Once in a while, I find myself thinking about the people I served with. My buddy T-Bone I have managed to keep in touch with. He got out of the Corps about a month before I did. He is married, has a kid and is now a minister at a church in his area. Another Marine I keep tabs on is Eric (who lives in NJ), who started up an organization to train people in close combat and counter-terrorism work, I was really impressed when I perused his web-site and read the info about his organization. My buddy Gabe, the last I heard, was in Spain on embassy duty. His wife and him were great people and we miss them alot.
It is those I am not in contact with, however, that I think alot about. You see, eight days after I got out of the Corps, my unit got orders to go to Iraq. During the war I learned that Sgt. Bitz and Cpl. Chongswe ('Chuck') were killed in action. I knew both these guys very well (I has been to Bitz's wedding and had been on float for 6 months with both Bitz and Chuck). I later learned that this occurred during the battle of Nasiryah (the biggest battle of the war resulting in 18 US casualties). My friend Nick was almost killed when his AMTRAC took a direct hit, killing all 8 Marines in the back with only Nick and his driver escaping.
I met up with most of my platoon after the war at Nick's wedding. It was great to see everyone and they loved seeing Karen and I. I didn't bring up the war much, because I felt terrible guilt that I had not been there. When I did mention the subject to my buddy John, he said "You wouldn't have wanted to be there." John related a story to me (which I will not state here) and how he was having a hard time dealing with the memories. Despite his dismissal of my misgivings, I still feel, to this day, tremendous guilt for sitting on the sidelines. It is hard to see the names of people you know well, scrolling across the bottom of the 24 hour news stations, as killed in action.
There is a tremendous camaraderie in the Corps, and it is a great thing to have. However, when you are no longer part of that unit, it becomes an albatross around your neck.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This Is My Soapbox.....So Shut Up and Listen!
Chaos Out of Order
Chaos. No rational person desires to exist in such a state, nor can one tolerate any sign of societal decline leading to this stage of hopelessness. This is one of the reasons that Barack Obama was elected; people perceived the free market operating chaotically due to a supposed lack of federal regulations and oversight. Houses were being foreclosed, the markets were tanking, pensions were being wiped out, investments and credit were drying up and vital industries were suddenly on the verge of insolvency. Chaos, it appeared, loomed on the horizon.Obama campaigned on ‘hope and change’. While an emotive and reformatory slogan, it lacked specifics. This should have signaled to any potential supporter, an ideology absent fundamental guiding principles. The demagoguery of a populist and its’ effects on a populace with a grand sense of entitlement is a topic for another time, what I wish to do is examine one aspect of Friedrich Hayek’s observations of collectivism (i.e. Leftism, socialism) as it relates to combating perceived politico-economic chaos.The attempt to restore order or avert a descent into chaos requires planning and implementation. Conservatives have long espoused the theory that individuals, unfettered by the restraints of unnecessary governmental intrusion, will make the best decisions for themselves and their family, which in turn will benefit society as a whole. Leftists have adhered to the misconception that the growing complexity of society REQUIRES increased central planning, on behalf of the government, in order to ensure a more equitable distribution of resources and opportunities. For hundreds of years, Leftist intellectuals have dismissed the individualist approach (i.e. conservative) as leaving too much to chance and being susceptible to greed. Central planning, these intellectuals insisted, allowed the State the power to ensure that the resources of the nation were being allocated to the common good. This line of thinking became crystallized thanks to Karl Marx’s collectivist cry of “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”.The housing market meltdown of last year that precipitated the financial chaos which has now gripped the world, was used as the latest example of ‘excessive capitalist greed’ undermining the social good. Obama was ushered into office to bring order to this anarchy, but how many people truly realize that Leftist ideologies address chaos with more chaos until tyranny results? And why is this? Consider the words of Hayek: “The planning authority cannot confine itself to providing opportunities for unknown people to make whatever use of them they like. It cannot tie itself down in advance to general and formal rules which prevent arbitrariness. It must provide for the actual needs of the people as they arise and then choose deliberately between them.” The key word in this quote was arbitrariness. Under the guise of regulating and providing oversight, which makes the average American feel like ‘something is being done’, the government is in effect opening up a Pandora’s box of arbitrarily-applied, constituent-based, policies, which will increase the uncertainty many citizens will eventually have with the direction of their economy and the application of their laws. Americans should have first been alerted to this when Obama moved to avoid contractual law during the uproar over executive bonuses, but the myth created about evil CEOs had at this point become too pervasive. The die was cast.This growing uncertainty begins us down the ‘road to serfdom’. As Hayek observed: “Yet agreement that planning is necessary, together with the inability of democratic assemblies to produce a plan, will evoke stronger and stronger demands that the government or some single individual should be given powers to act on their responsibility……The cry for an economic dictator is a characteristic stage in the movement toward planning.”Our nation has elected a President to address a financial disaster that arbitrary governmental policies created (affordable housing GSEs). This President, a disciple of socialism, has embarked on a plan that has injected more chaos into the system, leaving many future Americans susceptible to the appeal of an economic and political tyranny. If we do not change course, the worst is yet in store.
Chaos. No rational person desires to exist in such a state, nor can one tolerate any sign of societal decline leading to this stage of hopelessness. This is one of the reasons that Barack Obama was elected; people perceived the free market operating chaotically due to a supposed lack of federal regulations and oversight. Houses were being foreclosed, the markets were tanking, pensions were being wiped out, investments and credit were drying up and vital industries were suddenly on the verge of insolvency. Chaos, it appeared, loomed on the horizon.Obama campaigned on ‘hope and change’. While an emotive and reformatory slogan, it lacked specifics. This should have signaled to any potential supporter, an ideology absent fundamental guiding principles. The demagoguery of a populist and its’ effects on a populace with a grand sense of entitlement is a topic for another time, what I wish to do is examine one aspect of Friedrich Hayek’s observations of collectivism (i.e. Leftism, socialism) as it relates to combating perceived politico-economic chaos.The attempt to restore order or avert a descent into chaos requires planning and implementation. Conservatives have long espoused the theory that individuals, unfettered by the restraints of unnecessary governmental intrusion, will make the best decisions for themselves and their family, which in turn will benefit society as a whole. Leftists have adhered to the misconception that the growing complexity of society REQUIRES increased central planning, on behalf of the government, in order to ensure a more equitable distribution of resources and opportunities. For hundreds of years, Leftist intellectuals have dismissed the individualist approach (i.e. conservative) as leaving too much to chance and being susceptible to greed. Central planning, these intellectuals insisted, allowed the State the power to ensure that the resources of the nation were being allocated to the common good. This line of thinking became crystallized thanks to Karl Marx’s collectivist cry of “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”.The housing market meltdown of last year that precipitated the financial chaos which has now gripped the world, was used as the latest example of ‘excessive capitalist greed’ undermining the social good. Obama was ushered into office to bring order to this anarchy, but how many people truly realize that Leftist ideologies address chaos with more chaos until tyranny results? And why is this? Consider the words of Hayek: “The planning authority cannot confine itself to providing opportunities for unknown people to make whatever use of them they like. It cannot tie itself down in advance to general and formal rules which prevent arbitrariness. It must provide for the actual needs of the people as they arise and then choose deliberately between them.” The key word in this quote was arbitrariness. Under the guise of regulating and providing oversight, which makes the average American feel like ‘something is being done’, the government is in effect opening up a Pandora’s box of arbitrarily-applied, constituent-based, policies, which will increase the uncertainty many citizens will eventually have with the direction of their economy and the application of their laws. Americans should have first been alerted to this when Obama moved to avoid contractual law during the uproar over executive bonuses, but the myth created about evil CEOs had at this point become too pervasive. The die was cast.This growing uncertainty begins us down the ‘road to serfdom’. As Hayek observed: “Yet agreement that planning is necessary, together with the inability of democratic assemblies to produce a plan, will evoke stronger and stronger demands that the government or some single individual should be given powers to act on their responsibility……The cry for an economic dictator is a characteristic stage in the movement toward planning.”Our nation has elected a President to address a financial disaster that arbitrary governmental policies created (affordable housing GSEs). This President, a disciple of socialism, has embarked on a plan that has injected more chaos into the system, leaving many future Americans susceptible to the appeal of an economic and political tyranny. If we do not change course, the worst is yet in store.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment