Perspective: A World Without Work

In my last blog I referenced an article in the July/August issue of the Atlantic magazine entitled, “A World Without Work”. That blog focused on the rapidly moving trend of machines replacing human labor. This blog focuses on what the article says it would be like the machines did everything and there were no jobs.

There is a small group of writers, economists and academics that are called “post-workerists”. They welcome and even root for the end of labor. They believe that with the right government provisions, ( My underline) ,the end of wage labor will provide for a golden age of well being. This is scary stuff. We already have nearly 100 million eligible workers who have no work and are not looking for work, and nearly all of these are on welfare of one kind or other.

The article states that there three phases of work, namely, (1) the means by which the economy produces goods, (2) the means by which people earn income, and (3) an activity that lends meaning or purpose to many people’s lives. Machines certainly can produce the goods the economy wants, and the worker’s lost income can be replaced by government dole, but what will happen when there is no work to lend meaning or purpose to the workers’ lives?”

It is acknowledged that work has provided the self actualization that is needed for a healthy life, and that Americans work harder than any other country. So, the transition from work to non-work in America won’t be easy. The article cites research which points out that:

1. The unemployed theoretically have the most time to socialize yet they feel isolated, and they miss the camaraderie of the workplace.
2. People at work wished they were somewhere else, but when tested they reported they felt better and lest anxious at work
3. Those who have lost their jobs are more likely to suffer from malaise and demoralization.
4. It is more difficult to recover from a long period being without a job than from the loss of a loved one or a life altering injury

The article suggests that there are signs of hope. The original middle class was made up of artisans, but the mass production of the 20^th century swept up those jobs. Some students of the next wave of automation suggest that craftsmanship and artistry will return. For example, three dimensional printing from 3d computer models is held up as one example. Unique one-of-a-kind products could be made in one’s home with this technology.

This is very interesting and may provide a path forward, but realistically, it will take a generation or two to reach the goal of providing work for the masses replaced by machines. Politically it is doubtful that the citizenry will wait that long, particularly since our current leaders can’t even see the problem let alone suggest a pragmatic path forward.

That serious writers and thinkers are putting forth the thesis of welcoming no work is shocking, but even more shocking is that in this political season not one of the 20 something presidential candidates even mentions the machine let alone the huge number on welfare already due to the lack of jobs because of the machine. Moreover, the psychological impact on the out-of-work worker is not even considered. But the only plan you hear to help the poor is to tax the rich and give the money directly to the poor without any expectation of their giving anything back. 

Watching the current political scene with Trump and Sanders and the huge crowds they draw should give us a clue about how the people feel. The masses know what is happening even if the politicians and the media do not. Trump and Sanders in their unique styles have tapped into the concern of the masses. However, neither Trump nor Sanders has a solution to offer, but they sound like and act like leaders. The masses are ready to follow anyone even if the leaders haven’t the slightest idea where they would lead them.

The media is the most out of touch of all. They focus on Trump’s use non-pc language without realizing that the masses of us use this language all the time at our dinner tables, and not only are we not offended; we are relieved that at last our political leaders, who have no clue, are being called out by Trump  for having no clue.

What is so sad is that because the politicians and the media have no idea of what work is about, they will take the simple way out and just tax the rich to provide funds free of charge to the displaced workers without a thought of the workers need for the self actualization that work brings. 

It takes imagination to think of new work for these displaced workers. One idea which could be pursued is to put the idled workers to work building the infrastructure needed to capitalize on our natural gas windfall, but there is little hope that we will hear anything about such an idea for the current class of politicians!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perspective: What the Machine is Doing to Jobs!

 

The cover page of the July/August issue of the Atlantic states:

 

Technology will soon erase millions of jobs.

 Could that be a good thing?

THE END OF WORK

 

The jist of the Atlantic article is that half of the unskilled jobs that exist today will be lost to machines within the next two decades. The article goes on to speculate what life will be like when human labor is no longer needed. How will people live and what will they do when human work ends? But that is a story for another blog.

Today all you hear from the politicians and the media is that the poor are getting poorer, and their wages are flat, while the rich are getting richer. In fact that is exactly what is happening. But why? And what do the politicians say what can be done? The answers to these questions are (1) they have no clue what is going on and (2) their so-called plans, such as raising the minimum wage, are mostly counter productive.
 
Machines have been replacing humans for decades, and as the article points out, we are at tipping point where a machine can replace unskilled in routine jobs just about everywhere so that in the short space of two decades half of such unskilled jobs will go to machines. This is not reversible and virtually unskilled jobs in every commercial endeavor are in jeopardy.

 

Let me give you and example of how an owner might decide to buy a machine to replace the laborer. The product is the hamburger. A machine that can flip hamburgers has already been created by Momentum Machines. They claim that the robot is more consistent, more sanitary and can produce 360 hamburgers per hour. If a human could make a hamburger in 1 minute on average, this means that a human could make 60 hamburgers per hour. Therefore the machine could replace 6 humans on a shift. or 12 workers on a two shift day or 18 workers on a three shift day. Of course the machine will run 24/7/365.  

 

Now, let’s look at the business math the hamburger place owner sees. Let’s assume for this case that it takes 12 workers to make 360 hamburgers per hour for the two shifts the shop is open. This is equivalent to about 2.1 hamburgers per year. Assume that these workers are paid the equivalent of $10 per hour including minimum wage plus benefits. And let’s assume that the machine costs $300,000. Let’s also assume that the person who keeps the machine running costs $50,000 per year and that it takes two persons per machine to handle 24/7/365.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Based on these assumptions the business can be evaluted as follows.

 

CASE I                        CASE II                   CASE III

                                          Min Wage $7/hr          Min Wage $ 15/hr         Machine

INCOME                             $4,204,800                $4,204,800                 $4,204,800

$2 per hamburger

2.1 million per year

 

EXPENSE

Labor                                   $   700,800                 $1,261,440                   zero

Food, utilities etc.                $2,102,400                 $2,102,400                 $2,102,400

Machine Cost                                                                                             $   110,000

 

 

TOTAL EXPENSE             $2,803,200                  $3,363,840                 $2,212,400

 

GROSS INCOME               $ 1,401,600                 $   840,960                 $1,992,400

 

You can see that the owner can make a case for installing the machine even with the current minimum wage. That is why it is predicted that the number of ordinary labor will be reduced by half in the next two decades. Obviously if the minimum wage is doubled, as the liberal politicians want to do, the owner has the choice to raise the price for a hamburger, which he predicts will reduce the number of hamburgers sold. Or the owner could take advantage of the greater incentive to purchase the machine and leave the price alone. It should be noted however that the volume of burgers sold may decrease anyway, as there are fewer and fewer laborers who can afford to buy them. Meanwhile, we have not yet learned how to get the machine to eat hamburgers.

Also note that in every case the business is profitable, so as the owner reduces costs his profit increases. Meanwhile, the twelve employees that were let go are out of work, with no hope in sight since machines are replacing lowly trained workers everywhere. Then to exacerbate the problem for the laborer, the politicians want to let more immigrants into the already overpopulated workforce.

 

Thus the truism:

 

“THE RICH (OWNERS) ARE GETTING RICHER

AND THE POOR (WORKERS) ARE GETTING POORER”

 

Has any politician running for office of the president explained this? Of course not! They seem oblivious as to what is happening right under their noses, and go on blithely talking about raising the minimum wage for the very worker whose job is already in jeopardy. Worse none has a proposal of how to deal with it except for government to take money from the rich and distribute it unconditionally to the poor whether they work or not.

So what could be done? We could pass laws banning the installation of machines whose principal objective is to replace labor. Alternatively, we could create jobs the under trained could do that won’t be in jeopardy of being replaced by a machine. Unless we are willing to abandon capitalism and the free market, and become even more non-competitive with foreign companies, we should not choose the first idea. The second idea could and should be pursued.

One project that could be created for untrained workers would be to exploit our natural gas windfall. I have written about this in detail, but the essence of the idea is to take advantage of the 25% lower carbon footprint of natural gas versus coal and petroleum and create a national policy to construct the national infrastructure required to convert as much as possible of our use of coal and petroleum to natural gas. Our truck, train and automotive fleet can be converted from diesel and gasoline to compressed natural gas (CNG), for example. To do this will require millions of the very unskilled labor that is being displaced by machines. And it is hard to imagine a machine that can replace the gas and diesel fuel tanks on our automotive fleet with CNG tanks. And it is equally difficult to see how every gas and diesel station can be converted to CNG tanks by a machine. Every job would be mostly unique. Meanwhile, the worker will need two skills: (1) knowing how to show up for work on time, and (2) knowing how to put a nut on a bolt.

