in favor of promoting the myth that size of government is the problem and therefore requiring a reversal of ideology that will ultimately become undone at the sound of the next battle cry. No matter the size of government, the agendas addressed in Congress can still miss the target of currently needed foreign and domestic issues. Legislation, for even the issues at hand, can reinvent new solutions provided by special interest groups instead of core constituency. Through the process of legislation, even the best intended bill can be eroded by political bargaining. The question whether government is too big needs to be appropriately discerned. Reform is the correct answer to provide fair Constitutional legislation and appropriate governmental practice.
Why reform American politics? It is the responsibility of the American people to protect our government by reforming it with balanced agendas. This presumes a fundamental need for government and its reform. To those who would want to shrink government to the point of chaos and at the expense of the Constitution, one must heed the warning that the pursuit of undermining the existing establishment will be the resurrection of barbaric regimes. Historically, absence of intervention has always created a power vacuum where personal interests will thrive. Even ancient cultures have recorded in their writings, "Without a king, everyone did what was right in their own eyes." Corporations, assemblies, and individuals have all tested the legal systems of past and present by "seeing how much they can get away with", and government many times was the only entity capable of responding or restoring order. Due to human nature, absence or reduction of government below the minimal threshold society can endure is not going to be supported by extra citizen involvement, but revelry. A good example might be letting prisoners go free during hurricane Katrina for survival purposes and watching them end up looting. It is clear then, government intervention may be flawed but ultimately necessary to curb injustice, confusion, and chaos.
Now knowing how it is better to have government than its absence, a flawed political machine is not a real choice either. A reformed system would be better than keeping a flawed one, should that be viably possible. American government can improve, and has the means for incorporating reform within its political cogs, as provided by the Constitution: whether through representation or protest, new laws and amendments, watchdog organization oversight or executive administration to name a few. Of course, introduction of passive complaints to this mechanism of republic representation, such as Supreme Court cases, is not guaranteed a voice. If American government is going to improve at all, the smart choice would be to change the system from within using strategic internal pressure to get these rusted gears turning efficiently. And, that means reform.
key. the have they thinks one each and inside, like looks it what see to in get to trying all are home colonial a outside standing people of group A breaks. key her but door, the unlock to tries pants wearing woman The turn" your not "It's her, tell people The photo. white and black a as thin as is it but it, open will key his thinks man A generation." our understand don't "You him, tell people The anyone. of keys most the having up stepped South, the from up railroad the on worked mother whose gentleman, A work. it make to keys more use to trying keeps he when him scolds crowd the But, center. the in hidden tombstone gold a with horse wooden mishapen a - has he key only the uses and up comes assistant, ruddy His see. to all for light the on turns and in goes He see. finally they when cheer then and amazed stand people The
About the trojan horse 2008 campaign for political reform and american social-political environment spectrum balanced supreme court representation but catastrophic disaster and clean up american bureaucracy and conservative liberal views for diffuse concentrated special interest and established political norm and legislating issues of reform of older schools of thought and presidential line item addition for constitutional public outrage and raising the legal standard because reform american politics bureaucracy and reinvent new political solutions and supported legislation when watchdog organization oversight. It is easy to support a platform of political reform when one's reform policy creates government reform from a centrist methodology. The road to the whitehouse, with the 2008 presidential primary and the 2008 presidential election is all about presidential elections in the 2008 election, comprised of states 2008 presidential primaries and 2008 caucuses for 2008 presidential candidates and former presidential candidates who wish to run in 2008 as a 2008 presidential candidate for the 2008 presidential campaign as a 2008 presidential contender and the presidential bid in the national election for american politics to elect presidents. Many political races have elected president a democratic candidate for the democratic party, such as FDR who rush for reform and after 100 days rush campaign to fix the economy, his brush for president questioned his advisors. Should Stephen L. Rush decide to begin the rush for reform 2008. You can join rush and contribute to campaign in this political race with campaign contributions, because the political action committee for presidential committee. Steve Rush is known for being the applied quantum politics author who invented a centrist policy that attracts bi-partisan support to get legislative reform from democratic leaders (democratic candidates and democrats in power) in the democratic party. Stephen LeRoy Rush, a servant of the people, is a progressive democrat that might be considered a moderate democrat or a centrist democrat for his social democrat and conservative democrat views, as a business leader and latino leader being a community leader and fiscally responsible. Rush achievements and Rush speeches can be viewed on Rush site filled with Rush issues on Rush democrat ideas, such as Rush for america and ABCs of Reform, aka ABCs of Political Reform where political reform uses quantum politics as a methodology to curb congressional corruption, repair the national economy, plan an anti-terrorism strategy, deal with the war in iraq, help katrina victims, resolve health care crisis and oil crisis, develop educational progress. To deal with the corrupt congress, Stephen Rushs plan includes inconsecutive terms, term limits, illegalize pork, surrogate voting, and a modern jury duty. For his economic plan, he will pay off the national debt, protect social security, reign in the economic winter, support the shrinking middle-class, court the federal reserve, reduce the trade deficit, create jobs, shorten the kondratieff wave. His foreign policy and terrorism strategy proposes plans to exit iraq, treat civilians with dignity, capture renegade nuclear programs, restrict the patriot act, approve 9/11 commission recommendations, have rookies use less lethal weapons. Concerning global environment, he proposes flex-fuel cars, working toward oil independence, averting environmental calamity with ethanol fuel, discourage road rage, and amend the kyoto accord. He is also big on human rights and special education, like hurricane katrina victims and autism. Please address your candidate donation to: rush for reform, rush for president, rush campaign, rush for america, rush 2008, or rush㤐. It is expected that Stephen L. Rush will be the presidential frontrunner and the democratic party nominee since he is the only candidate with a solid plan, knowing the political action committees for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani have not posted their ideas to deal with the expected oil crisis, inverted-population health care crisis, looming economic crisis, and suspected environmental crisis, let alone the lack of strategy for terrorism and the war in Iraq. National Directory