Irresponsible Government Will Be the End of U.S.

It's odd how people who are always preaching about "personal responsibility" will hide behind every excuse in order to avoid responsibility for their own actions. The federal government is just hours away from another shutdown. House GOPers are doing this in an ultimately futile attempt to shutdown what they call "Obamacare." In doing so they are risking an economic disaster of unforeseeable consequence. The only good sign is the stock market is falling. Maybe the big financial interests who control the GOP will call the Repub leadership and tell them to stop their foolishness. The disadvantage that President Obama and other leaders have is that they try to act in the interests of all the people. The Repubs on the other hand only act in the interests of those who vote for them and the special interests who finance their careers. The question is, which tendency will come out on top.

The Lunatics Are Running the Asylum

House Repubs are trying to shut down the Federal Government again, this time it's an attempt to defund what they call "Obamacare." Meanwhile Ted Cruz, who actually boasts of his resemblance to Joe McCarthy, is trying to launch his own "filibuster" of the budget process. Is it possible that the Repubs don't know what they're doing? A government default would wreck the world economy and they're willing to do that just to make a point. The GOP has pandered to the lunatic right to such an extent that they're now in a position to destroy the country.

Confronting the Big Box Future

Recently an item appeared in Huffington Post title "Why Generation Y Yuppies are Unhappy" defining generation y as those born between the late seventies and mid nineties. The gist of the article is the young people in that age group have unrealistic expectations about their career prospects and thus are doomed to unhappiness. It's a complicated issue and one that goes back beyoned generation y. In fact, by the late eighties young people were being advised "Don't look for a career, look for a job." Things have only gotten worse since then with the term "career" becoming obsolete. Forget about working for the same company all your life you probably won't work in the same field. It's no longer uncommon to change jobs several times in one year.

The problem goes back to the 1980's when Americans began to confuse optimism with fecklessness. The generation that came of age were convinced they were going to get rich by playing the stock market or flipping real estate. Most of them didn't of course; everybody can't get rich just as everybody can't be a movie star. They also filled their kids with all kinds of "follow your bliss" malarkey that left unprepared for the harsh truths of the real world.

I'm really bothered when people say "anything is possible" because in fact lots of things are impossible; squaring the circle for one or building a perpetual motion machine. A generation that grew up hearing nonsense like "find your passion" "follow your dreams" are now confronting a reality in which their best prosepect is working at a big box store. Yes, that's right, you've been lied to but the failure of the earlier generations has become a recurring theme in the modern world. Might as well smell the coffee.

Whatever Happened to Do No Harm?

The potential US attack on Syria has become a political football. Congressional Repubs like Mitch McConnell oppose a US strike even while they call for a more "muscular" foreign policy. But then the Repub demographic base consists of people who don't get the concept of cognitive dissonance. The Obama administration, however, has the same problem. How would bombing Syria help matters? It would say that "We're angry with you" but bombs and missiles but what would be the actual result? If Assad stays in power it will be a failure for the US. But if he is overthrown Syria could be merely destabilized like Egypt and Libya. The real moral imperative is not to "do something anything" but to not make matters worse.

What Is the Liberal Position Anyway?

It has become common lately for liberals to complain that President Obama has "betrayed us" on issues like NSA surveillance or the recent drift into attacking Syria. But at the same time the Obama administration has not received much useful advice on the questions of defense and security. The problem is that any Democrat who is elected President, no matter how Liberal his or her inclinations may be, will be confronted with an environment in which the Conservative view of national security, defense, and much of foreing policy has become the "default" view. There are no liberal policy positions to serve as alternatives to the conserative view.

The reasons for this are complicated. Since the 1980's many liberals have taken the position that "We don't have to propose any alternatives, all we have to do is criticize." But in order to have an impact on policy, we need to have credible policy alternatives on issues like national security and defense. These are real problems that need to be addressed. It is not enough to criticize existing policies, we need to offer credible alternatives.