Hooligan's View
Many guys (my brother, brother in law, and friends) my age are retiring. Should I do the same? I’m 58 now; I may have 10 or 20 years left if I’m lucky. Why not enjoy leisure time, more time with my grandchildren and wife, or simply time to do the “things I want to do”. Don’t I deserve it?
The trouble is that I don’t think I can deal with leisure. You see I get bored when I have three days off from work. I’m trying to develop some interests, hobbies, or even other duties that will fill what otherwise might be empty space. I have gardening in the summer, running to keep me fit, reading when I find something that strikes me, and passing time with my family. I am, however, a long way from doing this full time. I am just starting to cultivate these activities and am not really very good at them just yet.
A big fear is that I will let my mind atrophy. I remember my wonderful uncle Kenny. When he was a young man he worked at the Goodyear tire factory during the day, and after work he tended to his farm in the fields and barns, all the while raising a large family. After he retired, I visited him in Florida at his retirement home, and when he and I took a walk he became excited about finding a loose bolt on the ground. That walk worried me for weeks. Never do I want to become interested in loose bolts on the ground. I want to contemplate grander issues of humanity.
While I’m developing a life that will survive my employment and seeking a path to enhance human existence, I think I had better stay employed. I’m sure all those people who know me deserve it.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Monday, January 24, 2005
Why Would Anyone Run a Marathon?
This weekend I meet with my running group to run a whopping 3 hour and 40 minutes. You see I’m training for my second marathon in Austin on Feb 13. The question I get is “Why in the world would you want to run 26.2 miles?” Well I’m in pretty good shape since I just ran my first a couple of months ago, and I don’t want to lose anything. A fit body can wilt overnight; all good runners know that. Running can be routine and boring, so the regimen of training for the marathon puts a little structure and purpose into the process. It also forces me to eat with a little more caution, since I have to mindfully watch what I eat a day or two in advance of the long runs lest I diminish my energy output. In addition, my first marathon, in Chicago, was fantastic, and I want a repeat. It was a beautiful day, the fans were 3 and 4 deep cheering us on the whole way, and hospitality was unparalleled in my experience anyway. So there you go; I do it because I’m neurotic.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Power and the US Diplomacy
Power and the US Diplomacy was the subject of Henry Nau, speaker at the World Affair luncheon here in Dallas today, Jan 18th. He characterized the prevailing views on foreign policy - he is a college professor – as nationalistic, institutional, or idealistic*.
The nationalist is one who sees events in terms of power and tends to argues that we do what is in our national interest. If we are attacked, we defend ourselves since no one else will do so. The nationalist proposes that we extend power to keep others from using power against us. They believe in a strong military for defensive purposes only. There is no nation building; it is much too altruistic and expensive to boot. Power balancing is a good thing since it keeps everyone in their proper place.
The institutional believer thinks in terms of all inclusive decision making and consensus building. International groups working together will come to the best solution for everyone. They believe in the UN, NATO, WTO and other multinational bodies. If we work together in organizations that represent purposes bigger than ourselves, we will not only build a better world that includes all countries and peoples but will also build goodwill for us at the same time.
The idealist’s beliefs are based on values. Our values are better than their values so we should do all we can to make ours prevail in the world. We believe in an open society with as much freedom as possible, and we should encourage more. It would be a good thing. This group can tolerate other values to an extent, but when there is conflict we must do what is necessary to impose ours and not the other way around.
He talked about some of the current events in these terms. For example, the 9/11 attack evoked the nationalist instinct to defend ourselves. The nationalistic response was to invade Afghanistan, the perceived source of the act of aggression. While we want a democratic society there, we are willing to let it take on its own characteristics. The president runs the nation in the midst of warlord countryside. He also point out that President Bush has an idealistic bent when it comes to Iraq, but thinks the President has a back up plan to give the Iraqis a chance to run and defend themselves and to pull out gracefully as they begin to take over the task of security and governance.
