Wednesday, August 1, 2018

My Brief History of Jesus as Told in the Gospels Part 1 Matthew

     I'm sure that almost everybody who had any affiliation with a Christian church has had the stories from the first 4 books of the New Testament, which are called the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, told to them in Sunday School or in some other way.  The story of the birth of Jesus, his deeds and sayings in his preaching to the people of Israel and the crucifixion at the end of his life has been related many ways. Even though they know the stories, or at least something close to the stories told in the first four books of the New Testament, I don't know if the story of Jesus's life as told by the people who wrote those books isn't really all that well known. They know the story of the birth, sort of.  It is told every Christmas, sometimes in large Pageants, but mostly in small plays put on by a church.  A lot of people who go to church every Sunday have never read the bible, or it's been a long time. I thought it would be fun to give a short recap of Jesus's life as told in the Gospels. But, not his teachings, that would be a little much and it's already been done in a book called the Bible.
    It should be pointed out that no one is sure who actually wrote the Gospels. We know who's name is attached to the first four books, but considering that the Gospels were written one or probably two or three generations after the death of Jesus, the actual authors remain a mystery to most scholars, although there are some that are sure the authors of the books are the ones who's names they carry. Even if that is true, how could any of them have known the details related in the Gospels. Even if they were there at the time of the sermons contained in the four books, they didn't have any way to record them, so what they write about is at least twenty or thirty years after the event and all from memory. Of course Mark and Luke were not there, in fact they never even met Jesus. Even further, Luke never even met a person who actually knew Jesus. 
    Anyone who has actually read the Bible is aware of the discrepancies among the authors about certain details of the life of Jesus. I will leave that to the reader to reconcile. 
    It seems, by people who really study these things, that Matthew was the earliest of the Gospels. They base that on factors such as the style of writing, the language used and other factors of which I have no expertize. But, if you read the Gospels, you probably conclude that the scholars are right, Matthew is the first of the Gospels. However, some scholars believe that Mark was the first.
     After you read Matthew, you really don't need to read any of the others.  The message that Jesus brought is completely covered in that book and is only repeated, sometimes verbatim, in the other three books. However, each book has a different slant on some of the events, sometimes a significant difference. If you believe in any of the books as being authentic, then Matthew is the most credible.
    I will not attempt to relate the message that Jesus was preaching, just the basic history of his life as related in the Gospels. For anyone who feels they need to know that information should go to the source and actually read one of the more modern translations. The early translations has been found to have translation errors, and the new ones will be much easier to read. (That will be disputed by the fundamentalists). That is, if you can plow your way through one of the most boring books ever written. 
     However you might not like what you read if you consider yourself a modern Christian. Jesus's admonitions to his followers about all kinds of subjects such as what is expected of you to get to heaven, marriage, divorce, charity, gentiles and the pursuit of worldly goods among other things, show just how UN-Christian the vast majority of us are. We, in fact, are the Pharisees of the story. The modern man or woman, cleric or priest would probably be right in the crowd cheering the executioner on. 
     It is easy to see, however, how the poor and downtrodden of the world would embrace the message in the book. For most of history the poor had no hope of ever escaping their lot in life. But, Jesus came along and promised them, that if they followed him, they would be rewarded in heaven. Not sure why the rich would like the message Jesus was teaching, and they certainly don't, in reality, no matter how much they go to church. One of the most famous quotes from the Bible is "It is be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven". But, the "in" crowd certainly used that message to convince the poor and disenfranchised to be happy with their position in life, because they would be rewarded after death. A message embraced by the church with vigor as they crowned Kings and let them exploit the masses.
     First let's look at the story as told in the Book of Matthew. My first intention was to include all 4 books in a single blog, but after getting started I realized that that might be a little much. So, I decided to break into parts. I hope it entertains. perhaps informs and doesn't get too many peoples drawers in a knot. 
    But, who was Matthew:
    Matthew was a publican, or tax collector, before he was called as one of the Lord’s Apostles. Because of that profession, we can guess that he was well educated and knew how to read and write, probably in several languages, including Greek. He also knew arithmetic. He saw and heard many things while with Jesus, and it is likely he wrote down some of the sayings as notes or in a journal. Later, these notes would have helped him or one of his own followers to write the book carrying his name.
     In his book, Matthew often stresses that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and came to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies. Matthew wrote specifically to the Jews, who were familiar with those prophecies.
     Matthew was a man who could have moved comfortably in political circles, and his book mentions things that someone in his position would know.
     The Gospel According to Matthew starts with a lot of begats. The purpose is to establish that Joseph is of the house of David. That is necessary because the prophecy states that the messiah will be born of the house of David. Of course Joseph, not being the actual father, throws some doubt into that line leading from David to Jesus.
    Now, at that time there was a young girl named Mary who was betrothed to Joseph. Remember that betrothal in those days was through arraignment between the parents, and nothing to do with love as we know it today. He may or may not, have known her before the betrothal. Nothing else is really said about Joseph. We don't know where he lives or what he does at this point in the book. It would be assumed that these events would have taken place in Bethlehem, as there is no indication of any movement. (Luke introduced that notion). Joseph and Mary were married and then Mary had to reveal something to Joseph. 
   Matthew now says:
    ( Matthew 1:18) "before they came together (i.e. slept together in our language) she was found with child of the Holy Spirit" Now it says (Matthew 1:19) "And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily" (that likely means hiding her away, but it's a strange word, but does seem to indicate something about privacy).  You can imagine, Joseph must have been livid, he had just married a woman already pregnant. However:
   ( Matthew 1:20) "But when he thought on those things, behold, and Angel of the lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit". You notice that every one in Israel spoke 16th century English at that time. Very advanced of them.
     Jesus was born in the city of Bethlehem. Apparently  unnoticed, except for three Wise-men in the east. The Wise-men or Magi, are likely Astrologers, sometimes they are portrayed as Kings.
    The three Wise-men from the east came to Jerusalem asking for the new born King of the Jews, for they saw his star in the east and had come to worship him. (It is likely that what they really saw was a reading of the stars, as astrologers do. There is no way that a star could be seen to hang over a particular place on earth. But, the people of time didn't understand that the earth rotates, how enormous the universe is, the true nature of stars and how far away  from the earth they are).
    Herod, the King heard of this and was troubled. He gathered his Priests and Scribes and asked where this new King of the Jews would be born. They answered that it had to be in the City of David, (Bethlehem) because that was the prophecy.  
   Herod than summoned the Wise-men and asked them the time of the birth and when they found the child, to come back and tell him so that he could worship him. 
   The  Wise-men found the young child, he was likely very close to 2 at the time, and fell down and worshiped him. They brought gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.
    The  Wise-men were warned of Herod's motives and didn't return to tell him of the location. This really pissed Herod off, so he ordered every child of 2 or less in the city of Bethlehem and it's surrounding area killed. 
    Joseph and Mary were warned of the danger by an Angel and fled to Egypt where they stayed until Herod's death. Then they returned to Israel and settled in the city of Nazareth. Thus Jesus became known as a Nazarene. 
     This is last we hear of Joseph and Mary in the book of Matthew except for a brief mention in chapter 13 (Matthew 13:54 and 13:55) "And coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogue insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?". And (Matthew 13:56) "And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?". This could lead one to believe that Jesus had brothers and sisters, but it is not conclusive. It is likely he did. It also should be pointed out that naming Joseph as a carpenter is disputed by many scholars. The actual translation probably should have been builder. But, because the first English translation was done where a builder would have been a carpenter, Joseph was tagged with that occupation. Considering that a builder in Israel would have actually been a mason, that might be the more likely occupation.
     Nothing else was heard of Jesus in this book until he reached adulthood when he shows up to John the Baptist to be Baptized.
     Jesus then started traveling around Israel preaching, healing the sick, driving out demons, raising the dead, feeding the multitudes (4 to 5 thousand) with 7 loaves of bread and 2 fishes and performing other miracles. Most of the parables that you have heard, came from the book of Matthew. As does the Lords Prayer. For details of his preaching see the source.
    During his travels he started to collect followers including a lot of women, he apparently was a rock star. Most notable were the followers that will become his twelve disciples or Apostles.
   Jesus was walking by the sea of Galilee and he saw two brothers, Simon Peter and his brother Andrew. He told them to come with him and they did. They were the first of the Apostles.  Later he came upon two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother and they followed him also. Later he added Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananaian and Judas Iscariot. What is strange to a lot of people, is that Mark and Luke are not part of this group. These are the twelve disciples that follow Jesus, off and on, through his life and are given special powers. So, contrary to the common belief that the books of the Gospels were written by, or at least inspired by, members of the elite twelve close to Jesus, Mark and Luke weren't part of that group. More on those two later. 
    At one point Jesus brought his group together, (Matthew 10:1) "And he called unto him his twelve disciples, and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of disease and all manner of sickness." Then he sent them out to spread the word and to heal the sick, cast out demons with a lot of admonitions.  An interesting byplay of his order to go out and do his good works is, that the disciples aren't around for a lot of what is reported in the story. It is all hearsay.  Who was around? The women, of course.     
     They, let's call them the main stream Jews, led by the priests, elders and Pharisees, were really mad at Jesus. One of their big gripes was that he healed people on the Sabbath. Which apparently was a no-no at the time. It, along with his statement that he was the Son of God was considered blasphemy. He was a rabble rouser, a radical, a revolutionary, a dangerous man.  He was encroaching on their territory and he was threatening the very foundations of their beliefs. He was, in a sense, the Martin Luther of his day. He was challenging their beliefs, and just as the Catholic Church reacted to Martin Luther, so the  high priests and Pharisees reacted to Jesus. In addition he was gathering a following that measured in the thousands. This man could not be allowed to live.  He was under constant threat from the established order most of his time as a Rabbi (teacher).  I think that the general picture of Jesus being the serene man walking around doing good things is not quite accurate. I think he was more like a Pentecostal preacher at his best, spouting fire and brimstone. He showed on a number of occasions that he could get really mad, peeved or petulant and take physical actions.
     At Passover he came to Jerusalem knowing he was entering the mouth of the lion. He told his followers that his time was short and what they were to do. 
    Then he had another of his rather famous episodes. Mathew 21:12-13) "And Jesus entered into the temple of God and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves; and he saith unto them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer: but ye make it a den of robbers".
    Jesus could really be a bad ass when he wanted. Of course that didn't sit well with the high priests; he was into their money.  
     He had a supper at the last Passover of his life, usually called the Last Supper, where he gathered his Apostles about him and started the custom of the eating of bread and drinking of wine after blessing them and pronouncing that they were his body and his blood.  
    At this get together he said the one of them will betray him, which they all denied. He also said to Peter that he would denounce him three times before the cock crowed. Both, of course came true. 
    His enemies knew where he was and had arranged for Judas to betray him for 30 pieces of silver. Judas said he would identify Jesus by kissing him. And that is what he did.  (An interesting side light is the alternate version told in the Gospel according to Judas, interesting).
    After Jesus was arrested, his disciples fled and hid, afraid for their lives. Remember Peter and the three denials. The events of the trial and execution of Jesus could not have been known to any of them. No telling how Matthew, or subsequently his own followers, got knowledge of any of these events is a mystery.  I suppose rumors and gossip floating around was the source. Or more likely, it was the women, who apparently stayed by Jesus's side through out.
     The Jews were not allowed to execute anyone, so they took Jesus to the Roman Governor, Pilate. He found no wrong in him and famously washed his hands of the whole thing. However after a lot of wailing and teeth gnashing by the chief priests and the elders that were screaming for his blood, with Pilate saying he didn't want Jesus's blood on his hands, (Matthew 27:25) "And all the people answered and said, His blood be on us, and on our children".  I have a hard time believing that was actually said in anger. I think it was an invention of a later generation; for one of several possible reasons. It could be to deflect blame from the Romans, who ruled Israel with an iron fist, a view expressed one expert I read, or it could have been just vindictiveness from some Christians who wished to damn the Jews for killing Jesus or it actually could have been just a lament of some in the crowd, recognizing what the execution of a leading figure like Jesus would bring down on their people. It depends on how you read it. In any event, according to the story, Pilate finally gave in and Jesus was sentenced to be crucified. Of course this passage helped set the Jews on a course of persecution from the Christians for centuries for they took it as a cry for the execution of their savior. 
    Judas, in the mean time, recognizing what he had done and feeling guilty tried to return the money. The priests didn't want it because it was blood money, so they buried it in the graveyard of the poor and nameless. Judas subsequently hanged himself. 
    The soldiers took Jesus stripped him, put him in a scarlet robe . Then they put a crown of thorns on his head and mocked him by saying "Hail, King of the Jews".(Matthew 27:29) "They spat on him and took the reed and smote him on the head."
     He was forced to carry his cross on the way to the place of crucifixion. But, in spite of the common idea of that event, he probably had only to carry the cross beam of the cross. That was the common procedure for the condemned man. Carrying the whole massive cross would have been nearly impossible for one man. In general, the post used for crucifixion would be left standing to be used over and over again. Sometimes the Romans just used a tree for the post of the cross and just nailed the cross beam to it.The Romans had this down to a fine art.
    However, he had been beaten and crowned with thorns, so one of the Roman soldiers compelled a man of Cyrene, Simon by name, to carry the cross for him. Jesus was just too weak. 
   When they crucified him they parted his garments among them, casting lots.  They set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
   He was crucified with two robbers, one on the left and one on the right. 
    As he hung on the cross he was constantly jeered and made fun of.  He had saved others, why not save himself if he really is the son of God.
   This is also where the now famous quote of Jesus saying "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthami? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? 
      (Matthew 27:48-50) "And straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it in a reed, and gave him a drink. And the rest said, Let be; let us see whether Elijah cometh to save him. And Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and yeilded up his spirit."
      (Matthew 27:51)"And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in two and the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake; and the rocks were rent; (Matthew27:52) and the tombs were opened; and the many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised".
   Many women were there, principal among them were two Mary's,  Mary Magdalene and  Mary the mother of James and Joses and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Not sure how that works, but that is what the book says. I supposed the other Mary married twice and had step children. It is clear, from later passages that we are only talking about two Mary's. What may be noteworthy is that Mary, the mother of Jesus wasn't there.
    He died on the third day.  (That is kind of strange, because a crucifixion usually took longer to cause death. It was designed to be a slow tortuous death).
   Now the story gets even more interesting. A rich man from Arimathaea named Joseph, who was a disciple of Jesus, asked Pilate for the body. Pilate said Okay.  So he took the body down, wrapped it in clean linen cloth and placed in his own tomb, which was hewn out of a rock. and he rolled a great stone to the door, and departed. 
    The two Mary's were there sitting over against the sepulchre (the tomb). 
    Being a suspicious bunch, the chief priests and the elders came to Pilate the next morning and reminded him that Jesus said he would arise on the third day, so Pilate should put a guard on the tomb until the third day because his disciples may steal him away and proclaim to the people that he has arisen. So Pilate did that very thing. They made sure the sepulchre was secure, sealing the stone and placing a guard. 
    Here is were the great miracle happens. (Mathew 28:1-6) "Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it. His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow: and for fear of him the watchers did quake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, who hath been crucified. He is not here; for he is risen, even as he said, Come, see the place where the Lord lay".  See, even the angels speak 16th century English.
    The angel told the women to go quickly and tell his disciples. That he has risen from the dead and he will go before you into Galilee and there you will see him. 
    So the Mary's took off to bring the disciples word. At that point Jesus met them saying (Matthew 28:9) "All hail. And they came and took hold of his feet, and worshiped him". He further said to fear not and told the women that he would meet his disciples in Galilee. Mary then carried the message back to the doubting disciples.
   At that point the guards went back into the city and told the chief priests what had happened. After a bit of conferences with elders, they decided to bribe the guards to say that the disciples had come by night and stole him while they were asleep. 
     They, being smart soldiers that they were, and underpaid, took the bribe and repeated the story to the governor and anybody else who would listen. This bit of the story is only related in Matthew.
    The eleven disciples went on to Galilee and to the mountain that Jesus had named
   Even though they saw Jesus and worshiped him, some doubted. 
   Never the less, he sent them off to spread the word to all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. 
     What Jesus does after that is not covered by Matthew. 
    And, thus ends the tale of the life of Jesus as written in the book of Matthew. 
    Tune in to Part 2 for Mark. 
        

Saturday, July 21, 2018

Are We Building the Wrong Weapons?

         Down through history nations and the military have developed battle strategies and developed weapons based on the last war. The generals and admirals fought in that war, won and are convinced that the strategies and weapons from the last war only needed to be improved to win in the next one. It's usually the losers who learn from their mistakes and devise new tactics around new weapons. 
    In general, it is the tactics that have not caught up to the weapons that are brought to the battlefield. During the American Civil War both sides, under West Point trained officers, adopted the Napoleonic method of fighting.  That was what was taught at the academy. That method assumed that the enemy was close when you let go the first round of shot and would not have time to load more than one more round if you quickly rushed them with bayonets. It was based on the round ball being shot through a smooth bore musket. The smooth bore musket was not very accurate, so the idea was to point the gun in the general direction of the enemy and let go. That is why you see masses of soldiers lined up in tight formations and fairly close together when they dressed the battle line. The idea is, if you put enough lead out in front, you are likely to hit somebody. The smooth bore musket didn't even have sights. The command was Ready---Fire. Aim was added after the rifled musket came on the scene. 
    Rifles were in use before the Civil War but, because of their slow fire rate and smaller bullet they were generally confined to select units, such as snipers or sharpshooters, not to the infantry. 
    Then along came the rifled musket and the minni-ball. Suddenly the range of the gun was extended up to and over 700 yards with greatly improved accuracy. The minni ball solved the problem of slow and difficult loading of the rifled musket, so it came in to general use by both armies. The massed formations of troops were now just sitting ducks to be mowed down at a long distance. But, the generals had a hard time figuring out another way to do battle. So the slaughter just escalated. Picket's charge is good example of how not to charge a fortified defense across an open field. 
       The French built the Maginot line, a series of fortifications along the German-French border, based on their experience with trench warfare in WWI. History showed how effective that was. The French built the wrong weapon. They ignored the writings by such strategists as Rommel and De gaulle, who were talking about a different kind of war, fought with fast moving armor, with tanks as a spearhead.The French planning had the tank in support of infantry.  That resulted in a slow moving heavily armed vehicle. After all the tank only had to move as fast as the infantry.
     The machine gun in WWI changed the battlefield forever, but the French and British generals were too set in their ways to change their tactics. They just kept sending thousands of men out of the trenches into a hail of machine gun fire, where they died by the thousands.
    The Navy, embedded with a large number of battleship admirals, built some of the greatest battleships ever designed going into WWII. The Iowa class battleship (ordered in 1939 as the first of a class of 4) had no real rivals, except perhaps the two big Japanese battleships. So, the Americans and Japanese had spent huge sums of money, material and manpower building the dreadnoughts of the seas----none of which ever fired a single shot at another ship during the entire war. Their primary job was the provide an escort for the carriers, a job that could probably be accomplished just as well, if not better, by cruisers. They were the only Battleships in the American Navy that had sufficient speed to keep up with the fast fleet carriers. All the battleships in the Pacific did get used in shore bombardment, but that seems to be something that was asked of them because they needed something for the big, expensive, ships to do. As it turned out, the shore bombardment was largely ineffective against the Japanese dug in positions on Peleliu, Guam, Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The primary engagements for any battleship during the war was a couple of obsolete Japanese ships during the Battle of Guadalcanal and the Battle at Leyte Gulf. In fact, the battleship had little to do with the outcome of the war in the Pacific. I don't know of any battleship in the American or Japanese Navy that was sunk by surface action.
     Today we are spending billions of dollars on weapons based on the experiences in WWII. We are trying to build better planes, missiles and bombs with greater accuracy and building stealth into everything.  We now have the B2 bomber and the now cancelled F117 stealth fighter. Not satisfied with that, billions of dollars have been invested in the very expensive F22 and F35 stealth fighter/attack aircraft.  
    The B2 cost 929 million dollars per aircraft resulting in only 21 aircraft being delivered due to high cost. ( The total program cost for the plane ended up at 2.1 billion dollars per airplane). The B2, with the end of the cold war, has lost it's reason for existing; if it ever had one to begin with.  It was used several times in the Mideast wars, but that was just for it to have something to do. Everything the B2 accomplished could have done with guided missiles from a Navy cruiser or missile destroyer. In fact the B2 has little reason to be in the American arsenal except for flyovers at parades and football games. Everything it can do can be done better by guided missiles.
     The F22 fighter/attack plane is very expensive, which limited the numbers that could be acquired. In total 187 planes were delivered at a cost 412 million dollars per aircraft for the whole program. The deliverable cost was 62 million dollars each. Originally there was talk of a Navy version, but that fell through the cracks as not being practical. 
     The F35 is supposed to be the end all in fighter/attack design. Three versions are being built, the F35A for the Air Force, the F35B for the Marines and the F35C for the Navy. It is supposed to be a multipurpose plane replacing the F15, the F16, the F/A18, the F/A18A and the Marines Harrier. It is expected to do all those jobs. But, as experience has shown, if you design a plane to do multiple jobs, it won't do any one job really well. The plane is built on stealth and the ability to cruise for a short time above mach one without using after burners. The Air Force awarded the contract to Lockheed, which has shown to be a little lax when it comes to managing a large undertaking like the F35 program. They are the Air Force's pet these days because their success with the planes turned out by the skunk-works, including the F117. In 2014 the program was 163 billion dollars over budget and seven years behind in development. It was touted to be more efficient per flight hour than the F16, but ended up at 20% more expensive. This is Lockheed's first venture as the lead contractor for the development of a major airframe in the modern jet age. F16, F15, F/A18 and F/A 18A were all developed by General Dynamics, McDonald Douglas and Boeing. Lockheed's entry into the true fighter game was the acquisition of General Dynamics. The F117 is really just a platform for developing stealth technology and is far from a true fighter. The F 22, also built by Lockheed, was just too expensive to field in any large numbers.
         The navy is building ships with radar suppression capability. That works great against present threats from RADAR and heat seeking missiles in today's world.  Of course that isn't the only defense the ships have against attacks by missiles and aircraft. Attacking a modern Navy ship these days would not be good for your health if you use conventional weapons.  
     But, another war between the major powers will likely not be fought like an upgrade to WWII. Maybe we are already building obsolete weapons for that kind of war, assuming it doesn't go nuclear on a global scale.
     The other guys have spies in the sky just as we do. They know where every surface ship is located. All the stealth technology in the world doesn't hide from visual observation. It is likely that every major surface ship, air base, fixed military station or non-hardened missile site would come under attack within a few hours after the outbreak of a major conflict. The only ships that have a chance of going without being attacked are the submarines. Few of our military installations, outside of the Navy's war ships have the capability to defend against a concentrated attack of non-nuclear guided missiles. The hardened military installations and surface ships could survive a non-nuclear attack, although with heavy damage possible.
     Let's start with stealth. Huge sums of money has been spent to develop stealth capability. Along with RADAR absorbing material for construction, the planes have been designed to deflect the radio wave, such that the return image is very small, to the point of almost being nonexistent. We have one problem. We didn't think of it first, a Russian scientist did.  The required shape of the airframe made the aircraft unstable and impossible to fly until a new generation of controls was developed called fly by wire. But, our lead in stealth technology is only temporary. Other nations, notably Russia and China, are well aware of the theory behind stealth and will not be long developing similar capability---if they haven't already. 
     And, there has never been a weapon system of any kind that hasn't been countered by some development to defeat it. Stealth is no exception. A F117 was shot down by a SAM already.  How long will it be before stealth is nullified by some advance in technology. When that happens we will have multimillion dollar planes that really aren't any better at their jobs than the F16, F15, or the carrier based F/A18A Super Hornet. Perhaps, not as good. And, because they are so expensive, we may be loath to commit them to danger.
      The Navy's F/A18 Hornet and F/A 18A Super Hornet and the Air Forces' F16 and F15 can do everything that is required on the battlefield at this time, or in the foreseeable future. But, lack of funding is seriously compromising the availability of the planes. The last I heard, only half of the F/A 18's, F16's and F15's are airworthy due to budget cuts. We spend money on planes we really have no foreseeable need for and sacrifice the maintenance on planes where we do have an immediate need.
   What we should be spending that money on for future planning is unmanned aircraft and space warfare. That is the future. It certainly isn't popular with the Air Force. They have all those pilots who need new toys to play with, but the presence of humans limits the maneuverability of a plane while wasting significant resources to keeping the pilot alive and to supply them with information for maximum effectiveness. What the fighter of the future might require is not a qualified pilot, but a teenager with an X-Box controller in his hands.
      Without a human to worry about, planes could be designed with much greater maneuverability and cost a lot less. With the advances in artificial intelligence and modern sensing capability, the situation awareness and reaction time of an unmanned plane engaged in combat would be greatly increased over what a human can do. A computer controlled plane can react in microseconds to any threat, can pull huge G forces in maneuvering and target an enemy with far greater accuracy than any human. The current planes are designed to take up to about 9 G's, because the human sitting in the cockpit can't take anymore anyway. Think about something else. The pilot is being supplied so much information it is impossible to keep track of all of it. So a great deal of time, effort and money has been spent to design displays and other means to aid in simplifying the display for the pilot, so that they have situation awareness without being overwhelmed. Guess how that is done? AI does it. All that effort is just to create an environment for the pilot to act quickly. The pilot sees what the AI wants him to see. In one sense, even with a human aboard, the plane is being flown and fought by the AI already aboard. It wouldn't take much more just to leave the pilot on the ground. 
     If a non nuclear conflict breaks out between two nations with advanced technology, almost the first thing that will have to go is the spy satellites that look down and map everything on earth.   You can not allow an enemy to have that kind of visibility into the movement of troops, the deployment of ships and other useful knowledge gained from spy satellites.      
     We will have a scenario that is much like what happened in WWI. The first fighters were developed to shoot down the flimsy observation planes used by both sides. Fighters were then developed to protect the observation planes. It became evident to each side that they had to gain air superiority, spurring the rapid development of better and better aircraft.  
     The modern fighter is just an extension of that scenario. Such a scenario is likely to be repeated if another major conflict breaks out, except it will be moved up a level into lower orbits in space where the observation satellites are stationed. Satellite destroyers, for want of a better name, likely unmanned, will have to be developed to shoot down observation satellites. The enemy will counter with destroyers to attack your Satellite destroyers and the war in space will then escalate. It is easy to see where this could be headed. Space based weapons emulating the WWII bomber will be next. How ready are we to repel an attack from space?
    The Chinese have already demonstrated the ability to destroy a satellite. If we lose eyes over a potential battlefield and the enemy has such eyes, the outcome would become very chancy indeed.     
     If, however, the conflict goes nuclear, then you might as well bend over and kiss your butt goodbye. There will be another mass extinction event.
     

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Can This Democratic Republic Long Endure?

