Category: Uncategorized

Coverage in the media of two events within the past week brought an interesting observation to mind, a perspective from which I’ve never viewed what we might call the “Post-9/11 Era”. The two events were not directly connected, and were not even similar in outward appearance, but collectively, they presented this new perspective to me.

One of the events was a “planned but didn’t happen” “White Lives Matter” rally in Murfreesboro, TN [near Nashville], organized by the same groups that staged the recent rally in Charlottesville, VA which turned into a violent clash between protesters and counter-protesters that resulted in the death of one person and injury of several others.  What caught my attention was that the entire city [population over 100,000], for all practical purposes, literally “shut down” — businesses near the site of the planned event boarded up windows, government officials actually told [through the media] residents to “stay home or get out of town” and people with plans to come there were asked to postpone their plans. The organizers of the event ended up cancelling it because less than 100 protesters showed up [fewer than the number of counter-protesters].

The other event was much more visible, and because it resulted in the death of eight people and injury of twelve others, it was obviously much more widely reported — the terrorist attack in New York last weekend.

Regardless of any underlying ideology or theology ostensibly behind both terrorist attacks and large-scale, well-organized and well-financed demonstrations, a more basic driving force seems to be at play — a deep-seated desire on the part of some people to do something publicly visible that gives them a much larger “platform” than they have based on their own achieved level of public visibility. A proven way of doing that is to do things that visibly sow discord, produce chaos, and create an atmosphere of uncertainty and fear.

I personally believe that people who have these deep-seated desires — or who are insecure enough in their personal value systems to be vulnerable to “radicalization” by organizations seeking to fulfill such desires — seem to “need a cause” to justify frustrations in their lives. They may or may not actually share the ideological / theological values of the “cause” they ultimately find, but simply “ended up there” and found an avenue for venting their frustrations [perhaps soaking in some of the ideology or theology along the way and becoming what ends up being reported as “radicalized”].

From 9/11 To Now

Think about what we see every day: comprehensive security systems in airports and many public buildings; beefed up security operations at large gatherings of people [rallies, marathons, sports and entertainment venues, streets with high pedestrian traffic, …], heavy proliferation of video surveillance systems, increased emphasis on immigrant screening, etc. The cumulative effect of all these things could be viewed as a kind of insidious success achieved by people driven by the nefarious goals describe above.

As for the total worldwide cost, I doubt that anyone could accurately calculate it. That would require knowing the cost — not just equipment, but workforce costs — of all the things mentioned above [airport security systems, beefed-up security operations at public events, etc.], I think it would be safe to say that the total would be at least in the tens, probably in the scores, and maybe in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Every one of those dollars increases the average cost of living because they end up being reflected in the costs of goods and services.

On the discord and atmosphere of fear front, on any given day, you don’t have to look past a randomly-selected newspaper or TV “news” channel to see “success”.

From Now To …

A few years after a tragic event, even one as major as 9/11, societies tend to drift back to their pre-event status. The daily routine of most people isn’t appreciably different from what it was before the event. They shop, they go to school, they go to work, they dine out, they dine in, they go to movies, they watch TV, … . For the most memorable events, there are memorial ceremonies or at least moments of remembrance on their “anniversaries”. But by and large, even those most memorable events are thought of by most people as something “in the past”.

It has been sixteen years since 9/11. Assuming about four years as the very earliest age at which most people have clear recollections of their upbringing, there are about 91 million people 20 years old or younger who do not personally remember 9/11. For them, “normal” includes hardly ever an entire year passing without at least one terrorist attack and/or large-scale demonstration protesting something [the latter possibly including at least some violence and maybe even some deaths].

Wrapping It Up

Whether intended or just collateral “success”, I don’t think anybody could argue that many billions of dollars are being spent every year to guard against, quell manifestations of, and recover from, acts of terrorism and protests-turned-violent. So we’d have to chalk that up in the perpetrators’ “successes” column. I’ll close with a question: If the goal of terrorists [including so-called “lone wolfs”] is to sow discord, produce chaos, and create an atmosphere of uncertainty and fear, are they winning or losing?

…

Thanks for reading this post, and if you regularly follow my Blog, for that, too. Please consider sharing this or other posts with your friends, colleagues and associates.

Charles M. Jones

As much as I hate saying it, I’m afraid the answer to an implied question in White House Chief Of Staff General John Kelly’s impassioned statement at a 10/19/17 White House press conference is “No, General Kelly, there isn’t anything sacred in America any more”. In that forum, he openly expressed his impressions of remarks made by U. S. Congresswoman Frederica Wilson [D-FL] about President Trump’s call to the mother of one of the four U. S. soldiers recently killed in Niger. The implied question in General Kelly’s remarks was “Is there anything sacred in America any more?”.

Congresswoman Wilson had characterized one sentence made by the President during that call as insensitive — the sentence was “He knew what he had signed up for”. The liberal media, of course, pounced on that one thing and covered that “story” for days. General Kelly shed light [very eloquently and sincerely in the eyes of many] on what the President meant by that statement, but by then the media train had already left the station.

I made it a point to watch the entire statement, since nowadays all you get from news and commentary on any event of the day is biased interpretations [the “tilt” of bias depending on what media outlet you choose to access]. Then, I made it a point to watch coverage of that “story” on Fox News and CNN, switching between them enough to get a sense of the overall theme of analysis by their “expert panels”. What I saw was exactly what I expected: on Fox News, praise of General Kelly’s “high road” approach, agreement with his overall “tone”, etc.; on CNN, denouncing of his explanation of President Trump’s “He knew what he had signed up for” remark, branding him as a racist for voicing his offense at Congresswoman Frederica Wilson’s comments about the President’s remark, etc.

My conclusions from trying to ferret out these details? …

• • I have been “spot on” in my posts about “Fake News” and the conclusion one could draw from those posts [best described in Fake News Or Just Meaningless News? and News [Or NNTN] Circa 2017].
  • The answer to General Kelly’s implied question “Is there anything sacred in this country any more?”, unfortunately, is “No, General Kelly, there isn’t”. Politicians will use any eye-catching “news” to further their political ambitions [personal ambitions first, party agendas second]. The people who are the subject of the “news” are important to them only to the extent that what they say and/or do can be used as tools to further their agendas.
  • Unlike his predecessor, anything President Trump says will contain some word or phrase or sentence that somebody will find offensive, insensitive, inappropriate, or whatever. Most of the media will pick up on that one thing, report it as a major item of the day, generate multiple “story branches” from it [e.g., the racist angle in this case], and then hash out in panel discussions the whys and wherefores of the expanded “story” for days if not weeks or months.

I’ll close with this quote from one of the above-referenced posts:

Only two things give a person the ability to develop truly well-informed positions on issues like this one: 1) personal choices of “channels” to access [“channels” here being much broader than the TV/YouTube connotation]; and 2) personal filters, based on his/her value system and Worldview, applied to the content flowing through those “channels”. Anyone who limits the first to just one or two channels and/or who essentially delegates the second to just one or two “trusted consolidators” runs a substantial risk of simply disappearing into the huge crowd of what one popular radio personality calls “low information voters”. Anyone who takes whatever time is required [whether he/she thinks he/she has that much time available or not] to control both of these things himself/herself will always be a part of making things better than they are. It’s a hard choice, but the greater the “flow” of people from the latter category to the former, the more rapid our drift toward authoritarianism will be.

Thanks for reading this post, and if you regularly follow my Blog, for that, too. Please consider sharing this or other posts with your friends, colleagues and associates.

Charles M. Jones

In 1982, John Naisbitt published his classic book Megatrends.  It depicted ten long-term trends that he saw in progress in America. My reference to it here isn’t about the trends themselves but the methodology he used to identify them. What he and his company did was an interesting approach. They tracked major newspapers around the country, logging how many column inches of newsprint was devoted to various subjects over time. Then, analyzing how that coverage by subject area trended over time, they came up with the Megatrends.

The “News” Environment Then …

I was 37 years old when Megatrends was published, so I remember very well at least two of the decades included in Naisbitt’s research. That perspective gave me the general feeling that his predictions were very plausible [as it turned out, well over half of them were at least conceptually on the right track, and two or three of them were “spot on”]. Also, in 1982, CNN was only two years old. CNBC would not be around until 1989 — MSNBC and Fox News, 1996; Huffington Post, 2005; BuzzFeed, 2006.

And Now …

Today, there are numerous 24×7 channels to which a person can tune for “news”, and literally thousands of web sites and blogs providing what could sometimes be classified as “news” because they are sometimes the original sources quoted by the major media outlets in their “news” programming. Compounding this explosion in the number of media outlets is the ability of Social Media [FaceBook, Twitter, etc.] to transform what might otherwise be considered minor content into major worldwide “news” within hours. I’ve put the word “news” in quote marks here because its meaning is much less clear today than it was then [see these Blog posts for more on that: Fake News Or Just Meaningless News? ; News [Or NNTN>] Circa 2017].

Parkinson’s Law Kicks In

This plethora of “news” sources brings to mind Parkinson’s Law: work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion [Cyril Northcote Parkinson, The Economist, 1955]. This principle is often used to describe the growth of the bureaucratic apparatus in an organization, and that is the context within which I mention it here. The myriads of 24×7 media outlets, web sites, and blogs all need content to fill all of their time-slots. I expect there are at least scores of thousands of employees whose jobs are to find content they believe will be more interesting to the public than the content found by their competitors, “package” that content, and produce it for consumption by the public.

This huge army of “journalists” [a term used much too loosely nowadays] churns out orders of magnitude more content than their counterparts did in the decades leading up to Naisbitt’s book, so the task of measuring the percentage of content devoted to a particular subject is orders of magnitude more complex today than it was then.

Naisbitt’s Methodology Today

I can’t help but wonder what a person engaged in Naisbitt-style analysis 35 years from now [same time as from 1982 to now] would conclude were the major megatrends during this decade and the one or two preceding it. My intent here isn’t to try and predict exactly what that conclusion would be [i.e., to produce a specific list of the megatrends themselves], but I believe strongly that it would be consistent with the Major Paradigm Shift Well Underway page of this web site and what I’ve been including in related posts to this Blog. … But as I look at what dominates the “news” these days, it’s interesting to ponder how on earth that person would filter out all the “fake news” and commentary and just track real news.

…

Thanks for reading this post, and if you regularly follow my Blog, for that, too. Please consider sharing this or other posts with your friends, colleagues and associates.

Charles M. Jones

I’m not trying to paint myself as a prophet or somebody with a unique ability to observe current “goings on” and “see” with absolute clarity where it’s all leading, but I do believe that I have a very clear understanding of the Major Paradigm Shift Well Underway in this country — and to a considerable extent, underway in the world. I decided to do a kind of “pause” for this post, and do a “let’s see where we are” assessment.

I mentioned in a 7/20/17 post how I believe my background as a CIO gave me some unique insights into assessing things as they are in the context of trends underway in order to shape directions leading to an envisioned future that the trends suggest lies ahead — kind of like Wayne Gretsky’s famous answer to the question “How is it that you’re always right where the action is?”: “I just figure out where the puck’s going to be next, and skate there.”  [This link will take you to that post: Current Paradigm Now Officially Old Paradigm]. With that backdrop, read on …

Let’s Look At Some Specifics

Let’s look at some specific recent/current events that I believe are clear evidence that a major paradigm shift is underway.

• • Roy Moore winning Republican Primary election in Alabama [former Senator Sessions’ seat], despite President Trump’s endorsement and campaign speeches for his opponent. In a way, this is very similar to the ouster of Eric Cantor, a powerful Republican on the rise, in 2014.
  • Social Media’s influence. ..
    • The Trump-Corker “Twitter War” [10/8/17ff]. Think about it. The staid, calm/collected Corker, got sucked into Trump’s modus operandi.
    • Trump’s 10/7/17 Tweet about North Korea: “Being nice to Rocket Man hasn’t worked in 25 years, why would it work now? Clinton failed, Bush failed, and Obama failed. I won’t fail”. Excoriating comments in the media notwithstanding, this is as good an example as one could find of an American President clearly communicating that “things are different now”.
    • Twitter announcing 10/8/17 that it was pulling Marsha Blackburn’s campaign ad because it contained one sentence it said “had been deemed an inflammatory statement that is likely to evoke a strong negative reaction”. Twitter said the language “violates Twitter’s policy for advertisements. … If this is omitted from the video it will be permitted to serve”. [Twitter blocked the video as an online ad, leaving Blackburn only to be able to post it within her account.] On 10/10/17, Twitter reversed its decision and re-enabled the online ad capability. This is very alarming — not the “content” of this particular news item, but the underlying implications of content censorship by media moguls. [See the page Civi Caveo  at this site for more on alarming trends].

These are just top-of-mind examples. My self-imposed length limitation on my posts doesn’t permit inclusion of others.

The Old [And Still Current “Dead Man Walking”] Paradigm

In the context of America’s [and it would not be much of a leap to say the world’s] governmental systems, the Old [And Still Current “Dead Man Walking”] Paradigm has very recognizable characteristics:

• • The minority party uses “rules” [e.g., the filibuster] to block vote and thwart all majority-party-initiated agenda initiatives — even those with which they may agree in principle.
  • Majority leaders control who committee chairs are and what gets to floors for debate and vote.
  • The archaic seniority system — rewards longevity in office, not performance.
  • K Street [the lobbying system].
  • “Commission a study” as the typical “action” for dealing with an issue.

Again, these are just top-of-mind examples. My self-imposed length limitation on my posts doesn’t permit inclusion of others.

The New [Rapidly Becoming Current] Paradigm

In an admittedly very cursory web search looking for more general signs that would confirm that a paradigm shift is occurring, this was one of the most interesting [status comments are mine; source of original: http://www.tnellen.com/ted/tc/paradigm.html]:

• • The established paradigm begins to be less effective. [✔️Check!]
  • The affected community senses the situation, begins to lose trust in old rules. [✔️Check!]
  • Turbulence grows as trust wanes. [✔️Check!]
  • Creators or identifiers of new paradigms step forward. [✔️Check!]
  • Turbulence increases as paradigm conflicts become apparent. [✔️Check!]
  • Affected community is extremely upset and demands clear solutions. [✔️Check!]
  • One of the suggested new paradigms demonstrates ability to solve a small set of significant problems that the old paradigm couldn’t. [✔️Check!]
  • Some of the affected community accepts the new paradigm as an act of faith. [~A Few]
  • With stronger support and funding, the new paradigm gains momentum. [🤔 On The Verge]
  • Turbulence begins to wane as the new paradigm starts to solve problems and the community sees a new way to deal with the world [🙏 Jury’s Still Out]

The new “rules” — the specific attributes of the New Paradigm — are still unfolding. I’ll probably write considerably more on that front in many of my future posts, but for starters I think the following are at least potentially in the mix [don’t write me off as a heretic just yet 😊]:

• • Movement to a more formalized three-party version of what is now essentially a four-party power structure. The current four “parties” are 1) the far left wing of the Democrat party [Sanders/Warren et al], 2) the “establishment” Democrats [Schumer/Pelosi et al], 3) the “establishment” Republicans [McConnell/Ryan et al], and 4) the far right wing of the Republican Party [Cotton/Jordan et al].
  • A continued sharp change in the nature of International “diplomacy” — Out with “set up commissions to study issues and make recommendations” and “talk and negotiate for 25 years with no results”, and in with “tough negotiations backed by demonstrable strength that is available when needed”.

…

Thanks for reading this post, and if you regularly follow my Blog, for that, too. Please consider sharing this or other posts with your friends, colleagues and associates.

Charles M. Jones

In watching media coverage of the terrible tragedy in Las Vegas last weekend, I was reminded of the same clear theme I wrote about in my August 30 post following coverage of Hurricane Harvey’s devastation in Texas: how people reacted in the midst of the tragedy is The Real America. So I decided to use the same title for this post, simply adding “[Again]” at the end — but in this “Page Two”, as Paul Harvey used to say in his News and Comment radio broadcasts, I’ve added another element.

My plan prior to the Las Vegas massacre was to use this week’s post to express some thoughts on what I consider to be another tragedy, albeit thankfully a more benign one not directly affecting people’s lives — NFL players kneeling during the playing of our National Anthem. With certainly no intention of equating massive loss of life to prima donnas being prima donnas, I call that disrespectful behavior a tragedy because it is yet another chip in the foundation of this great country.

Law Enforcement At Its Best

I should first say something about law enforcement’s swift containment actions that I am convinced saved at least scores and probably hundreds or maybe even a thousand or more lives. Stephen Paddock was clearly planning to kill as many people as he could, and he had armed himself accordingly. The list of guns in his hotel room, several of them modified to enable fully automatic operation, is mind-boggling.  Had law enforcement been less effective at zeroing in on his location, getting to it, and breaking in, he would have had much more time to continue spraying the crowd with more bullets, no doubt increasing several-fold both the death and injury counts.

Real People Being Real People

Video clips and interviews with eye witnesses have simply shown ordinary people helping ordinary people — on the scene, by helping others to safety, trying to manage their wounds until paramedics could get to them; and afterwards, by giving blood, bringing food, water and other supplies, etc. In a media briefing Monday night, one official said that the Convention Center was getting so many supplies donations that they may become unable to handle the “volume”, and that there was actually a waiting list for blood donations, with appointments being booked for Thursday and Friday.  A man from Tennessee shielded his wife from the shower of bullets, losing his own life in the process. … These are just a few examples of people being The Real America.

Prima Donnas Being Prima Donnas

It’s a shame that it takes a tragedy like this to consume media coverage and overshadow reports of the activities of “celebrities” [a much over-used descriptor these days], like the huge focus we’ve seen lately on NFL players kneeling during the playing of our National Anthem. This selfish and disrespectful behavior is a tragedy of a different kind because it is one of many attacks these days on this country’s foundational roots.

Generally, people have a right to express their frustrations with whatever wrongs they perceive. However, in exercising that right, they don’t have a right to openly disrespect our country or symbols that represent it [anthem, flag …], or to destroy the right others have to enjoy a sports [or other] event they came [or tuned in] to see by using them as a captive audience against their will. Excuse me, but I was an Eagle Scout and also earned Scouting’s God and Country Award, and I grew up in a small town in which something like this at a high school football game would have resulted in expulsion of those involved [and everybody I knew would have thought that was a fair penalty]. Now, many decades later, that value system is still in me, and I’m one of those people whose spines tingle as they listen to our National Anthem with hand over heart in salute to our flag.

One Tennessee Titan involved in “anthem kneeling” is apparently clueless as to the source of funds that pay his [probably exorbitant] salary — he said “And the fans that don’t want to come to the game? I mean, OK. bye. I mean, if you feel that … we’re disrespecting you, don’t come to the game. You don’t have to. No one’s telling you to come to the game. It’s your freedom of choice to do that”. I’d love to have been a fly on the wall in the room where I expect the team owners probably helped him “see the light”.

We Need More Focus On Real Americans And Less On “Celebrities”

During the 2016 presidential campaign, some “celebrities” said they were going to move if Trump won the election — e.g., Barbara Streisand, Whoopi Goldberg, Al Sharpton, Samuel L. Jackson, … upwards of 20 if I recall correctly. As best I can tell, none of them have fulfilled that promise so far.

What I’d say to them, and to these NFL prima donnas, is a corollary to one of my favorite Scriptures, Joshua 24:15: “Choose … this day whom you will serve. … But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord”.  My corollary is a similar choice: “Choose this day whether you do or don’t love your country and appreciate the sacrifices others have made to give you the freedoms you enjoy. If you do, address any concerns you have with it in a way that allows you to exercise your right to express your concerns while also respecting the rights of others; if you don’t, find another country you like better and move there”.

…

Thanks for reading this post, and if you regularly follow my Blog, for that, too. Please consider sharing this or other posts with your friends, colleagues and associates.

Charles M. Jones

I’m sorry if I offended anybody with the title of this post, but Senator McCain needs to wake up. Hero-level military record and distinguished past service in the Senate notwithstanding, he is rapidly becoming an albatross around the neck of the Republican Party. In fact, the rationale he outlined in his September 22 statement on why he will be a “No” vote on the Graham/Cassidy bill has made him the Republican Old Paradigm “poster child” of the Major Paradigm Shift Well Underway in this country [Senator McConnell is First Runner-up]. The clear winner of the Democrat version of that designation [now that Harry Reid is no longer eligible] is Nancy Pelosi, with Chuck Schumer as First Runner-up.

