Don’t Connect Every Dot

The View from the Middle

“Connecting the dots” is a favorite game of people who are trying to predict the future and those who are trying to assign credit or blame for the past.  If you are searching for truth, it is an important game to play.  At Procter & Gamble, where I worked for 37 years, many people played this game in an attempt to learn from the past and thus predict the future more accurately in order to improve our decisions and improve the company’s profit.  The ability to truthfully connect the dots is an important skill to have in the business world.

I have found, however, that politicians have subverted the “connect the dots” process because they have changed the goal from “finding the truth” to “defending my position” no matter what.  You see, you can connect some dots that have no business being connected.  Let me give you an example that you have all probably heard before.  “The rooster crows in the morning and then the Sun comes up.”  This does not mean, however, that the first thing (the rooster crowing) causes the second (the Sun comes up).  These are two dots that should not be connected. 

There are many examples of inappropriate dot connecting going on in the world today, but I’m only going to talk about four.  The first I will call “The Obama administration credit grabbing dot connecting game”.  It goes like this – Barak Obama has been President for the past six years (a big dot) so if anything happens in this country that is good (stock market rises, oil production goes up, unemployment goes down), the President is the cause, or gets the credit.  They connect these dots even though they are often as inappropriate as the rooster and sunrise example given earlier.

For example, the Dow Industrial Average has more than doubled (actually increased about 150%) since its low in 2009.  That is a fact.  Obama has been President since 2009.  Should we connect these dots?  Not really.  There are other reasons for this dramatic improvement.  First, back in 2009, the Dow was severely oversold and undervalued, so the base or starting point is too low.  Second, interest rates have been ridiculously low since he has been in office so money is just seeking a reasonable return.  It is normal for the stock market to increase when interest rates are low and Obama has benefited from these rates throughout his Presidency, not caused them.

There are other reasons for the stock market improvement and even the general improvement of the economy, but none of them can be connected to the Obama dot.  President Obama has been one of the least “business friendly” Presidents in modern history.  His preference for regulation and control of everything from healthcare to the Internet actually works against the growth in the Dow and the economy in general.  These things have happened in spite of him, not because of him.  Do NOT connect these dots.

Global Warming, I mean climate change, is another area that is raining dots, literally and figuratively, that should not be connected.  The name change alone should send a signal that something is not right here.  The second signal that something is fishy in this debate is that Climate Change activists immediately try to shut down the debate by claiming that this is “settled science” and of course anyone who would even question their arguments is an idiot.  This is straight from Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”.  In fact, it is rule #5.  Ridicule your opponent. 

But I do question the Climate Change zealots.  You can put me in the agnostic group.  Is the world getting warmer?  I think so, although there is evidence that temperature readings have been tampered with (adjusted).  Are we the cause?  I’m not sure.  We have been through wide temperature swings for the past couple hundred thousand years.  Are we at the peak of one of those swings?  Will temperatures naturally fall, globally, as they have done in the past?  I don’t know.

Climate scientists will have to admit that our global climate system is ridiculously complex, and I would agree with them.  I would also suggest that predicting it accurately even in the short term, let alone the long term, is impossible given our current knowledge and expertise.  This is why all of their predictions have ended up wrong.  Al Gore guaranteed the polar ice caps would be totally gone five years ago.  New York should be underwater by now and millions of people should be migrating to cooler patches in the world due to droughts and famine.  Scandinavia and Siberia should be teaming with these immigrants, but they are not.

Whenever you mix politics with anything, even science, beware.  Today, we have too many scientists who are invested in their predictive models chumming up with too many politicians who only care about money and votes.  Al Gore was at least specific with his predictions, although he was dead wrong.  Now Climate Change enthusiasts have changed their approach.  They will tell you that if we don’t make the drastic changes now (carbon taxes, coal and oil regulations, etc.) that all hell with break loose in 100 years from now.  Of course, conveniently, they will all be dead, their predictions long forgotten, but their money still made and spent and invested today.  Convenient isn’t it?

I’m always comfortable when I align with Charles Krauthammer on any issue, and I do on this one.  Remember, the key to all of their argument is the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, which they connect to human activity.  Did you know that CO2 represents on .04% of our atmosphere now.  Not one percent.  Not even one tenth of a percent, but four hundredths of one percent.

Now, do I believe we should go around trashing the world?  Of course not.  We should be good stewards of this planet, but right now we should be having the debate and doing the research to make good decisions about our present and our future.  Should we be trying to figure out how to develop solar, wind, hydroelectric and even nuclear power safely and efficiently.  Yes, but that won’t happen by killing coal and oil today.  And, by the way, the United States is on the leading edge of global clean up.  Other huge polluters like China, Russia and India are clearly not as concerned about this issue.

The bottom line is, this is NOT settled science, and anyone who is trying to close down this debate is the true villain.  Don’t let them connect illogical dots.  We need real discussion of this issue and research before we create real pain, especially for the economically challenged, in the short and long term just to enrich the already powerful and wealthy.

Social issues also often lead to improper dot connecting, and this is largely done for political purposes.  If a person is pro-life, they will be labeled as a misogynist.  Abortion is a traumatic experience for everyone involved.  Obviously, it is catastrophic for the baby, but the mothers risk real physical, psychological and social problems.  And remember, at least half of abortions performed are ending the lives of female babies.  Anyone who is interested in reducing the number of abortions done in this country or this world can hardly be called a hater of women.

Likewise, there are some who protest the idea of having the government pay for every woman’s birth control choices.  This is not anti-woman, it is pro-choice.  Every woman should have the right to choose whatever contraceptive device she likes, but when you begin to ask others to pay for it, you begin to violate their right to their beliefs and their money.  Some, like the owners of Hobby Lobby, strongly oppose the use of abortifacient drugs, and even according to the Supreme Court, this right must be protected.  Others, like me, object to supplying all contraceptive devices no matter the financial resources available.  Why should we be buying Chelsea Clinton’s birth control pills, or any other rich person who has the resources to buy them on their own?  If the cost of birth control is a true hardship, I’m in favor of helping them out, just not everyone.

So, don’t connect these dots.  Politicians will try to turn us against each other even when our differences are minimal or nonexistent, and they are doing it for power and votes. 

And the final and maybe most insidious dot of all is the race card.  As we swore this President into office back in 2009, I thought we might have our best chance to make some real progress in race relations in America.  Unfortunately, that has not happened.  In fact, virtually every gauge would indicate that race relations have worsened under this President.  Why is that?

I believe a huge part of this deterioration comes from the defenders of our President and also our Attorney General.  The mainstream media often suggests that any disagreements with President Obama or Eric Holder are driven by prejudice.  It is as if no one can disagree with either man on the merits of any argument.

For the most part, the President allows his surrogates to imply that disagreement with him connects to the racist dot.  Eric Holder has actually suggested that “some” people disagree with him because of his race.  Of course, as he makes these statements, it allows his supporters to attach bigotry to every disagreement. 

Hiding behind race is wrong in so many ways, but I will mention three that are obvious to me.  First, it is wrong most of the time.  For example, I disagree with both of these men on many fundamental issues (size and scope of government, etc.) but it has nothing to do with the color of their skin.  Second, this approach drives a wedge between black and white Americans.  And finally, it camouflages real acts of racism.  Connecting these dots does not serve black America or white America.  It only divides us.

So, beware of the dot connecting game.  When you sense people (especially politicians) suggesting that one fact automatically leads to or is connected to another, be suspicious.  Is there a personal gain?  Does this connection serve to attack or diminish or demonize an opponent?  If the answer is yes, it may well be a case of inappropriate dot connecting.  It could be a case of the rooster and the sunrise all over again.

ISIS - Just don't call 'em ISIL

First, Call ‘em anything but ISIL

The View from the Middle

I’ve never seen a poll that asked if war is a good thing.  I would guess that 99% of people would agree that war is deplorable.  And I would be in that group.  War causes tremendous pain, especially to the millions of young men and women who do the fighting, and scars the warrior in more ways than one.

Unfortunately, as horrible as war is, it cannot always be avoided.  There will always be evil in the world and psychopaths like Hitler, Stalin and al-Baghdadi (leader of ISIS) who will gladly ask millions to die or commit unspeakable atrocities to advance their causes.  At such moments, our leaders must make the tough decision to confront.

I think most of the readers would agree that FDR did the right thing when he, along with Congress, involved us in WWII.  Actually, we had been “involved” for quite some time, even before we declared war on Japan.

Did we want war?  Absolutely not, but FDR recognized that evil, unchecked, would eventually impact us.  Evil then was Hitler and the Nazis.  Evil today is ISIS.  So, how does today’s challenge with ISIS compare to the situation we faced in the 1940’s?

Germany was a world power.  Hitler was cruel and brutal, but he and his party hid their most abhorrent acts from worldview, and Hitler never suggested that he would actually attack the continental US. 

By Comparison, I actually agree with President Obama that ISIS is (or at least was) the JV team.  They do not have the structure or resources that Germany had all those years ago, but to extend the metaphor, if the Lakers (us) just sit on the bench, the JV will win the game.

ISIS is, however, in my opinion even more evil than Hitler and the Nazi’s.  These people not only behead innocents and set people on fire, but they actually advertise their brutality.  They are proud of it and only hope that this blatant display of barbarism will deter countries from confronting them. 

They have also made it clear that they intend to bring their savagery to the United States.  They constantly chant “Death to America”, and Baghdadi himself has suggested that he will see us in New York.  While they are not the power that Germany was in 1940, they’re more evil and have made direct threats to the US.

This is why most Americans believe that, while we hate war, we must attack ISIS with the intent of eradicating them.  But what exactly does that mean?

First, we must stop arguing about what to call them.  Call them extremists.  Call them terrorists.  Call them Islamic Terrorists.  Call them ISIS.  I don’t care.  I wouldn’t call them ISIL however, because that is what they want and it is an aspirational title.  Google “The Levant” (the “L” in ISIL) to understand what that includes.  Even if the President insisted on calling them ISIL – Fine!  As long as we agree we need to kill them.

Next, while bombing will continue to be an important aspect to this war, I have long believed that we will need to put boots on the ground in Iraq.  ISIS is embedded in towns like Mosul, Tikrit and Fallujah.  We can’t bomb these entire cities.  We’d kill more innocents than terrorists.  The good news is; we know where they are.  They’re not hiding in caves these days.

Unfortunately, this means that our guys will have to go door to door in order to extricate these thugs. ISIS has 20 to 30 thousand soldiers.  We probably need to match that with US troops and get a like amount from our coalition partners like France, England, Germany, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others. 

And we need to act now while ISIS is still the JV.  I’ve heard we are attacking Mosul in April.  That’s great, I guess.  “That we are going”, is great.  “That I know about it already”, is disturbing.  I don’t think we mailed our plans for “D Day” to Hitler.  Please Mr. President, stop telling our enemies what we will and won’t do and when we will start and stop our efforts.

Finally, Congress needs to approve whatever AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) the President wants.  Some would argue that he already has all the authority he needs from the 2001 authorization given to President Bush.  I would at least encourage the President not to handcuff himself by putting a three-year limit on the AUMF or by using language like no “enduring ground troops”. 

We need to do whatever it takes to eliminate this evil from the world right now!!  No country in the world supports these goons: not Iran, not Saudi Arabia, certainly not Europe or us.  We can worry about jobs for the poor, young people throughout the world when ISIS is gone!  By the Way – the biggest deterrent for recruiting for ISIS is killing their existing membership.

Can't Kill our way out of war

Marie Harf, spokesperson for the State Department, said yesterday, "We can't kill our way out" of the war with ISIS.  That sounds so clever, it must be true.  She adds that it's about creating jobs for these young people, and we'll twitter them out of existence.

Sometimes these statements are as stupid as they sound.  The best deterrent for recruitment to ISIS is to   kill existing members.  Our inactivity or lack of resolve has gotten us to where we are today.  The Administration will call it "leading from behind", another clever sounding statement that is actually as ridiculous as it sounds.  What we need is Leadership.  Where is the modern dayWinston Churchill?  We need him desperately!

New Twitter effort

Guys and Gals,
Use this link @viewfrommiddle to follow me on twitter.  I'll be sending out a "thought of the day".  They should be short (of course), current and original.  Give me a try!!
Thanks,
Kevin C

Twitter Launch

Follow me on twitter as I launch my daily comment effort.  Today's comment, "ISIS still is the J-V, but if the Lakers just sit on the bench, the JV will win the game."

The State of Delusion

The State of Delusion

The View from the Middle

If it were just about the words and the delivery, I would concede that the President’s State of the Union speech was a successful, unifying message for the country.  He talked about the importance of working hard and its connection to success.  He suggested to CEO’s that it would be a good idea to hire Veterans and that we need more manufacturing jobs here in the United States.  Who could be against that?  I’ve even written columns in support of all of these ideas.

I could even support his idea that we need to shrink the wealth gap here in this country.  I did a YouTube video two years ago in support of that idea, and I still support that objective today.  I might even be convinced that we need more revenue (code name for new taxes), but not to give to the government to squander or to politicians to steal, but to reduce our debt. 

It’s not “what” the President wants to do that I disagree with, its “how” he suggests that we get there.  Do I think we need to improve the education system in America to compete for the future?  Absolutely!  Do I think that free community college is how to accomplish this?  Absolutely not.  First of all, nothing is free, and the sooner we all learn that the better.  Second, anything you give away for no cost soon becomes worthless.

For almost every “what” on which the President and I agree, I have a different “how” to get there.  And that is what makes this country great.  We all have the right to express those beliefs, and the President should be listening to some of those different “hows”. 

And if the President really is willing to listen to other ideas, he has a strange way of showing it.  In the beginning of his speech he talked about creating a spirit of cooperation between his office and Congress.  This was closely followed by a record number of veto threats.  This may be a technique taught in the Obama School of cooperation, but it doesn’t work in the real world.  Slapping the other side in the face before a negotiation usually poisons the compromise. 

The President also painted a picture of the world that even his friends at MSNBC suggested was “out of touch” with reality.  We have real problems with countries like Syria, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Yemen, etc.  While it might be politically expedient to ignore them in this speech, the people of this country deserve the truth and deserve a plan to resolve these issues.

Maybe the worst illusion of the night, however, is how the President seemed to make our debt disappear.  He made only one minor comment about our deficit, which could lead us to believe that our spending problems are over.  He didn’t mention the fact that we have now saddled future generations with $18 trillion in debt. 

He also didn’t mention that our plan for the foreseeable future is to carry a World War II type debt load, which will weaken our country, jeopardize our children’s future and diminish our country’s ability to react to future crises. 

He didn’t mention that the CBO projects that our yearly deficits will drift back up to the trillion dollar mark by 2024 at which point our total debt will exceed $25 trillion.  At that point, and at the interest rates projected by the CBO, the service on our debt will exceed $1.2 trillion a year. That is about six times what it is today, and will be larger than National Defense and Medicare combined.

By this time, of course, President Obama will be playing golf every day and most of Congress will be on the 19^th hole.  But YOU, the youth of today, will be dealing with the irresponsible spending of the early 21^st century.  That is, unless you make our (your) debt an issue today!!

Mr. President, we all want the same “whats”.  We want good schools and clean air and water.  We want hard working Americans to fully enjoy the fruits of the American dream and we want America to be safe.  We only differ on “how” we should achieve these goals.  Please, Mr. President, listen to the other patriotic Americans who may even disagree with your “hows”.  You may find some truth that will help move our country forward.

The Keystone Pipeline would be a good place to start.  It is supported across the country by more than a two to one margin.  It has already passed the House with bi-partisan support, and will most assuredly do the same in the Senate.  All you have to do, Mr. President, is sign it.  This would be a sign that you really are willing to reach across the aisle as you have so often suggested.

Cuba Normalization, Good Deal or Bad

Cuba Normalization, Good Deal or Bad?

The View from the Middle

The View From the Middle often criticizes President Obama, not because of his party affiliation, but because he is often extreme.  His views on abortion, deficit spending and the size and purpose of government are inconsistent with the thinking of average Americans.  However, if and when he does something that hits the sweet spot between the right and left, I will gladly support it. 

Recently, President Obama has decided to normalize relations with Cuba.  My first clue that this might be a good decision was the bipartisan support and opposition for this move.  On the Republican side we have Rand Paul and Marco Rubio squaring off in a semi-heated early presidential debate.  Rand Paul is in favor of this move and Marco Rubio is not.

On the other side of the political fence we have Hillary Clinton in favor of normalization and Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey firmly against.  This sounds like fertile ground for The View From the Middle.  And, I can even understand both sides of this argument.

From Marco Rubio’s and Bob Menendez’ side, I can comprehend that they see this as an endorsement of a cruel and rigid communist regime managed by the Castro brothers for over 50 years.  The Castro brothers are not nice people, and they deserve our loathing. 

Cuba’s history is bloody and violent and the Castro brothers fit right in.  While their original intentions might have been noble, to improve the living conditions of the poor in Cuba, their leadership has lead to more repression, poverty and violence of its own. 

Fidel ruled Cuba with an iron fist, eliminating all political opposition and ruling the country with one decree (executive order) after another.  Freedom and liberty were the first to leave Cuba followed by about a million Cubans fleeing to other countries, primarily the US.  Fidel then aligned with all of our enemies as he established his communistic government.  On this, I agree with Marco Rubio and Bob Menendez.  I certainly would not want this move by President Obama to serve as some sort of empowerment of the Castro’s.

But, my first hint that this might be a good move came from the response of the Cuban people themselves.  They seem to be extremely excited.  Of course, this is anecdotal.  There hasn’t even been time to poll the Cuban people, but the American people support this move by about a two to one ratio.  I’m guessing that any poll done of the Cuban people right now would even exceed those results.

Then there is the logical argument.  First, we have been trying to change Cuba by isolating them for more than 50 years now, and it has not worked.  I would argue that the best way to influence that country is to allow its people to experience capitalism at its finest.  We trade with countries like China, Vietnam and Venezuela.  Cuba should be easier to influence and track.

As Americans invest in real estate and construction and millions of dollars pour into Cuba’s tourism industry, it will be impossible for Raul or Fidel to keep some of the dollars from flowing down to every Cuban in the country.  Cubans will also see and get to experience the newest technology as cell phones, ipads and laptops invade Cuba in the hands of these tourists.

As their economy improves, so will the lives of its people, who I believe will benefit most from this move.  Sure, some American companies will benefit from a freer trade policy with Cuba, and some profits will be made and of course taxed by this country, but the big winners will be the Cuban people.

I am also not so naive as to think that this move is the end of the story with Cuba. Congress will have to lift the embargo, which I think will happen although with considerable debate.  Our government will have to work hard to insure that as much of our investment as possible works its way down to the Cuban people.

One big question keeps coming up, however, and that is, “could we have gotten more concessions out of Cuba for the move?”  I doubt it.  When you are dealing with people like the Castros, who don’t really give a flip about their people, it is tough to get huge accommodations.  As long as their lives are good, they seem willing to allow their citizens to suffer.

We could wait until the Castros are gone.  Fidel is 88 and in failing health, and Raul is 83, but who knows what Miguel Diaz-Canel, the heir apparent to the throne, will do.  His primary qualification to this spot seems to be loyalty to the Castros and their philosophy.  Why even wait?  Let the light of democracy and fee enterprise shine on Cuba today and elevate the condition of Cuban life.