 

This idea isn’t even mentioned by one of the plethora of presidential candidates. Why at least one of them might mention a government/private industry program aimed at solving the two problems the politicians  seem to agree deserve priority, namely reducing our carbon foot print and finding jobs for the unemployed, underemployed, underskilled including undocumented immigrants. This plan would solve both environmental and labor problems, and it could be a free market program as well. All the government needs to do is set the program up by reducing regulations to a minimum and setting up a tax incentive that permits the private entrepreneur as well as the individual purchaser of the CNG tank a tax write-off on the capital and labor used for the job.

 

The ancillary benefit is that it would give hope that the American Dream is still alive!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perspective: How Should We Choose a Presidential Candidate?

Our country is in bad shape due to lack of Presidential leadership. We have been through six and a half years of doing nothing to stimulate the economy while doing everything to “transform” the country via redistribution of the wealth. Constant and repetitive talk about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer or that the wage level for unskilled labor is not growing is not an answer. We have had six years of such asinine rhetoric, and we don’t need four more years of it.  Meanwhile our foreign policy is in shambles.

That we are in such a weak position  is amazing considering our windfall of energy supplies, our leadership in the digital revolution and the worldwide leadership the US had a decade ago that pleased our allies and brought fear to our enemies.

So how are we to judge the candidates in terms of what the country needs? We currently have roughly 20 candidates running for President of the United States, and so far the Republican and Democrat candidates for President of the United States do not have specific and concrete plans for getting the US back on track. Many of the candidates just tinker around the edges or get lost in the weeds of alleged problems which do not require immediate solutions such as the decades old immigration problem and climate change concerns.

The candidate that we want should be able to state unequivocally what the major problems are and would show the proven leadership qualities to make us voters think that the candidate could and would solve them.

 

To start let’s list the major problems requiring immediate solutions.

1. Getting the US economy growing again
2. Dealing with the infrastructural needs
3. Dealing with the bankrupted entitlement programs
4. Dealing with the Islamic Terrorist problem

The Economy

The United States is in the best position in decades to grow the economy and create jobs because of our energy windfall and our worldwide lead in digital technology. Natural gas and the products it contains can reduce the energy of manufacturing and provide low cost building blocks for petrochemical and polymer products. Consequently, manufacturing can be encouraged to return to the United States creating high tech digital technology jobs. Coincidentally, millions of low-tech jobs can be created by converting petroleum fueled trucks, trains and even automobiles and their filling stations to compressed natural gas CNG replacing diesel and gasoline fuels.

Excessive Federal regulations, especially related to climate change, keep the US from capitalizing on these assets. Primarily what is needed is to go all out to develop our natural gas breakthrough and use it to replace other fossil fuels as rapidly as possible.

This can reduce green house gases by 25% and toxic emissions by even higher percentages.

In addition to the above, the tax structure for US manufacturing companies must be made competitive with that of overseas competition.

 

The public would agree, and these programs could be put in place by a new administration virtually at once.

 

Infrastructural Needs

Obviously, roads, bridges, electrical infrastructure, airport and rail facilities need to be kept in good repair. That they are not is unacceptable and requires little if any discussion. If government lacks the funds, that can be changed with the stroke of a pen. The aforementioned infrastructure plan needs to include pipelines to supply our natural gas to markets, and the Keystone Pipeline should be authorized at once. Bureaucratic barriers that impede market growth need to be removed, as well.

I am including our educational system as part of infrastructure. The shortage of high tech candidates for the growing digital jobs is an embarrassment and requires a whole new approach to education. An education system that was designed for the Industrial Revolution of the 1900’s is not what the Digital Revolution of the 21^st century requires. The fact that the Smart Phone contains the up to the minute information of the entire world’s knowledge should give educators a clue how to design and apply the new system.

For perspective, we students of the older system had to go to the school library to look up information in the schools usually only copy of the encyclopedia. Imagine what it would have been like to have had a “bookcase” attached to our desk to hold our very own encyclopedia? Nearly every school kid now has that in the palm of his/her hand. Moreover, it is up to date by the minute. You don’t have to wait for the updated book to arrive at your “bookcase”. Oh, and the information can be accessed verbally challenging whether the reading levels need to be equal for all students.

Another way to judge our educational system is to consider it as a business. Imagine that you are manufacturing a product that takes 12 years on the production line and costs about $100,000 to make. However, only 70% of the product meets specifications, i.e. graduates! How long would you be able to remain in business?

 

Entitlement Programs

The Social Security program was put in place in 1935, and was designed to pay out to citizens at age 65. Interestingly, the life expectancy was only 62 at the time so little would have to be paid out. Similarly, Medicare was enacted in 1965 when life expectancy was 67 years. Today, in 2015, life expectancy is 80 years. An elementary school math student could calculate that a system designed for death at 65 might be in financial trouble if the person lived 15 years longer. The problem gets worse. By the end of the century the life expectancy is expected to be above 100. As an aside, the elementary school math student could provide the answer in seconds with the Smart Phone. A thought for our politicians!

So what is to be done to save Social Security and Medicare? Easy! We can stay on the do nothing course we are on which means that the programs go broke so the Millennials, our grandchildren who are just entering the workforce, have nothing when they retire. Or, we could change the retirement date, or we could increase the amount starting workers pay in,  or both. None of these plans including doing nothing will affect those who have already retired. So, what is the problem? The problem is lack of a leader who will tell it as it is and lead us out of this quagmire!

Dealing With the Terrorist Problem

There is no question that we have a world-wide problem from terrorists. The question is what is the source of the terror? If you cannot define a problem, you cannot possibly solve it, and this current Administration refuses to call it what it is. The terrorist attacks are not “workplace incidents”! Clearly the attacks are caused by or instigated by radical Islamic jihadism, and terror is its tactic! And it is not confined to the Middle East. It is world-wide!

If it is radical Islamic jihadism, the next question is whether it involves all the billion plus Muslims in the world. A cursory inspection reveals that it does not involve the entire Muslim population of the world. But what it does reveal is that the good Muslims are frightened to death. They need someone they can trust to protect them. That requires strong US leadership.

At this point only a strong US president can provide that leadership. That leader could build a coalition of allies from Europe, the Middle East and especially the good Muslims who will want to join in the effort to rid the world of the radical Islam jihadists. Such a president would start by personally persuading the good Muslims to join the plan.

The current President’s unwillingness to lead has cost the US the support of the very Muslims we need most as allies against Islamic Extremism. Muslims in the Middle East, indeed in the world, have been terrorized into inaction by the brutal Islamic Jihadists who live among them. Imagine yourself in their place and you see Christians and Jews being beheaded for their being infidels, and you know that if you, a Muslim, were to disagree with the Islamic Extremists, you too would be called an infidel and treated the same way! Are you surprised that Muslims in the Middle East don’t lead as our current Administration claims they should?

In summary, what is needed in our new president is that he or she be first and foremost be a proven leader! A leader who will face the major problems as the ones that needs to be solved first. The number one problem is that the economy is not growing(worse it has shown negative growth this year). Moreover, this is the problem that is causing the stagnant wages and high unemployment. We need a leader who attacks the lagging economy as the primary problem and talks and acts like he or she understands that and is willing to do something to solve it!!! The solutions are at hand!!! And in the case of energy, switching to natural gas would ameliorate the climate change question, as well!

 

 

Perspective: Whither the Republic

Many of us are concerned about the rate at which the United States is abandoning the essential structures of society. The coming July 4^th celebration of the 239^th year of our Republic is a good time to reflect on what is happening to our society as a result.

 

 I have written much about the concern I have for the Millennials who will be trying to work and raise children in this new society. In one generation the four pillars that were the framework for raising a child to become a responsible citizen have been weakened if not completely removed. These pillars were:

1. A parent who knew what a parent was (not just a pal)
2. A neighbor who was a willing partner of the parent  (not to be sued)
3. A school who was also a willing partner of the parent (not to be sued)
4. Children went to Sunday School

 

Now, the Supreme Court is getting into the act by finding language in the 14^th Ammendment of the Constitution that is not there. Next the Court will find new words in the 1^st Amendment about Church and State and Free Speech. Today, in the words of President Bill Clinton, “It depends on what the meaning of “is” is!”

 

Regarding the recent LGBT ruling, Chief Justice Roberts was right on when he said the Court should not get ahead of the States. He might have included that the Courts should not get ahead of “We the People”. “We the People” have been considering and debating the issue regarding changing the century’s long religious belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The basic question is will homosexual marriage affect marriage and child rising? Since heterosexual marriage is failing as measured by the divorce rate and out of-wedlock birth rates that exceed 50 %, and 2/3 of the Millennials are not planning to ever get married, regardless of whether they have children, the Electorate would  probably would have reached the conclusion that LGBT marriage would not add harm. This concept was progressing State by State according to Constitutional principles. But now the new words discovered in the Constitution will have a far greater impact on how “We the People” will be permitted to behave. That is the great danger of what the Court has done than whether marriage will be harmed.  

 

Two writers, Pat Buchannan and Jay Leno, put their fingers on it. Their articles follow.

 

Jay Leno wrote. “They talk about writing a constitution for Iraq. Why don’t they just give them ours. It was written by a lot of really smart guys. It worked for more than 200 years. And hell, we’re not using it anymore”.

 

   By Patrick J. Buchanan June 29, 2015

 “Natural law — God’s law — will always trump common law,” said Alveda King,     niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and a Christian leader in her own right, “God will     have the final word in this matter.”

But, for now, Justice Anthony Kennedy has the final word.

Same-sex marriage is the law of the land, as the right of gays and lesbians to marry is right there in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868. We just didn’t see it.

Tony Kennedy spotted what no previous court had detected.

The absurdity of the decision aside, it represents another stride forward for the revolution preached by Antonio Gramsci. Before we can capture the West, the Italian Marxist argued, we must capture the culture.

For only if we change the culture can we change how people think and believe. And then a new generation will not only come to accept but to embrace what their fathers would have resisted to the death.

Consider the triumphs of the Gramscian revolution in our lifetime.

First, there is the total purge of the nation’s birth faith, Christianity, from America’s public life and educational institutions. Second, there is the overthrow of the old moral order with the legalization, acceptance and even celebration of what the old morality taught was socially destructive and morally decadent.

How dramatic have the changes been?

Until the early 1970s, the American Psychiatric Association regarded homosexuality as a mental disorder. Until this century, homosexual actions were regarded as perverted and even criminal.

Now, homosexuality is a new constitutional right and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is marrying homosexuals in front of Stonewall Inn, the site of the famous 1969 gay riot against police harassment.

Similarly with abortion. It, too, was seen as shameful, sinful and criminal until Harry Blackmun and six other justices decided in 1973 that a right to an abortion was hiding there in the Ninth Amendment.

Did the Constitution change? No, we did, as Gramsci predicted.

We are told that America has “evolved” on issues like abortion and homosexuality. But while thinking may change, beliefs may change, laws may change, and the polls have surely changed, does moral truth change?

Are the Ten Commandments and Christian tradition and Natural Law as defined by Aquinas just fine for their time, but not for ours?

If what Justice Kennedy wrote Friday represents moral truth, what can be said in defense of a Christianity that has taught for 2,000 years that homosexual acts are socially destructive and morally decadent behavior?

Three decades ago, this columnist was denounced for writing that homosexuals “have declared war on human nature. And nature is exacting an awful retribution.” Hateful speech, it was said.

Yet, when I wrote that line, AIDS victims in America numbered in the hundreds. Worldwide today they number in the millions. And there is a pandemic of STDs among America’s young who have joined the sexual revolution preached in the 1960s.

Can true “social progress” produce results like that?

And if it is an enlightened thing for a society to welcome homosexual unions and elevate them to the status of marriage, why have no previous successful societies thought of so brilliant a reform?

The late Roman Empire and Weimar Germany are the two examples of indulgent attitudes toward homosexual conduct that come to mind.

“No-fault” divorce was an early social reform championed by our elites, followed by a celebration of the sexual revolution, the distribution of condoms to the poor and the young, and abortions subsidized by Planned Parenthood when things went wrong.

How has that worked out for America?

Anyone see a connection between these milestones of social progress and the 40 percent illegitimacy rate nationwide, or the 50 percent rate among Hispanic-Americans, or the 72 percent rate among African-Americans?

Any connection between those fatherless boys and the soaring drug use and dropout rates and the near quadrupling of those in jails and prisons over the last third of a century?

One notes a headline the other day, that, among whites in America, deaths now outnumber births. This has been true for decades in Europe, where all the native-born populations are shrinking as the Third World crosses over from the Mahgreb and Middle East.

Any connection between the legalization of abortions — 55 million in the USA since Roe — and the shrinkage of a population?

“God will have the final word in this matter,” says King.

Certainly, in the world to come, He will. Yet, even in this world, it is hard to recall a civilization that rejected its God, repudiated the faith and morality by which it grew great, embraced what was previously regarded as decadence, and survived.

Our utopian president may see ours as an ever “more perfect union.”

Yet, America has never been more disunited and divided — on politics and policy, religion and morality. We no longer even agree on good and evil, right and wrong.

Are we really still “one nation under God, indivisible”?

 

 

Perspective: The Iraq Quandary

We find Iraq in the news again with this question being asked of presidential candidates:

 

If you knew then what you know now about WMD, would you still have invaded Iraq?” The answer today would be an unequivocal NO”

.

The problem our leaders had IN 2003 was that they were operating in the atmosphere of our having already being attacked on US soil by radical Islamists with the loss of 3000 American lives. Everyone believed that Saddam had WMD because of these facts:  In 1981 Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear research facility, in 1988 Saddam used Chemical and biological weapons against his own country men, and then he went out of his way to pretend that he still had stocks of these devices by tricking the UN inspectors. Is it any wonder that the world’s intelligence community believed without doubt in 2003 that Saddam Hussein had WMD and that he might use them against Americans or their Allies or transfer them to radical Islamic terrorists?

 

Actually, after we captured Saddam, he admitted to our FBI agent, George Piro, that he had WMD and got rid of them, but he nevertheless pretended he have them to fool the UN inspectors and Iran. He also admitted to Piro that he did not believe President Bush would invade and also that he planned to rebuild his WMD stock, including nuclear weapons, as soon as the furor blew over.

 

A more appropriate and pertinent question related to the current Iraq problem is this:

 

“If you  invaded Iraq and spent 4400 military lives and a trillion dollars to convert it to a viable democracy, and by 2009, six years after the invasion, Iraq was well on the way to achieving that goal, would you have left Iraq prematurely in 2011 knowing that the Iraq Army was not ready to defend against an outside invader?

 

That the Iraq Army dropped their weapons and ran when ISIS invaded should not have come as any surprise. The Gulf War in 1991 lasted only 100 hours, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, in the face of a massive sand storm, lasted only 3 months as the Iraq Army dropped their weapons and ran in both wars.

 

Sadly, most Americans then and today wouldn’t support George W Bush’s challenge to build a democracy in Iraq because that goal was “nation building”, and that was certainly not possible with Arabs. However, a little history would have reminded them that the United States did exactly that successfully twice.

 

Consider this! During WWII, we invaded Germany and Japan, captured the dictators Hitler and Hirohito and ripped the governments apart, just like we did to Iraq in 2003. However, the US leaders of WWII knew that after the invasion they had to leave behind democracies that were strong and stable that would survive after the occupying troops left. So, we set about creating democratic governments in Germany and Japan.

 

Building a democracy in Germany was relatively easy because it was a viable democracy before the Nazi destroyed that form of government. General Dwight Eisenhower commanded the occupational forces in Germany, and the US instituted the Marshall Plan, named for Secretary of State George Marshall to bolster the plan. These giant leaders helped rebuild Germany and restore its economic viability. The US and its Allies occupied Germany from 1945 to 1955. Today, Germany is a democracy and one of our greatest allies.

 

By contrast, Japan was headed by an Emperor who was considered a divine godlike figure. Japan had no political parties, had no free elections and women had no rights. The government flowed downward from the Emperor which was a hereditary dictatorship and the people existed to serve it. Few if any believed that Japan could become a viable democracy, but the United States and its Allies achieved that goal!

 

General Douglas MacArthur was appointed Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers to oversee the occupation of Japan. He decided not to establish a US military government, but rather to create a constitution based government. Initially he tried to have the Japanese people write the constitution, but when that did not produce a satisfactory result; he had his staff write it. However, the greatest question was what to do about Emperor Hirohito.  MacArthur persuaded the US Administration and the Allies that Emperor Hirohito should not be executed as a war criminal because that would needlessly anger the Japanese by destroying their sacred symbol.   MacArthur then convinced Hirohito to renounce his divine or godlike position, and on January 1, 1946 Emperor Hirhito publicly announced that he was not a divine or godlike figure and that the Japanese people were not superior to other races and fated to rule the world as the Japanese citizenry all believed. The US occupied Japan from 1945 to 1955, and today Japan is a viable democracy and one of our staunchest allies.

