The Combination of Fascism and Communism: Smashing the Moderates, before Annihilating Each Other

One of my graduate professors once warned me that Fascism is most likely to occur when prevailing political attitudes have found a common enemy to the extreme-right and the extreme-left. More so, it is the populist demonization of the forces in power that best paves the way for one of these extreme ideologies to take power. While either side might not be aware that they are demonizing the same people, their goal is to rip power from the hands of whoever they fantasize has it and through autocratic means, impose their will. It should be interesting to note that whoever controls the money controls the power, and therefore it is often the liberal capitalistic forces who attract their condemnation. Once the liberal forces have been marginalized, it is of simple nature that the most brutal and single-minded of the remaining players will prevail. Left-wing, secular, communism, is much too complex and fractional to oppose a united fascist front whose main tenet is racism...where economic policy is secondary. It is the mythical elitists who are abhorred by both sides.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.4

IDF Israeli Palestinian Peace Implementation

There is a difference between negotiating a peace process and implementing it. In the past this has created many problems in terms of implementing vague agreements based on political auspices. Often political agreements are created to be vague and general so as to deflect responsibility when things do not work out. There are certain factors that must be established in advance in order to preclude successful negotiations. One of those factors is a clear understanding of the internal political ramifications of the opposing side. The domestic population must view the agreement as something that benefits their interests. The negotiators also need to know what the end game is; meaning political leaders need to articulate to their negotiators what they want to achieve.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.5.9

Challenger Incident

As national security graduate student, I am not interested in the Challenger shuttle disaster from an engineering standpoint but from a decision-making standpoint. Why was the challenger launched given the conditions at the time? The research I have done thus far indicates that there were economic concerns that kept the shuttles on schedule despite safety lapses. These economic pressures were intensified by the introduction of private enterprise into NASA's space shuttle program. Because of U.S. budget concerns, NASA's funding was under pressure, and in order to generate revenue from the shuttle program, NASA began to bring privately-owned payloads into space. These payloads included things such as satellites.

According to Allen J. McDonald, the Vice President of his company made a recommendation that the shuttle should not be launched in temperatures below 50 degrees F. This was a qualitative judgement, but it was based on an incident that occured about a year earlier in which heated gas had passed through the first o-ring and was stopped by the second o-ring - this was not supposed to happen. It was determined that low temperature had caused this first incident. In the Challenger disaster, according to McDonald anti-freeze was poured into an area of the shuttle which was not standard protocol.

McDonald was Director of Morton Thiokol's Solid Rocket Booster Program, which was the company that designed and built NASA's rocket boosters. His company was consulted directly by NASA the night prior to the launch. While he refused to sign-off on the launch, senior-ranking officials in his company overrode him and gave their authority to the launch.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.5.9

Is America's Salvation in its ability to produce Food?

Published with Blogger-droid v1.5.5.2

Food is a necessary resource; it along with water is a fundamental element which allows humans and livestock to survive. Is it possible that in the future the US will dominate the worlds food supply, while China and India are the worlds leading producers of tangible goods? I think this is very likely. Along with being a leading energy producer, the US can insure its seat at the table of world power for years to come.

China: Market-driven Communism

Communist China actually reformed through a grass-roots, and illegal, move by collectivist farmers in a rural part of the country. Through their own ingenuity, which all humans seem to inherently possess, they figured out how to run their collective farm for profit rather than government dictated quotas.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.5.5.2

americas new energy: leave the oil to china and india

The U.S. must lead the way in alternative energy production if it is going to survive, not simply because of concern for the environment, but more so concern for the growing demand on world oil markets caused by the rise of india and china. This is more of a national security concern than it is an environmental concern. The U.S must first and foremost convert its military technology to run on some form of alternative fuel.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.5.5.2

Free Market Globalism

In this increasingly globalized world, there are constant tensions between the countries that (have), and the countries that have not. Well at least they are portrayed as tensions. But is there really tension, or is it the release of tension and the necessary growing-pains of globalization that we are witnessing? I view it as the latter.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.4.9

There are two main arguments against globalization. One is that globalization allows economically powerful countries such as the United States to exploit the poor workers of less powerful countries such as India for example. The other argument is that less educated workers in economically powerful countries risk losing their jobs to cheaper labor forces in those aforementioned less powerful countries. While the second argument does have great validity, there are solutions to the problem short of vast economic protectionism (which has been a catalyst for wars in the past). The first argument is much less valid, especially when looking at the validity of the second argument. The reality is that workers in underdeveloped countries have the world to gain from increased globalization, specifically they have higher paying jobs to gain that once belonged to workers in developed nations. I hardly see this as a problem. It is a fact that multinational companies, often originating in first world countries, pay their workers more than competing employers who are indigenous.