The American Way of Life is at Risk

30 04 2008
War, Peace and Oil
Authored by: William Robert Barber

I have read of it in various publications, had the merits of it explained to me by many distinguished speakers, have been induced to believe that it is of common acceptance, and for the better part of my early life on earth I actually believed that the essence was doable:

That doable was that peace was indeed a realistic goal; that this nation’s policy, in scope and function, both domestic and international should be to establish peace. I thought that peace was universally desirous and was a shared commonality for all of humankind. But, with the passing of years, as with all things child-like, I put such beliefs aside and dealt with the world as it is rather than as I wish it was.

It has been suggested by documenters of history that the reason 5,000 people gathered for the first time in a confined space was to kill each other. The globe is benchmarked by monuments, statues, commemorative inscriptions, and graveyards of those who fell in battle. There are poems, prose, myths, songs, and stories of those who fought others of humankind’s kindred with the intent of one killing the other. There is no doubt of man’s violent nature toward their fellow man.

I believe that humankind is a multipurpose creator and perpetrator of an overtly combative nature; I believe that the behavior of humankind is intrinsically embedded with innate hostility; as a consequence, I do not believe that peace between nations is a natural condition; indeed, all nation states are leery of any hands down trustful engagement. In other words, for the administrators of this nation’s foreign policy to suggest that peace is an attainable goal of even relative permanency is absurd, illusionary even dangerous. Every nation will serve its interest and for the industrialized nation’s, energy is its food and water.

History evidences that peace is no more than a momentary lull connecting a perpetual continuum of violent strikes. Rarely does the momentary lull of peace extend pass a generation of time; therefore, because of the clear evidence of history one need not suffer another surprise attack in order to relearn the self-evident consistencies of history. One cannot outrun the natural inclinations of humankind and elephants will not grow wings and fly. The rule of law is enforcement dependant. Human satisfaction has a short memory and an insatiable appetite for more. Greed and stupid are the superior genes within the mix of common human characteristics and their predominance’s have little to do with societies’ interest or insistence on either the abatement of ignorance or the advancement of enlightenment. Withstanding all of the niceties of living the ‘good life,’ even the most generous, liberal, and naive of Americans realize that the wheels that go round and round will stop if there is no energy; convincingly, one also recognizes that without a steady supply of affordable energy the good life could come to a not so pretty an end.

The world and its affairs do not utilize or operate from a moral platform nor do the perpetuators of worldly affairs utilize reason, rationality or sensibility as its basis for negotiating trade agreements, adhering to affirmed treaties or agreements, or doing one thing, all the while, confirming that they are doing another.

I do believe that contrary to the interest of this nation state, offensive actions are in development, on going, and will be perpetrated against this nation into perpetuity. It is happening for instance by oil producing nations as I write. Middle Eastern countries specifically have, ‘weapon enabled’ its oil to serve as an economic missile capable of influencing the general cost of all services; therefore, the effect of weapon enabled oil will at a minimum, lower the net of discretionary common income and deliver, at will, at least short term economic destabilization.

The Government of the United States response to such a strategic debilitating offensive is to NOT drill for our domestic oil reserve NOT initiate nuclear energy alternatives, to NOT negotiate directly with sources of oil depositories, but instead, to pay the money and bark at the moon.

These actions by those who have the oil reserves are not peaceful gestures, they are aggressive gestures; if the restricting of global energy resources are destabilizing this nation; are not those actions as dangerous as an overtly hostile act?

If you are an oil producing nation and as such have formed a cartel to monopolize and manipulate the price of oil with the intent of destabilizing America and its allies; is that not a overtly violent act? If the cartel knows the amount of oil that will hit the global market on a given day, week, or month would they not only make the money on the price of a barrel but also manipulate the options market and in so doing artificially force up the barrel of oil by speculating on the options market?

60% of your oil is IMPORTED costing you $1,320,000,000 EVERY DAY! –   Source: http://www.anwr.org

Overtly and covertly this nation is at war; today’s trading partner could very well be tomorrow’s enemy; it is a very confusing world…nevertheless, one item is not so confusing, without the oil there is no energy without the energy the American way of life is at risk. Congress cannot simply sit on its hands…





Political Media Dance

28 04 2008

When Will They Ever Learn

Authored by: William Robert Barber

Events, international and national, serious very concerning events; many that rises to the level of possibilities portentous and foreboding; events that threaten our way of life, even our very existence as an open society, these events, although, as real and forecast able as the setting of the sun, remain, in the mind of the many, a subject of disregarded and indifference.

One such national event: Political parties have evolved into huge money raising machines; an entire business infrastructure is now in place to elect their particular slate of candidates. Media embraces the entire concept of elections as sharks to blood; millions upon millions of dollars are delivered to media by political parties. There is a common belief evidenced by empirical deduction that the candidate with the most money to spend in a political campaign has the upper hand on the election outcome.