 

Perhaps history isn’t taught anymore. But that shouldn’t even matter! Think about this! In 2011 when we pulled our troops out of Iraq, over 100 million US citizens had the world’s largest encyclopedia glued to the palms of their hands (the I-Phone). One touch of the I-phone or even a spoken word and in seconds anyone could have learned what MacArthur did in Japan, how he did it, how long it took and most importantly, that it worked.

 

In summary, in 2015 Japan and Germany are strong democracies; their people are vibrant, safe and our greatest allies. By contrast President Obama, using the powers of Commander in Chief, in one year in 2011, unilaterally and without approval of Congress, of anyone else, not only pulled our troops from Iraq before Iraq could become a full fledged democracy capable of defending itself, but he “lead from behind” to kill Gaddafi of Libya, got Mubarak out of Egypt and “drew a line in the sand” in an attempt to oust Assad of Syria.  Now he negotiates with the Shiite Iranians, the stark enemies of our Sunni Allies about an atomic bomb which the agreement permits the Iranians to build in ten years, a mere speck of time when you think that this land goes back to Mesopotamia.

 

Meanwhile there is no strategy or plan to restore order in those leaderless countries.  Thus Iraq, Syria and Libya are in shambles, and their citizens are at the mercy of the heinous ravishes of ISIS. Egypt would be in the same state were it not for President Sisi who restored stability to that country. Meanwhile, the US has no realistic plan to help the Iraqis let alone the Libyans and Syrians. Moreover, there is no democratic government in Iraq for the rest of the Middle East countries to model. But the biggest problem is yet to come.

 

What happens to the Middle East and, yes the world, when Iraq acquires the atom bomb in a mere ten years? You know the answer!!

 

Maybe this historic blunder by the United States has occurred because we have no leaders like Eisenhower, Marshall, or MacArthur anymore. Certainly we have no Secretaries of Defense or Generals willing to resign in protest. Sadly, also we have no Congressional leaders to use their Constitutional Authority to rein in or remove the President. Then in 2012 when ‘We the People” had the power to remove him with the vote, we followed Sandra Fluck, a mid-thirties single woman who was in desperate need of gratis contraceptives, and they voted to stop  the Republican War against women.  We deserve the government that we get! Unfortunately the Middle East world that depends upon us does not deserve what we have wrought. We should be ashamed!!

 

 

 

Perspective: Obama's Real Strategy

 

Everyone is confused about why President Obama performs as
he does. Three Secretaries of Defense have resigned questioning his ability as
Commander in Chief. The Media, most Politicians and the Public at large cannot
decide whether his poor performance is due to his not being competent enough
for the job, or whether he is just the no-drama Obama, or whether he is above the
 day-to-day business of governing or
whether it is  something more sinister.  

Here is another theory. Obama’s behavior is based on his ever
stated belief that the number one problem of the world is “Climate Change”
caused by Man’s use of fossil fuels. Therefore, his principal thrust is to make
it as difficult and as expensive as possible to get and use fossil fuels so that
alternative energy sources can replace them. Consider his actions that support
this theory. His reckless Middle East policies are
clearly putting in jeopardy the world’s largest oil reserves and the oceanic
routes to deliver them to world users. Then he vetoed the Keystone Pipeline
thus making it more expensive for Canada’s
oil to reach world markets. He also blocks drilling on US government lands.
After the Gulf oil spill, he authorized new regulations making off shore oil
drilling more expensive. Overriding the US Congress, he authorized the EPA to
label CO2 a
toxic gas thus permitting him to “kill” coal, one of his avowed goals. And
finally he blocks liquefied natural gas from being exported. In short, he knows
exactly what he is doing!  

When you realize that President Obama single handedly and
without Constitutional authority made these actions happen, you start to get
the picture.  We can expect him to spend
his final two years continuing to do everything he can to weaken fossil fuel
supplies. This is the legacy that he wants, and no one seems willing to
challenge him.  

Impossible as it may seem to rational persons, he will
doubtless be rewarded with a second Nobel Peace Prize!  Meanwhile, “We the People” will pay the
price!