Is North Korea the defiant child of the world?

North Korea's actions this past week have been thoroughly examined and opined in other places, so I'm not going to go into great depth other than to give a quick recap. They have shot at least (by my count) five missiles of different types, conducted a nuclear test (not definitively confirmed), and threated to back out of the armistice that has been in place since 1953. What has been the general response towards North Korea in all this? 'Come back to the negotiating table'. My response to that suggestion is: or what? There's no reason for North Korea to negotiate right now. There are no consequences for their actions. At this point they can pretty much do what they want and the most they're going to get is hand-wringing. The best illustration I can use as comparison is parents see this with children. Children at one time or another will deliberately disobey the parent as a test. They are trying to see what they can get away with, and for how long. They're also testing the parent: are the rules and boundaries you told me the actual rules? I've seen it multiple times, and the way to shut it down is to look the child in the eye and say 'you sure you want to do that? Okay, but there will be severe consequences', and name them. After that, if the child continues, you follow through. You let the child know they're crossing a line they don't want to cross.

In this case, for North Korea, the consequences cannot be economic sanctions, or similar threat which really won't hurt. Using those methods is essentially telling North Korea 'we really don't mean what we say. But we'd appreciate it if you did what we told you.' There will be no respect from North Korea, and they'll eventually turn into the bully. Making noise and threats whenever they want to get their way. If I were in charge for a day (I know it'll never happen but just let me pretend, okay?), the method I would use with North Korea would probably be something on the lines of 'you want to try to fire a nuclear missile at the US or Japan? Okay, but it will be the last thing you do as a county.' Is that the most diplomatic method? No, I know it isn't. But sometimes diplomacy doesn't work, and you answer a threat with a threat. See who backs down. We've done it before with the Soviet Union and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Will we ever do it again? I don't see the current government doing something like that.

Supreme Court Debate?

Well, we finally have a nominee for Supreme Court Justice to replace David Souter. With the President's choice of Sonya Sotomayor for Supreme Court Justice, there have been many different reactions and comments made. One aspect of the whole circus/dog and pony show (whatever you want to call it), has caught my attention is what people have said about whether or not we can even question the nominee. These comments range from 'you really can't object to her, because she's a woman and she's hispanic and if you do your a racist sexist pig' to 'she's an activist judge who uses race so we need to question her judicial qualities'. My own personal view on the nomination is: from what I've seen, heard and read, I'm not impressed. While many people praise her personal qualities and the fact she was previously confirmed to serve on the circuit court, to me those are only secondary to the discussion. What little I've seen and read of her legal mind and opinions leaves me with the impression she's not suited to serve on our nation's highest court. She may well be confirmed, and end up on the bench. If that's the case, I don't think the court will be better for it.

People who use the argument that objecting to her is the equivalent of racism are basically shutting down discussion and dissent. It used to be people could discuss the merits of a person without accusations of racism, bigotry, and partisanship being brought up. These days, we apparently don't have the mental acumen to be able to perform this task. In this case, the charges were brought up before the discussion even began. One local talk radio host jokingly referred to her at least once as 'the appointed one of the anointed one'. I wonder how many people seriously think that way?

This is a serious issue. If she is to take a seat on the Supreme Court, her gender and ethnicity have no bearing. How she approaches things judicially, her legal opinions, and indeed her opinions on being a judge do have bearing. I think everyone needs to keep this in mind. Resorting to accusations shows shallowness of intellect and could even indicate an attempt to cover something up. To paraphrase Shakespeare: 'I think they doth protest too much'.