Events, metaphorically like the burning of Rome, continue while the political parties and their sponsored protagonist orchestrate the media dance to the rhythm of emotionally stimulating sound bytes, misinformation, disinformation, uncontestable lies, and this relatively new phenomenon prompted by media-advisors to the electoral contester of delivering serialized nonsensical distortions of the factual by the utility of post-stupid speech clarification. The contextual essence factor of these post-stupid clarifications is to say almost anything other than the truth. Their adage must be that anything but the truth will set one free; a very President Clinton-like approach to dealing with what is truthful.

This is the age of weapons of mass destruction. A WMD attack is not a forthcoming HBO special; such an attack is well within the realm of reality. We actually do have people, groups, institutions, nation states, irrational fanatics who support a religiously motivated intensely dedicated number of militant Muslims who have declared war on America and Americans. Of course this paragraph does not apply to former President Carter whose mindfulness lives somewhere between Never-Never-Land and Obama’s foreign policy.

Excessive taxation is often synonymous with erroneous taxation either or both descriptions impair individual freedom, empowers government, and is counter intuitive to the sensibility of defining government as a righteous utility of the people. As excessive taxation is implemented those taxed resist, maneuver, and redirect their investments in a differing opportunity; after all, it is a global business environment. Hence and therefore, less tax, in the quantitative is actually collected.

Nevertheless, and despite the arguments to the contrary elected officials of the accepted political party colors red and blue are focused on getting into office or staying in elected office. The consequence is that the difficult issues that prompt the events of deep concern even those of a foreboding factual will not be meaningfully addressed. Because of this political system reality, the citizen voter is a dismissive resource; the government is too strong, too empowered, the appointed non elected bureaucracy is entrenched and the citizen voter has its head deeply impeded in the sand. The people are divided between those who live as if in a Pepsi Cola commercial and those who produce the commercial.

As with all serious redirections of effort and concern an event will prompt the citizen to lift its head and smell the gun powder…naturally, for many the prompting event will be too late.





Persuasion Consensus and Policy

8 04 2008

Candidates Inclinations to Compromise for the Sake of Winning –
Is That Not a Lie?
Authored By: William Robert Barber

One is armed only with one’s persuasion. Persuasion is the precursor of consensus; without consensus policy is but an academic exercise void of vigorous possibility. Persuasion is the artful combination of bandy; of rhetorical thrusts, slashes, panegyric salutes, all encompassed within the seemingly reasonable urging of one’s belief upon another; wherein, the goal is to induce the counter party to cheerfully accept a heretofore argumentative position. Persuasion is a constant; there is never an end to persuasion least an end to policy.

Implementers’ of policy must recognize that respective of the policy’s overtly meritorious sensibility, all policy is subject to the arbitrary whims of consensus; the positive consensus of any policy requires a necessary continuum of explaining, appealing, educating, and repeating same into perpetuity. In other words, as a necessary measure of the policy’s assurance in practice it is essential that the governing persuader must create, in common truth, the aura of positive popular consensus.

The precursor to the attainment of popular consensus is the constancy of persuasion. The implementers of policy are obligated to employ the art and science of persuasion in order to attain and maintain popular consensus. We are all, be it a political ideology, a religious belief, a social preference, or an economic strategy, to some degree, we are all advocates of something we believe in.

Inherent within the contesting of persuasion is compromise. Compromise is when one accepts partial victory rather than ignominious defeat; often, compromisers have no original idea, guiding ideology or have no belief they believe is worth fighting over. They describe themselves as moderates, middle of the roaders, non confrontational, conciliators; they consider themselves arbitrators of reason, persons of sensibility. I say they are the provocateurs of the less than good; willing to settle rather than to fight for a righteous belief; often they are the usurpers of civil regard, corrupters, and contrarian’s for the sake of the contrary.

History has documented the great compromises; arguably, compromise has rendered often enough, the immeasurable passive that in someway avoids deductive analysis altogether. I am of the opinion that elected representatives are obliged to admit in certain terms their declarative guiding philosophy of values; these values, if political should not be influenced by the fashion of the present or the utility of the moment to expedite some urgency but should stand, in the interest of the electorate, as their intrinsic raison d’être.

The process of contesting for an election to high office is an exhausting affair requiring the contender to maneuver and traverse though a gauntlet of unpredictable trials and tribulations. Surely, I do truly have an appreciation for the stress and pressure of the political candidate’s step-by-step, day-to-day, dawn to dusk ritual of affirming, denying, negating, creating, explaining, and advocating policy. Nevertheless, the candidate’s inclinations to exaggerate, misdirect, lie, propagandize, or other than declare their actual policy is very poor persuasion. How can they harvest consensus if their persuasion is something less than the truth? If focus groups incline a candidate to compromise for the sake of winning votes; is that not a lie? When a candidate is caught in an outright lie is that not an indicator of character and virtue?

Why do the media, the people, the candidate and their staff permit such behavior? The concept of a representative democracy is severely jeopardized if such conduct continues. It must stop!