Beware of Russians Bearing Advice...

Have you read the op-ed in the NY Times labeled as being written by Vlad Putin?  It oozes emotional appeal and socialist underpinnings.  I believe if he indeed wrote this, he is appealing to the globalists and liberals that see the free market and Capitalism as a bad thing. 

There are many points to discuss but at first glance the points that stand out are:

United Nations being of utmost importance.  The UN is a nice formal way to facilitate social events and coordinate operations of countries doing joint operations, but it is in no way superior, or even close to the United States own ability to rule itself and by the UN’s idea of a league of nations opposes nearly everything the USA stands for.  We will and always have made our own decisions.  Our system of government  has proven itself to be the most successful.  Of late the players and corruption have caused our form of government to fail.  The players are corrupted not the system, history clearly shows that.

In his Op-ed piece Putin says “No one doubts the use of nerve gas, but it was the rebels not the Syrian government.”  To me if that were true, how could Assad assure anybody he can turn control of the gas to any global organization if he doesn’t fully control it?  Believe me, this is never going to happen.  They may do something symbolic, but that’s all.  Russia is their ally and could possibly have given the nerve gas to them.

Toward the end of the piece he (Putin) voices his disagreement with Mr. Obama and his speaking of
American exceptionalism.    This echoes his allegiance to the communism of this past leaders and government.  Socialism, and communism’s worst enemy and their Kryptonite are individualism and excellence.  As echoed by modern liberalism promoting competition free outcomes so no one has to lose.  Sameness of outcome in almost all things they control, under the guise of “fairness” and “equality”.  In the United States we already enjoy the utmost freedoms of any place on earth, not because we guarantee the sameness of outcomes for everybody, but our form of government allows for anybody to strike out on their own and seek to excel at anything they want to put their time and resources toward.  I admit it is increasingly tougher to attain success in private industry as no sooner than you announce your plan to become a for profit entity our beloved government becomes a silent partner by force and threat of retaliation.  Their partnership is in your profits and never in the liabilities, but we can overcome even their intrusions.  If we succumb to becoming a part of the rest of the world and their regulation we will continue to have to “dumb down” or economy and our dominance in the economic arena.  I believe the world would be a worse place without our leadership.  Having said that, there are many corrupt aspects of our government that the world wouldn’t miss as well.

Bottom line:  This is not a man or country we should trust.  We have nothing to gain by joining the “We are the world” brigade.  They have the potential to topple the world’s strongest nation.  We are in a little bit of a nose dive, due largely to a leader that isn’t.  But hopefully we can shed ourselves of him and his ilk and get a leader that is decisive and strong and get back on track.  This kind of foreign affairs faux pas is very reminiscent of the presidency of Jimmy Carter and the Iranian hostages.  The hostages had been held and bandied about for months, while an inept Carter tried the same limp wristed diplomacy that Obama is using, but within 5 days of Ronald Reagan’s election, they released the hostages with no complications.  Our enemies watch closely for our weaknesses, and like undisciplined children, push to the limit.  Now our adversary, Russia is sounding more American than our president, which in my opinion is a scam of monumental proportion and demands keen leadership more now than ever.

                                                                                                                                                                          

Don’t let ‘sustainable’ turn political

  Editorial reprinted from The Capital Press 

Occasionally, I come across an article that sums up my same sentiments and says it much better that I can.  This is a reprint of just such an editorial from the September 6th edition.

We like the concept of sustainability, and so does almost everyone.

It is difficult to argue against the concept of farmers, ranchers and others operating in a “sustainable” manner.

But a problem arises in defining the concept.

When it comes to agriculture, the definition of sustainable is in the eye of the beholder. A family that homesteaded 160 acres and has farmed that ground for 150 years need only look in the mirror to see what sustainable is. The farm has supported the family, provided a livelihood for generations and helped feed the world.

That just about says it all. By any measure, that farm should be considered sustainable.

Yet other individuals and groups have gone to great lengths to define and redefine sustainable using the lens they prefer. That can include leanings toward a particular type of production or lifestyle. Or it can include certain political tenets.

Agricultural concerns large and small are taking up the sustainable banner these days. They want to be able to tell their customers that the food they eat is not only good for them but that it is sustainable.

One example of this effort is General Mills, which has gone to farmers that produce some of the commodities that go into the company’s many products. Working with farmers, the company hopes to develop criteria that show those commodities are grown in a way that is sustainable. That makes sense. All companies, including food processors and retailers, need to listen closely to their customers. If customers want a certain type of products, including those produced sustainably, that company’s leadership would be wise to find a way to meet that expectation.

Working with farmers and others, the companies can develop a definition of sustainability that makes sense economically and environmentally.

Our biggest fear is that politicians might try to hijack the term sustainable. Mind you, government is famous for tripping over itself whenever a new buzzword enters the political lexicon. Some years ago, “renewable” was all the rage in state capitals and in Washington, D.C. Legislators wanted to define it according to their political leanings. Wind turbines and photovoltaic panels were “renewable” even though they required subsidies, but hydroelectric dams were not. In the West and the rest of the nation, dams provide flood control and generate massive amounts of low cost electricity, providing a renewable source of energy and bolstering regional economies.

Yet some politicians refuse to acknowledge that they are “renewable.”

Now sustainability has gained currency, and we can only hope that it will not fall to the same political fate as “renewable.”

Our hope is that politicians will resist the temptation to inflict their views on a concept that, to a large degree, is common sense.