Some people seem to believe this will be the court fight that is the reverse of the Robert Bork nomination in 1987, when how people are chosen for the Supreme Court will change again. If that's the case, then in my opinion, it will quickly come to the point when no one will want to be nominated for any federal court because the process isn't worth the trouble.

economics and automobiles

This week (and today as well) we see the impending the bankruptcy of General Motors. It brings the country's focus back to the automakers and (in my opinion more importantly) how both GM and Chrysler are currently and for the foreseeable future subject to the dictates of the government. I mean this as even moreso than in the past (emission standards, safety standards, etc.), where the government will be telling these companies what kind of cars to make and maybe even how many. This is not a situation we as a country want to see. This shows the difference between the market economy of the past and the communist (government-run) economy we (by all indications) are moving towards. If anyone thinks this cannot happen hasn't been paying attention. Any automobile made today for driving in the United States needs to meet safety, emission, and fuel efficiency standards. We are being regulated more and more each day.

There may already be some indications of our government exerting its influence on the automakers. One is currently being looked at by a blogger on Redstate (just one of multiple blogs I read), as to whether or not certain Chrysler dealers were 'closed' based on which party they supported by monetary donations. Of course denials abound from Chrysler and the government that this never took place, however, when you look at which dealerships were closed, how well they were doing, and add in their political contributions, the 'appearance of impropriety' begins to show. Now if the implication is true, it's not just government influence on an industry, it's punishment for your political beliefs, and a 'back door' way to shut down opposition without directly attacking the first amendment. This should increase our vigilance, if we care about protecting our way of life.

The other indication comes in the form of oil and gas prices. We're in a down economy (recession or maybe the beginnings of depression depending on your point of view), and yet oil and gas prices are going up. You could argue it's a sign the economy's improving, but at this point nothing else indicates that. If you believe in conspiracies, you could argue the government is raising the oil and gas prices on purpose to drive people out of their current cars. What would they get? Why the 'new' fuel efficient and 'green' cars that will be made by the post-bankruptcy GM. That's if you believe in conspiracies.

I will continue to watch what goes on with interest. The automobile industry will, in this case, be a leading indicator of the future of our economy, government, and society. Admittedly, I will be watching with a certain degree of apprehension. If what we've seen so far is any indication, we can only look forward to more and more of a communist-style economy run by the government.

Today is Memorial Day

It's a day when (we are told) we are to remember the sacrifice others have made in order for us to continue to enjoy the freedoms we have today. Anyone who does a quick internet search can find the history of the observation, but I'll summarize: It began after the Civil War (1866-1868 are two different dates I've seen, depending on who you talk to), and was set up to honor those who fought and died in the Civil War. Southern states honored their dead on different days (due to lingering animosity), until after World War I, when the observance was expanded to include those who died in all conflicts.

In recent years, I've done some research on my family history. I was told I had an ancestor who fought in the Civil War, but hadn't found any documents. My father brought me copies of documentation from his service. He was paid to to serve for another person (a fairly common occurrence in that time), and was part of Sherman's army in Georgia. He really didn't see much action though, he ended up spending most his enlistment in the hospital due to illness (dyspepsia). It ends up not being as exciting as, say, 'The Red Badge of Courage' but still it provides insight into the history of our country.

I said at the beginning we are told to remember the sacrifice others made on this day. Looking around, though, it seems cookouts, sales, and a day off is more important than what the day is about.

One thing I would put out there is: if people weren't willing to sacrifice everything to ensure their descendants were able to enjoy the principles of freedom, what kind of country would we be living in today?

I've been busy!

Sorry for the long time between posts, as I look and see it's been almost a month since I've posted.  Life took over.  I've been busy between work and doing all those necessary things needing to be done as the weather has improved. 

It's not that there hasn't been a lot of things I could've commented on; the changes going on in our country and the world and the pace of those changes would've given me a lot of fodder, but when it's a choice between getting the house chores done and trying to corral my many wayward thoughts, believe it or not the chores are easier.

What also added to the time away from the blog is that we changed our internet provider.  The only thing I can say after that experience is:  you'd better be happy with your internet provider, because I think it's easier to get a divorce than to change internet providers.

Anyway, I'm back online, and after poor customer service all the way around, I'm grumpier than ever!!!