He took some question at the end of which I can’t remember. His answers, however, reinforced his message that all believers do so in terms of the three prisms he describes. He revealed himself as a mixed nationalist and idealist and thinks President Bush is the same. In all, he was an excellent speaker, and I understand his definitions of the three categories, but what does it tell us or lead us to conclude? Here is where all falls short, so I’ll stop.
* The Jan 18th 2005 editorial in the Economist “More Sticks and the Odd Carrot”, also refers to the Washington factions in very similar terms, at one point asking “…can the realists, neo-conservatives and multilateralists all be made happier in a second Bush term”?
The nationalist is one who sees events in terms of power and tends to argues that we do what is in our national interest. If we are attacked, we defend ourselves since no one else will do so. The nationalist proposes that we extend power to keep others from using power against us. They believe in a strong military for defensive purposes only. There is no nation building; it is much too altruistic and expensive to boot. Power balancing is a good thing since it keeps everyone in their proper place.
The institutional believer thinks in terms of all inclusive decision making and consensus building. International groups working together will come to the best solution for everyone. They believe in the UN, NATO, WTO and other multinational bodies. If we work together in organizations that represent purposes bigger than ourselves, we will not only build a better world that includes all countries and peoples but will also build goodwill for us at the same time.
The idealist’s beliefs are based on values. Our values are better than their values so we should do all we can to make ours prevail in the world. We believe in an open society with as much freedom as possible, and we should encourage more. It would be a good thing. This group can tolerate other values to an extent, but when there is conflict we must do what is necessary to impose ours and not the other way around.
He talked about some of the current events in these terms. For example, the 9/11 attack evoked the nationalist instinct to defend ourselves. The nationalistic response was to invade Afghanistan, the perceived source of the act of aggression. While we want a democratic society there, we are willing to let it take on its own characteristics. The president runs the nation in the midst of warlord countryside. He also point out that President Bush has an idealistic bent when it comes to Iraq, but thinks the President has a back up plan to give the Iraqis a chance to run and defend themselves and to pull out gracefully as they begin to take over the task of security and governance.
He took some question at the end of which I can’t remember. His answers, however, reinforced his message that all believers do so in terms of the three prisms he describes. He revealed himself as a mixed nationalist and idealist and thinks President Bush is the same. In all, he was an excellent speaker, and I understand his definitions of the three categories, but what does it tell us or lead us to conclude? Here is where all falls short, so I’ll stop.
* The Jan 18th 2005 editorial in the Economist “More Sticks and the Odd Carrot”, also refers to the Washington factions in very similar terms, at one point asking “…can the realists, neo-conservatives and multilateralists all be made happier in a second Bush term”?
George Bush’s Inauguration
Today, Jan 20th, 2005 George W. Bush was sworn in for a second term as President of the United States. I voted twice for the guy, but to tell you the truth, I’m not sure about him. I not sure about this Iraq war, his plans to free the world, and his fix for Social Security. First let’s talk about the war. He was in an awful hurry to invade Iraq, and now that we are there the terrorists are picking off our troops one by one (many times more than that) in addition to killing many Iraqis. We were warned that we were terrible at nation building and the proof occurs every day as we watch the disgruntled Sunnis spreading violence across the country and trying to create a civil war before our eyes. My guess is we need triple the troops we now have to get this mess under control. Secondly, just how does he plan to spread freedom throughout the world? Even if we overlook the self righteous tone of the message, just what does that mean and to whom does it apply. Are we going to boycott those that he judges to be not so free? Does he mean military intervention; I don’t think so. Is he going to do it with just dialogue or talk? It sounds lofty, but if he uses anything but talk, we are in for more international tension at the least or more war at the worst. Maybe he should put his efforts on domestic problems like Social Security, my third concern. We have a real problem now that will put the program in the red in 2018. Does George Bush have a program to head that off? No. He wants to solve the problem by getting our kids to put their security in a private system, which may help much later than the crisis year, but will carry a large transition cost and not do anything for the system when it is seriously needed, near term. He and we are asking our children to carry a very large burden to support the baby boomers. George Bush was elected with a majority control of congress, but, in my opinion, I’m not sure he will lead us to a better era given what I’m hearing now. Only after the next year or two, will we know for sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)