« The "Peter Tweeter" is done | Main | What's up with the price of bacon? »

July 29, 2013

Comments

Will

It occurs to me that this:
"I'm thinking we need a new law, that says that if the president thinks a war is so important for us, he has to lead it from the front, personally. That should curb their enthusiasm. And congresscritters should also serve. You want to start something, you better be prepared to put your ass on the line."

would tend to keep old idiots like McCain from hanging out there as long as they can. This would be a built-in term-limiter, since the longer you stay in, the more likely you are to end up at/near the pointy end of the spear. Most would not want to take that sort of chance. The Pelosi types would never want to take that type of chance. We might end up with a younger, leaner, smarter politician, that doesn't intend to make it a career. Well, we could hope.

Will

I have to disagree with your assessment of the basic reason for the failure of the USSR. It appears to me that you are pointing out a symptom, instead of the cause.
You are talking about the king of the socialist states. It failed, for the same reason all have, or will, fail. That is that they ignored human nature.
If there is no personal reward for effort, and in fact penalties assessed for trying to rise above the average, then very few will make any attempt. What you end up with is the lowest common denominator in nearly every category of worker. In other words, everyone is in the( one and only) union, the union runs every business, and the result resembles Detroit.

The drinking would tend to be used as an outlet for frustration at a system that is non-functional and un-fixable. As bad as it was, it's a wonder it lasted as long as it did. That may be a comment on the historical nature of the Russian people. Perhaps.

I expect there is a graph that could be drawn for the life expectancy of a socialist state/community. The more strict or more control it has, the shorter survival time. This could be balanced by the size of the population, I suspect. The smaller it is, the quicker people can kill it. The more people, the longer it takes to decay from internal rot, since individuals have little leverage or power.

Regarding drug use, again, it seems you want to ignore US history. We tried Prohibition, and the result was the Mafia, among other bad results.
So, not being able to learn from experience, we tried it AGAIN, with the "War On (Some)Drugs*TM".
Tell me, have there been ANY good results from all the tax money spent, the insane laws passed, turning our police forces into a standing army, and the loss of freedoms as a result?

I'm hard pressed to come up with any neutral results, let alone good ones.


As far as projecting force overseas, historically the Dems are absolutely incompetent at it. The Repubs are better, but still poor managers of force. The end results have been so costly due to mismanagement, and micro-management, why should we bother? Our habit of fixing up our enemies after a war is so f'ing stupid, we lose what effect we were trying for, besides putting us in the poor house.
I'm thinking we need a new law, that says that if the president thinks a war is so important for us, he has to lead it from the front, personally. That should curb their enthusiasm. And congresscritters should also serve. You want to start something, you better be prepared to put your ass on the line.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad