consultants are sandburs

Monday, March 06, 2017


In a changing world, how do you value continuity? If continuation is a relative disadvantage to you, your family, your values, is it not then a burden and not a benefit? Why was CHANGE a good slogan? Why, in the middle of the "Advance the Revolution" page does say, "Enough is enough?" For food, enough is better than too much, in an obesity epidemic.

For a political party, two party system like it or love it, in the minority and on the skids, what is the best way to consider and evaluate continuity? That question has led to several posts here.

In international relations with the IC (intelligence community, intelligence in that limited sense) playing politics as well as collecting, funneling, and distributing information with the perogative of saying some known things are "secret" and others not so, and chosen people, at some small percentage have "clearance" to know "secret" stuff, what are the pros and cons? Is continuity a key value, outside of the IC itself and in the general society, or is CHANGE a better way?

In concentrated media, but with the internet having alternative outlets, is continuity of editorial policy especially if pay the piper call the tune is the governing rule of news decisions?

In government, is two-party polarization a good thing for continuation? Gotcha politics?

With internet user profiling, is giving them what their biases indicate they'd prefer a good form of continuity? Your Google returns and your YouTube sidebars set in some company-secret algorithmic manner to reinforce prejucides (a/k/a belief systems, a/k/a values)?

If you appear from your user profile to like President Trump, should the web give you reinforcement, whereas if you appear from profiling to dislike Trump, should the web react accordingly? Is that good, a reinforcement of continuity?

If you think Syria is a basket case best left to itself and others, and the Russians have a form of order they'd seek to establish there, and if it relates to their selling gas to Europe while the Qataris want to pipe their gas to Turkey, which the Turks want but with routing having to cross Syria; should you care about how that discontinuity gets settled? Is it not more important that the person and firm you entrust maintaining your automobile to is honest and competent; should not government aim to assure that as a public good, and not pay taxed funds to firms making munitions for conducting policy in Syria, even possibly policy you think unwise?

If the Russians want to interfere in Syria and the Israelis want a war with Iran, should they not be allowed to follow their policy aims, apart from any interference or assistance from our nation? It is, after all, their policies, not ours, and is continuity in forming questionable alliances good or bad, in balance? Or is case by case judgment knowing facts best, e.g., as with the Saudis? And that gets back to the question of government honesty and keeping secrets within Department of State and the IC.

If President Trump wants to change the IC, and after all has been elected President, should will of the people to have their elected representative control unelected appointees? Even if discontinuous in outcome?

If the Russians found facts and published, indirectly, those facts but in a way that better informed voters, is that "interference" with our elections, or "assistance" of promoting informed voters? After all, it appears the effort was to find further fault with an abysmal candidate who'd taken money from Wall Street and favored a trade agreement with Asian nations which would benefit Wall Street even if at the same time disadvantaging a domestic work force losing good jobs;, then a question, was interference by other nations in U.S. politics a continuity or a discontinuity? Were not foreign governments hiring lobbyists hand over fist; so that interference was the norm, and a valued continuity, by the lobbyists, perhaps others?

Back to continuity, is the continued assurance of food and drug quality, air quality, water quality of more importance to you, in the U.S. of A. than buying bombs and planes to drop bombs on Syria?

Was Rome a good empire or a bad one, and did it ever have continuity?

Is that a question relevant to our nation's character and policy; and behavior?

No comments: