I
once heard a quote attributed to Aristotle that says; "The Law is Reason,
Free from Passion". While this may be the theoretical desired handling of
legal matters, it is never-the-less apparent that only a percentage of any
given legal and political population actually practices this.
What
we have been witnessing is an era in which the sitting political party has
displayed Compassion, Free from Reason. In their effort to "solve"
some of the more troubling issues present in all cultures, those of our
left-listing brothers and sisters have chosen, rather to adopt a stance known
as the "flail-ex".
The
Flail-Ex (flailing exercise) is defined as the natural response by some to the recognition of a condition,
problem or symptom of a general breakdown in what they consider the natural
order. It is characterized by a simple wringing of hands to the more flamboyant
flailing of arms and legs accompanied by verbal outbursts of hysteric
utterances generally exclaiming; "Oh God, Oh God, what are we to do?"
What
typically follows are emotional remonstrances leading to not very well thought
out edicts, legislation and restrictions which always come with a heavy price
tag and almost never solve the actual problem. The Affordable Care Act aka ACA, aka Obamacare
is nothing more than the most recent example of this. The ACA is the spasmodic attempt to rectify a perceived shortcoming in health insurance among the poor which the flailer defines as a lack of health care.
The left is always trying to solve the problem of poverty and while that desire is commendable, what is not is their insistence that if you disagree with their proposals, you are simply dispassionate and hateful. It is also curious that they insist on oversimplifying the issue by determining poverty exists because of a disproportionate distribution of "wealth" as though it is a natural resource mined from a finite source within the earth.
The left is always trying to solve the problem of poverty and while that desire is commendable, what is not is their insistence that if you disagree with their proposals, you are simply dispassionate and hateful. It is also curious that they insist on oversimplifying the issue by determining poverty exists because of a disproportionate distribution of "wealth" as though it is a natural resource mined from a finite source within the earth.
But
the most relevant reason they seem intent to tear down our entire society and
reconstruct it, is because their perception of poverty is diametrically opposed
to those thinking with the other side of the brain.
Poverty
for the conservative minded individual is a temporary condition which may
require reconsideration of how you conduct your business to improve your lot in
life while the liberal sees poverty as an incurable disease, like cancer, which
also requires an eternal injection of money into each individual case.
The
result of the enactment of the several programs flinched into existence to
reactively "treat" poverty is several generations of people who have come
to believe their condition is in fact incurable and that it is someone else's
responsibility to simply carry them - not help them. The sitting party has done
a remarkable job convincing the ever burgeoning, left-listing voting block to
keep them in power simply by promising to give them that continual infusion of
money and trinkets as an answer to their "incurable" condition.
This
same inexplicably corrupted vision of both the human and cultural condition affects
every vestige of thought and vision as the liberal mind looks around the globe.
It has certainly affected our foreign policy and especially as it affects
conduct on these current battlefields.
Within
6 months of the World Trade Center attack, the flailers were already mounting
arguments that the culprits were not in fact Al Qaida agents but the US
government which detonated pre-staged explosives at least in building 7. That
particular theory never fully explained how the aircraft which hit the towers
managed to be on site precisely at the moment the government determined to detonate
their treasonous load but that was hardly important. What was important was
insuring that a spark of doubt was placed within the minds of those voters most
likely to buy into the theory and do one of two things; sit out elections or
vote for the other party. While the momentum of anger toward our Islamic
brethren fueled the conservative voting block in the short run, by the end of
George Bush's second term, the conservatives were prepared to sit one out while
the flail-ex crowd, was energized.
At
about the same time complaints began emitting from various segments of society
decrying the unreasonable and hate filled speech toward the Ummah. As time has
marched on, those complaints have found a home in all of the suspect acronym
bearing "human rights" organizations which have since worked overtime
to correct any actual or perceived injustices done to the Ummah by out of
control Americans seeking justice. These complaints also found a willing ear in
a new President in November of 2008 and the damage that combination has yielded
has bled out a generation both figuratively and literally.
Recently
concerns have been raised that Muslim G-Grade Officers were being assigned
positions within the Pentagon; the concern being that a Muslim Officer, could
incongruously affect policy that will affect future strategy and ROE decisions
for our War Fighters in future engagements. What these concerns fail to
consider is that it had already happened during President Obama's first year in
Office.
The
flail-ex created by the perceived irrational national distrust of Islam and its
adherents found its way into the DOD and compromised the proper decision making
ability of the then Deputy Secretary of Defense who inserted himself into an assessment
process designed to reconsider our posture in Afghanistan. The result was a
"cleansed" assessment which produced a highly controversial strategy,
Counter Insurgency which always yields a lethal ROE. The number of tragedies
associated with the introduction of COIN and its natural child, a rigid ROE are
too numerous to name and I have written about them in previous entries spanning
the past nearly five years.
Another
example of Passion without Reason is General Amos reacting out of irrational
anger and trying to influence the actions of the JAG Officers responsible for
investigating and eventually trying the USMC Snipers accused of urinating on
the corpses of the demonically inspired enemy they had killed in an earlier
engagement.
Would
any Marine Corps Officer lash out irresponsibly and unprofessionally at men in
his command for a perceived breach in ethics like this under normal
circumstances? Unlikely, but add the tension introduced into the situation by
the wailing and flailing crowd who hold the bodies of a gaggle of dead, non-uniformed
dirt bags over that of the well-being of American Marines facing the inhuman
acts of these 7th century heathens and you have the recipe for yet one more
example of passion running amok, dictating political and legal action to the
detriment of those these very institutions should naturally hope to defend.
Frankly
I couldn't care less how the health care debacle turns out in the short run.
The fact is, the present model is as unsustainable as the present application
of Social Security funding and both will fall into disarray if our current crop
of DC Miscreants doesn't get their several parts wired straight.
But
I do care about the unhinged meanderings of the flail-ex crowd because without
Reason, there is little hope that either their hysteria or their reactive
legislation will produce anything of lasting value. In the case of decisions
being made within the Pentagon based on veiled whispers emanating from the
White House and their appointees, the end result has been and will continue to
be devastating for the several Services and those who serve.
Semper
Fidelis;
John
Bernard