        If history has taught us one thing, it is that no system of government lasts forever. In fact most forms of government only last for a relatively short time before it is changed to something different, or even falls. 
     Think about it. The United States has a system of government that is arguably the oldest of all the developed countries. Since the adoption of our constitution, the Russians have changed hands many times, from a absolute monarchy Czarist Russia) to a republic (short lived) to a dictatorship (the USSR) under communism. Following the collapse of USSR a new semi-dictatorship was established in Russia. The Germans went from a Monarchy to republic after WWI and then a dictatorship under the Nazis to a Democratic Republic after WWII. The French threw out the monarchy and had a brief fling with a Republican government but then entered another monarchy under Napoleon Bonaparte and then back to a Republican government after his downfall.  There was another change in government when the Germans defeated  the French in WWII. The English moved from a powerful monarch with a vast empire to a purer form of a Republic, with the Monarch having only a ceremonial position and no say in government at all. A far cry from the days of Mad King George. China went from a monarchy to a dictatorial state under the communist after several iterations. And the story goes on.
    The reason for the changes vary from country to country. Some changes were the result of invasion by foreign powers and some, in fact most, were really the result forces acting within the structure that brought it down.Very often the fall of a government to a foreign power is proceeded by a long history of corruption and decadence within, making the fall almost certain.   Rome is good example. 
    The United States form of government, from it's founding, has been under threat a couple of times. 
     In 1812 the British were on the edge of reconquering American and taking it back into the fold.  Only a heroic stand at Fort McKinley in Baltimore stopped that from happening. If we had lost there we might very well be flying the British flag now.  
     The nation was literally torn apart in 1860 when 13 southern states decided to destroy this nation by rebelling.  They feared that the election of a Republican to the White House would not only stop the spread of slavery, which they desired to do, but might actually put an end to slavery all together. A bloody war was fought to hold the nation together. Thousands of lives were lost in effort to save this nation.
    The nation changed as a result of the Civil War. Going into the war we were the united States of America. The population, including those at, and graduates of, West Point, owed more loyalty to their state than to the nation.  Robert E Lee, who did not own any slaves, felt that he could not fight against his state and resigned his commission and joined the rebels. Almost all the southern born officers in the U S army resigned and joined the Confederacy.
     After the War we became the United States of America. One nation, not a collection of semi-independent states. That was significant change in the form of government. But, through it all we had the corner stone of our contract with the government, the Constitution.  
      The Civil War was probably the greatest threat to our form of  government for a long time. Although one could argue that the Japanese threatened us when they attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941. But, they had no real plans to conquer the United States, just to get us out of the Pacific and let them establish their "Asian Sphere of Influence". They thought that wiping out the the Pacific Fleet would force the Americans to ask for peace and the Japanese could then go on their merry way to control all of Asia. Their evaluation of the American psychology at the time was simply that we did not have the stomach to fight. 
     Hitler had great plans, but no real way to carry them out. He made the mistake of taking on the Russians with the British still at his back. He opened up a two front war, which anybody who knows anything about this stuff can tell you that is a very bad idea.  Of course, he then compounded his problems by declaring war on the greatest industrial power in the world, The United States.  Just how dumb can one man get?  American industrial power then fueled the war machine that brought victory in the Second World War.  
    As I noted earlier, a form of government can be changed abruptly by acts of war, rebellion or invasion of a foreign power, but it can also be changed slowly and almost unrecognizably by forces from within.   
     The United States has been changing since it's inception. Technology has driven vast changes in how the nation operates and sees itself.  The railroad, the car, the plane, mass production have had a profound influence on the country. There were many social changes in the United States over the years. The Constitution provided a method for change to reflect changing times by the amendment process. Notable among these were the 13th and 14th amendments which outlawed slavery and made all people born in the United States, regardless of color, as full citizens.  Also, the 19th amendment assured women's suffrage throughout the United States. Up until then it was up to each state to decide the matter.    
    Since then the courts at all levels have been staffed more and more with judges which are prone to stepping outside the limits placed on government by the Constitution and are literarily making new law. The liberals had found a way to get their programs implemented without having to go through the congress. 
    A good example of the differences between current and past courts is the comparison between women's suffrage and abortion. Neither of these issues are addressed in the Constitution. The older courts would not rule on suffrage. The Constitution didn't address it so the courts felt is an issue left to the states to decide. It was the opinion that the federal government had no right to interfere. It took an amendment to the Constitution to force suffrage on all the states. It should be mentioned that a lot of states already had suffrage. In the case of abortion, the courts (Roe vs Wade) held that it was unconstitutional to deny an abortion to any woman who wants one. Before that each state was free to decide this issue by the citizens of that state. There is no part of the Constitution, nor any law passed by the Congress, that addresses abortion on demand. Then the logic changed. The courts acted outside of the federal Constitution and in reality made a new law allowing abortion through the United States. A new right was discovered. 
     The downside for the abortion advocates is that Roe vs Wade can be overturned by a subsequent court. Of course suffrage can't because it written into the Constitution.  
     The courts have been the vehicle for much of the changes that have been made to the social contract between the government and it's people. In fact, more and more the courts have taken the place of the legislative bodies in deciding the course of the nation with regard to many social issues. 
    It seems that we are undergoing a restructuring of our form of government. This morphing of the government, from a nation based on the idea of freedom of the individual, individual initiative, minimum government and adherent to the Constitution, into that of the government providing a social network attempting to provide for the well being and comfort of all it's citizens and a new interpretation of the Constitution. That it is a fluid document and needs to be interpreted to fit societies desires at the time.      
      (Largely from Wikipedia) The changes in attitude about the role of government started during the Great Depression.  As a solution to the Great Depression Roosevelt initiated a program called the New Deal.  The New Deal was a series of programs, public work projects, financial reforms and regulations enacted in the United States 1933-36. Some of these federal programs included the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Civil Works Administration (CWA), the Farm Security Administration (FSA), the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA) and the Social Security Administration (SSA). The Grand Cooley Dam was built as part of the jobs program under the Roosevelt regime. Some of these programs had trouble in courts initially. They were declared unconstitutional. But, after an attempt to expand the court by Roosevelt and some public pressure, the court approved most of them. These programs included support for farmers, the unemployed, youth and the elderly. It included new constraints and safeguards on the banking industry and efforts to re-inflate the economy after prices had fallen sharply. New Deal programs included both laws passed by Congress as well as presidential executive orders during the first term of the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The programs focused on what historians refer to as the "3 Rs": relief for the unemployed and poor, recovery of the economy back to normal levels and reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression. The New Deal produced a political realignment, making the Democratic Party the majority (as well as the party that held the White House for seven out of the nine presidential terms from 1933–1969) with its base in liberal ideas, the South, traditional Democrats, big city machines and the newly empowered labor unions and ethnic minorities. The Republicans were split, with conservatives opposing the entire New Deal as hostile to business and economic growth and liberals in support. The realignment crystallized into the New Deal coalition that dominated presidential elections into the 1960s while the opposing conservative coalition largely controlled Congress in domestic affairs from 1937–1964. The Roosevelt New Deal and has been carried on and expanded since.  
    This was a complete departure from previous government actions in the face of several recessions and an earlier great depression. Whether Roosevelt's programs helped or actually slowed down the recovery is open to debate. Many economists believe that he actually did more harm than good. In any event the general feeling was that Roosevelt was the savior of the country and he set up the Democrats to be viewed as the party of the working man. As a result of the Roosevelt programs, and their perceived success, a new role for government was now stamped into the American mind. That was never more evident than during the last recession where Obama took a page out of Roosevelt's play book and with a Democratic Congress, rammed through all kinds of bailouts for banks, investment houses and big corporations with the to big "To Big To Fail Label".  A large infrastructure program was undertaken to provide jobs.
     The courts have been the vehicle for much of the changes that have been made to the social contract between the government and it's people. In fact, more and more the courts have taken the place of the legislative bodies in deciding the course of the nation with regard to many social issues. 
   A current bone of contention is the issue of gun control. The anti-gun faction is doing everything it can to infringe upon the citizens right to bear arms. This is a clear violation of 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, which clearly states that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So a great contest is being waged by the supporters of the right to own a gun and those that want to eliminate guns altogether from society. The problem the anti-gun lobby has is the 2nd Amendment. The courts have gone a long way in supporting restrictions on the sell and  possession of guns.  However, at this point they have stood firmly against any attempt to outlaw guns completely. You wonder how long that will last until a new interpretation of the Amendment is announced by a liberal court. After all, the Amendment includes the phrase  "A well regulated Militia" as being the justification for its existence.
     The question is----are the changes we are seeing and experiencing a precursor to a significant change in the nature of the government?  Will the changes continue under social pressure from the liberals to the extent we end up completely ignoring the Constitution were we don't like it and embracing a Socialist form of government?  I think the answer is---it is a definite possibility.
    If you think about it, our government today would not be recognizable by the people who wrote the Constitution.  
      When one looks at the college campuses and what's going on there, it is easy to see where the nation seems to be heading. After all, these young people who are convinced that Socialism, as taught by their professors, is the right system to bring Truth, Justice and Prosperity to the people. They see problems of poverty, poor medical services and other ills in society and want to fix them. Never mind that every place it's been tried it has been a dreadful failure. They will not listen too, nor allow anyone else to listen too, any contradictory opinion to their own. These are the people who will be the politicians, the lawyers, the judges, and the reporters in a few years. Any student on campus who displays a Trump sign is likely to meet with bodily harm. They may not be the majority on campus, but they are the loudest and are backed overtly by their professors and the school administration. 
    Even grade schools are in the act. Eleven year old students are marched out of class, led by their teachers, and display signs prepared for them to protest some act of the President or the Congress on some subject; especially immigration. The liberal press eats that kind of thing up. They never bother to ask the students what they are protesting about. The answer wouldn't support the message the media is trying to make.  
     In a recent poll the question was asked if they were proud to be an American. Only 47% said that they were. If you compare that to a similar poll taken in 2003, 70% said they were proud to be an American. If you asked any of the Great Generation that same question, I would be surprised if that number didn't rise to almost 100%.
    To add to the problem, not only do the liberals pretty much control the main stream media, but more importantly for the younger voter, they control the social media. You name it, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft; all owned and and run by liberals. You can't get a job with one of them if you are a conservative. In fact it was reported that Google marched one of their employees out the door for mouthing a conservative thought during the last election.
    Illegal immigration has changed the face of America, especially in the states bordering the Mexican border. California, because of it's liberal policies, has attracted such a huge number of Latinos that they make up a majority of the population in many large cities, and about 47% of the total state.  The once dominate Euro-centric white population is now the minority. This is having a profound impact on the Congress in addition to the local elections. Look at how many California Congressmen and women have Spanish surnames. Most of them have a liberal view of the role of government. The face of America has changed and will continue to change. And, the change seems to be toward a socialist approach of government, where all essential services such as medical and higher education is free, welfare is abundant and only the "Rich" have to pay. 
    The recent Trump revolution has halted some of that momentum, but I fear it's only a temporary pause. But, I guess we'll see. 
     When we wake up one day and find ourselves being taxed at about 80% of our income to pay for all the social programs so dear to the liberals heart and a stripping of our military to pay for it, we might be sorry we don't have any way to stop China and/or Russia from stepping all over us and our interests anywhere in the world.  
    
       
    

Friday, June 29, 2018

Let's talk about Fascism.

         The left loves to attach the term "Fascist" to the people that don't agree with them. Especially the Trump supporters and even the Republican voter in general. So, I thought it might be worthwhile to just look at what a Fascist believes in and how they compare to ideas of the conservatives who make up most of the Republican Party. And, to make that same comparison to the left and the Democratic Party. 
     The platform for Fascism was laid down in 1919 by a manifesto.

The Fascist Manifesto of 1919 (From Wikipedia)

In 1919, Alceste De Ambris and Futurist movement leader Filippo Tommaso Marinetti created The Manifesto of the Italian Fasci of Combat (the Fascist Manifesto)] The Manifesto was presented on 6 June 1919 in the Fascist newspaper Il Popolo d'Italia. The Manifesto supported the creation of universal suffrage for both men and women (the latter being realized only partly in late 1925, with all opposition parties banned or disbanded); proportional representation on a regional basis; government representation through a corporatist system of "National Councils" of experts, selected from professionals and tradespeople, elected to represent and hold legislative power over their respective areas, including labour, industry, transportation, public health, communications, etc.; and the abolition of the Italian Senate. The Manifesto supported the creation of an eight-hour work day for all workers, a minimum wage, worker representation in industrial management, equal confidence in labour unions as in industrial executives and public servants, reorganization of the transportation sector, revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance, reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55, a strong progressive tax on capital, confiscation of the property of religious institutions and abolishment of bishoprics and revision of military contracts to allow the government to seize 85% of their profits. It also called for the creation of a short-service national militia to serve defensive duties, nationalization of the armaments industry and a foreign policy designed to be peaceful but also competitive.

     Let's see: Take the Fascist Platform one platform plank at a time and check it against the Democratic agenda (the left) and the Republican stance (the right) and see how it compares to both parties.

  •  Universal Suffrage--
After a bitter fight the Republicans finally got an amendment to the Constitution allowing women the right to vote. Several states had already adopted that stance but, it wasn't a federal law.
The Democrats fought against it and Wilson didn't want it.

 
         However, everybody signs up to it now. So we can't hold the Dems accountable for their sins in the past. 
 So, which of two parties agree with the Fascists?
         Left--Yes
         Right--Yes
Both parties agree with the Fascists.

  • All opposition parties disbanded (or made irrelevant)
    I'm not sure the left wants to completely disband the Republican Party and kill all the conservatives who don't agree with their point of view, but if you look at the college campuses and the violence heaped on any conservative speaker that dares to enter their domain, you might get the idea that is their goal.  And, this isn't some small radical fringe group that is disowned by the Democrats. 
    The right has it's radical fringe groups also, but they are not as numerous as the left and are generally disowned by the vast majority of the conservatives and certainly by the Party. And, they have not been violently disruptive and against any meeting or rally of the left wing. Look at the violent protests outside the Trump rallies during the elections. There were NO such protests outside the Bernie Sanders or Clinton rallies in the same time frame. The conservative treasures the first amendment to the constitution. So how do you score this?
  Which of the two parties agree with the Fascists?
      Left--Modified yes -say a half yes.
      Right --No
  •       Proportional representation on a regional basis.
     Both parties pretty much embrace the idea of proportional representation. That's pretty much what our Constitution specifies. 
 Agreement with the Fascists?
      Left--Yes
      Right--Yes
Both parties agree with the Fascists.
  • Government representation through a National Council of experts.--
     Over and over again the left has shown that they believe in a socialist and controlled economy. That a bunch of experts will be better for the market than having the unwashed masses deciding what they want to buy. That is called a free market and the left doesn't really think that it works. Just listen to a socialist like Sanders for once.
  Agreement with the Fascists?
     Left--Yes
     Right--NO
  •  Holding power over Labor industry, transportation, public health, communications, etc.-
     Again the socialist dream. They believe that a totally regulated economy is the right way to go -On the other hand conservatives believe strongly in the free market. The less government control the better. 
 Agreement with the Fascists?
       Left--Yes
       Right----NO
  • Abolition of the Congress. 
    I don't think anyone in either party is advocating the abolition of the Congress. At least anyone but the extremes of left and right.
 Agreement with the Fascists?
      Left---No
      Right--No 
  • Eight Hour Work week---
     An interesting history.  Both Republicans and Democrats have contributed to the eight hour work week that is standard today. 
          On 25 June 1868, a Republican Congress passed an eight-hour law for federal employees] which was of limited effectiveness. It established an eight-hour workday for laborers and mechanics employed by the Federal Government. President Andrew Johnson had vetoed the act but it was passed over his veto. Johnson told a Workingman's party delegation that he couldn't directly commit himself to an eight-hour day, he nevertheless told the same delegation that he greatly favored the "shortest number of hours consistent with the interests of all." According to Richard F. Selcer, however, the intentions behind the law were "immediately frustrated" as wages were cut by 20%.
     On 19 May 1869, President Ulysses Grant (a Republican) issued a National Eight Hour Law Proclamation.       In the 1912 Presidential Election Teddy Roosevelts Progressive Party (Republican by another name) campaign platform included the eight-hour work day.  The United States Adamson Act in 1916  established an eight-hour day, with additional pay for overtime, for railroad workers. This was the first federal law that regulated the hours of workers in private companies. The United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act in Wilson v. New, 243 U.S. 332 (1917).
The eight-hour day might have been realized for many working people in the US in 1937, when what became the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S. Code Chapter 8) was first proposed under the New Deal (Dems). As enacted, the act applied to industries whose combined employment represented about twenty percent of the US labour force. In those industries, it set the maximum workweek at 40 hours, but provided that employees working beyond 40 hours a week would receive additional overtime bonus salaries.
     So both parties have contributed to this stance on labor. 
 Agreement with the Fascists?
     Left--Check
     Right---Check
  • Minimum wage----
      A long history proceeds the enactment of the current minimum wage law in the United States.
      In 1933, the Roosevelt administration during the New Deal made the first attempt at establishing a national minimum wage regiment with the National Industrial Recovery Act, which set minimum wage and maximum hours on an industry and regional basis. The Supreme Court, however, in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935) ruled the act unconstitutional, and the minimum wage regulations were abolished.Two years later after President Roosevelt's overwhelming reelection in 1936 and discussion of judicial reform, the Supreme Court took up the issue of labor legislation again in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937) and upheld the constitutionality of minimum wage legislation enacted by Washington state and overturned the Adkins decision which marked the end of the Lochner era. In 1938, the minimum wage was re-established pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, this time at a uniform rate of $0.25 per hour ($4.78 in 2017 dollars. The Supreme Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act in United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941), holding that Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate employment conditions.
      The 1938 minimum wage law only applied to "employees engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce," but in amendments in 1961 and 1966, the federal minimum wage was extended (with slightly different rates) to employees in large retail and service enterprises, local transportation and construction, state and local government employees, as well as other smaller expansions; a grandfather clause in 1990 drew most employees into the purview of federal minimum wage policy, which now set the wage at $3.80.
    In general the Republicans were not in favor of establishing a minimum wage. They believed that the market should determine the proper wages for work done. 
Agreement with the Fascists?
      Left--Yes
      Right--No

  • Worker representation in industrial management--- 
      The Liberals have championed this idea for years. The problem is, they want to force it on companies by law. Today there are many companies the have worker (Union) representation of some kind in management decisions. These are almost all brought on by settlements during negotiations of the Union during contract talks.  
     The GOP does not believe it is the role of government to dictate such a mandate to business. Again, conservatives are committed to the concept of a free market and capitalism. 
Agreement?
     Left-Yes
     Right--No

  • Revision of draft law on invalidity insurance
     I'm not sure which invalidity insurance the authors were referring to (to lazy to find out) but the only non voluntary or draft on invalidity insurance, that I can think of, that applies today, is Social Security and Medicare. Although it might have meant agriculture. I also am not sure just what revision the drafters of the manifesto were thinking about, but there has been a lot of discussion about the need to revise Social Security before it goes bankrupt. Some revisions have been made but it still doesn't fix the long term problem. Both parties have kicked this can to a future generation of politicians to solve. It's, without a doubt, the third rail of American politics. The Democrats have generally fought against any revision to these two entitlements while the Republicans have not fought hard to make significant changes. If is about agriculture, the Conservatives would not be in favor of drafting farmers into mandatory insurance.
    So how to score?  Not exactly sure.
Agreement with the Fascists?
     Left-  A qualified no, Say half a no
     Right---A qualified yes, Say half a yes

 Reduction of the retirement age--- I don't think any one except the Bernie Sanders left is possibly thinking about this kind of move. With Social Security in the mess it's in there is no chance that either party, conservative or main stream liberal, would consider this move. 
Agreement with Fascists? 

            Left--No 
           Right--No
  • Strong progressive tax on capital----
This is an easy one. It is part of the left's basic platform that the rich corporations should be taxed heavily so that they are "paying their fair share". Conservatives on the other hand believe that taxing capital is taking money out of the hands of investors and slows down the economy. It discourages investors and drives that money over seas. There is an old saying; Money travels well. 
Agreement with Fascists?
      Dems --Yes
      GOP--No 
  • Confiscation of the Property of religious institutions-- 
I don't think either the conservatives or the liberals are advocating the confiscation of property from the religious institutions. Some however, are saying that if a religious institution gets involved with politics they should forfeit their tax exempt status. 
Agreement with Fascists?
      Dems-No
      GOP--No,sort of
  • Abolishment of bishoprics---
     I'm not exactly sure what the framers of the manifesto had in mind, but I think it referred to the abolishment of organized religion.  The word has to do with the bishops, or in a broader sense any position of power. 
  Agree with the Fascists?
      Left--No
      Right--No
  • Revise military contracts to seize 85% of all profits from such contracts.----
     This is an easy one.  There is no way that a conservative would consider confiscating the profits of a specific group, like military contractors. Liberals on the other hand would be glad to do that very thing through increased taxes. Especially if it could get more money for social programs from such a tax.
Agreement with the Fascists?
       Left--Yes
       Right--No   
  • Short service national militia for defense---
    Not exactly sure how the authors of the manifesto meant. I think the Fascists meant that every one of military age should serve a short time in the military. Israel does that now. I can't see the liberals getting behind this kind of move, but I could see conservatives adopting something like this if conditions warranted it. Looking at what Mussolini did in Italy, it also might indicate the raising of a large standing army. 
Agree with Fascists?
     Left--No
     Right--Maybe Yes
  • Nationalization of the armaments industry---
    This is a move that is right down the socialists alley, so it is very much in line with the lefts thinking. On the other hand, conservatives would fight the nationalization of any industry. They are champions of free enterprise.  
Agreement with Fascists?
     Left--Yes
     Right--No
  • A foreign policy designed to be peaceful---
     This is a rather hazy goal. Do they mean that all foreign policy should be carried out without any threat of force? That is what I think it means, but as the champion of Fascism, Mussolini, showed, not all Fascists are true to the manifesto.  Trump is up front with the threat of force against the North Koreans. It seems that this tactic has brought Kim to the negotiating table. This drives the liberals wild. They are used to negotiations without such threats, which has produced no results.  
Agreement with Fascists?
     Left -Yes
     Right--No

     So what is the score?  Who lines up with the Fascist agenda better; the liberal or the conservative? It seems that liberals and the Democrats agree with the Fascists on 10 points while conservatives and the Republicans only appear to agree on 4. It follows that if anyone should be called a Fascist is should be a liberal. 
     Being clear, that doesn't mean that the agreement is right or wrong. It just shows that calling the right "Fascists" isn't consistent with what a Fascist is and what they believe. Actually when you look at it, Fascism sounds a lot like Socialism.  
    One additional observation.  If you add extreme antisemitism and the myth of Aryan superiority to the mix, you have Nazism. And, we all know where that led the world. 




Sunday, June 10, 2018

The Role of Government

        What is the role of government? That is a question that should be asked and answered for every citizen of the country. Just what do we want and expect our government to do? 
    Do you want government to be essentially your "Daddy" and you an everlasting dependent? Do you want "Daddy" to take care of you, tell you what is politically correct, what you should eat, who you should associate with, what you should think, what you should wear.? Don't laugh. In return you will be clothed and fed and given medical attention and try to keep you from being exposed to ideas that they consider harmful. We have many people in this country that have that basic belief, even though most don't recognize it. A quick look at the events occurring on our college campuses, especially the big Ivy League and California Universities should give you a clue.The most socialist of all the schools seems to be the Berkeley campus of the University of California where political dissent from socialist orthodoxy is put down, usually violently.
      Before you answer that just consider a few things. The more you ask of your government, the more control that government will have over your lives and the greater the tax burden will be to pay for the things you want. There really is not such thing as a free lunch. Somebody pays. In spite of the ignorance of  so many liberals that the money they want the government to spend on their free stuff is not money that just appears out of nowhere.  It is taken, for force of law, from somebody who is working and producing something. Today the top 5% of the wage earners pay some 70% of the total tax burden. Some would increase the taxes on the rich so that the top 1% pay 90% of the nations income.
     Do you want security? How much? Then, depending how much security you want, you must give up some, or a lot, of your freedom to achieve it.  Police forces will have to be increased and given more power. Security check points will have to be expanded. Cameras positioned to monitor more areas will have to be installed. That's not the end. Laws will need to be passed giving more power to the government.  The desire for absolute security will result in a police state.
    Do you want the government to provide health care to the ones that can't, or don't want to, pay for private insurance? That issue is front and center today in the Congress as the debate over the repeal and replace of Obama Care is fought. Or should the government institute a one payer system where everybody is provided medical care at the taxpayers expense?  There is certainly a push on, led by Bernie Sanders, to do that very thing. The cost is unknown and hasn't been evaluated by the GBO as far as I know. But, it will be expensive. I honestly believe that we are going to end up with that kind of program. Maybe not this go around, but not too far in the future. It will increase the proportion of the federal budget for entitlements to far greater percentage than it is now. You say Europe already has that kind of program, but they don't have the huge defense expenditures the United States has to act as an umbrella over the western world. And,  if you don't think that is necessary, you haven't been paying attention to history lately. 
      Do you want to spend vast sums of the taxpayers money to "help" the poor as defined by some yardstick? What happens to "help" when it turns into entitlements that far to many people become dependent upon. Ignoring for the moment the effect on the nation as a whole, but on the individuals that are living on the dole. It has proved to be an anchor that keeps one generation after another chained to the welfare dole handed out by government bureaucrats. The government has literally created a permanent underclass with only a few able to break the chains of welfare and rise up in society. It's just too easy to take the "free" money that Uncle is handing out.  As an example, single women are actually rewarded by having children by increasing the amount of their allotment for each child. That increases the number of young fatherless kids that are growing up and, far to often, getting into trouble.
     A good yardstick to gauge how you feel is the catastrophe in south Texas and now Florida. The taxpayers are supplying a great deal of help in the immediate problems of rescuing people, trying to control the water levels and providing temporary relief to the victims in terms of shelter, food and other necessities. But, at what level should the taxpayers stop aid? Should they be responsible to rebuild the homes for the people that lost them in the hurricane and flood and not had the foresight to buy insurance to cover this eventuality, even though they clearly live in in a hurricane zone? Should the taxpayers poor huge sums of  money into rebuilding the infra-structure of south Texas and Florida, including that infra-structure that is owned by private utility companies? What responsibility do the taxpayers of the nation assume for the individual states? 
    How about the environment? The government has stepped in big time to regulate businesses with the goal of keeping the environment clean. But, these regulations have been increasingly strict and have impacted the of creation of jobs. We have created an insatiable bureaucracy that sucks up huge sums of money while they search for the next regulation. To put the frosting on the cake they do not have to consider the fall out of their demands. There is no cost-benefit study done before new regulations are handed down. How big a role should the government have in setting environmental standards? Should they mandate the fuel consumption of cars and trucks? Why? Should the price you pay for natural gas and electricity be heavily influenced by the desire for you to lower your consumption of these items by adjusting rates so that larger users pay more per unit? Why? After all there is no economic reason to raise rates as the consumer uses more electricity or natural gas. Just the opposite. As more electricity or natural gas is produced, the lower the cost per unit. Large users should actually get lower rates as they increase their usage. Electricity is not a resource that is limited in quantity and is not threatened in the long term and there is so much natural gas that we are exporting it in vast quantities.
    How about endangered species? Should the government prevent the expansion of homes and businesses because a rat is threatened, raising the cost of housing by limiting supply and jobs that would be created? Another bureau the the government has created that will never stop finding species to protect with no mandate to consider the costs of their regulation. 
    So what is the role of government? 
    It is clear that the founding fathers were very wary of  large government. In fact they firmly believed that large government was the greatest  threat to the freedom of the individual. Any reading of the Constitution would clearly show that. The Constitution and it's amendments clearly define the role of the federal government and the protections that every citizen has from intrusion by that government. The tenth amendment clearly restricts the federal government from any activity  not specifically granted by the constitution. Stating clearly that all other things are reserved to the States and to the people. 
     The founding fathers clearly thought that the role of government was to provide for national defense, regulate interstate commerce, provide a postal service, and to assure the individual rights and liberties of all it's citizens. The government was empowered to make treaties and regulate foreign trade. Not much else. Certainly there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to take money from one person and give it to somebody else. Taxes are authorized by the Constitution to pay for such things as national defense, interstate commerce and Postal service (roads and infrastructure) and operation of the government itself. And, remember, the power to tax is the power to control.
     We have two opposing views of what is allowed by the Constitution. The more conservative side believes that unless the Constitution allows it, the federal government shouldn't do it. On the other side you have the liberals who believe that unless the Constitution specifically forbids it, they should do it if they feel like it. Even if the Constitution specifically gives the power for some action to the people by the constitution, the liberals still feel that they know better and move to impose their will. Gun laws are a good example. The Constitution specifically states that the right of the citizen to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.And yet there is a ongoing battle to infringe on the right of the people to bare arms. If the people as a whole would like to restrict the sale and possession of firearms they should modify the constitution.
    As the government moves into the lives of more and more citizens we become closer and closer to becoming a socialist state. And, one should remember that there has never been a socialist country that has not degenerated into a authoritarian state. 
    So think carefully about what powers you wish to cede to the government about your lives, your freedom to say what you want, to go where you please, to open a business if you desire, to retain a significant percentage of the money you earn, assemble in peaceful protests against government policies, to work where you wish and other personal liberties that we enjoy-----but for how long?  
    It has been said that in any form of government is the seeds of it's own destruction. The chink in the armor of a democratic government is when the people realize they can vote themselves the treasure of the empire.  We have already reached the first stage of the condition. Where do we go from here?