Time Out …

Let me say before going on that the Graham/Cassidy bill is not the best alternative for dealing with the choice the ACA has put in our path: 1) its imminent collapse when we finally realize we simply can’t afford it in its current form; 2) its becoming the “straw that broke the camel’s back” as it rapidly accelerates our movement toward financial insolvency; 3) its repeal; or 4) its repeal, with something we can afford established in its place. The current procrastination can only continue until #1 rises to the level of “Clear and Present Danger”, at which time we’ll be in a panic to do something because #1 will have by then become our “choice”. If #2 hasn’t simultaneously become reality by then, there may still be some hope that something can still be done to at least stem the tide. I don’t think anybody in our elected leadership actually wants us to choose #3 [unfortunately, their disdain for it stems more from their individual political assessments of it than from a desire to do what’s best for America]. That leaves #4 as the only choice that makes any sense.

So the reason I’m taking the approach I chose for this post is not that I think the Graham/Cassidy bill is the best solution to the ACA dilemma. It’s because I’m convinced that 1) it’s the best option so far that has risen to near-passage status [a major part of my rationale for that assessment being that it separates the Medicaid aspects of the ACA (only about 10% of its text) from the parts (the other 90%) that make it the disaster it is], 2) it’s too late to start from scratch with anything that can pass with 51 votes, and 3) anything that can gain the support of eight Democrats will probably lose the support of at least that many Republicans, so our choices will be back down to #1 and #2.

Statement Announcing “No” Vote — What Did He Actually Say?

I don’t mean in any way to disparage Senator McCain as a person. He is a fine man, and he has served his country in many positive ways during his remarkable life.  However, in his statement explaining his position, he said three things that clearly give him a prominent seat on the Old Paradigm bus that is rapidly approaching the cliff that will precipitate its final descent into the Valley Of Oblivion:

• • “Healthcare reform legislation ought to be the product of regular order in the Senate. Committees of jurisdiction should mark up legislation with input from all committee members, and send their bill to the floor for debate and amendment. That is the only way we might achieve bipartisan consensus on lasting reform. … We should not be content to pass health care legislation on a party-line basis, as Democrats did when they rammed Obamacare through Congress in 2009.”
  • “Senators Alexander and Murray have been negotiating in good faith to fix some of the problems with Obamacare.”
  • “Nor could I support it without knowing how much it will cost, how it will effect insurance premiums, and how many people will be helped or hurt by it. Without a full CBO score, which won’t be available by the end of the month, we won’t have reliable answers to any of those questions.”

Earth To Senator McCain …

In the New Paradigm that is rapidly developing [obviously outside your field of vision], your wistful reference to “regular order” makes about as much sense as a General today wishing wars would go back to battles in which ranks of soldiers line up and shoot at each other. “Regular order” has been dead for at least nine years, and it was on life support for a considerable amount of time even farther back than that. Vilifying and obstructing the majority party on every front clearly has not worked for either party during that time period, and “bipartisan efforts” today only surface when something HAS to be done and the majority party can’t ram its agenda through [and even in those situations, those efforts are not truly bipartisan because both parties have too many deep-seated ideologically- and campaign-donor-based positions from which they will not budge].

Senators Alexander and Murray have not been “negotiating in good faith to fix some of the problems with Obamacare”. They have simply been trying to find a palatable way to throw more money into a failing program [e.g., by capitulating on the issue of “Cost Sharing Reimbursements” (CSRs) that prop up insurance companies]. Their plan wouldn’t “fix” anything. It would simply postpone some of the more visible symptoms of the underlying problem — which is a program that cannot survive in its current form.

Even if a “full CBO score” had been available before you announced your opposition, you still would not have known “how much it will cost, how it will effect insurance premiums, and how many people will be helped or hurt by it”. Democrats didn’t know that when [in your words describing that process] “they rammed Obamacare through Congress in 2009” because the CBO score was based much more heavily on assumptions than on facts. The CBO scores of recent failed proposals have the same flaw, as would the score of the Graham/Cassidy bill if it were available [only a very preliminary — and therefore even more meaningless — version was released on 9/25]. Hardly anybody of any political persuasion can produce a fact-based argument that the CBO projection of the 2009 partisan bill that became the ACA in 2010 projected the financial disaster we have today.

Why Single Out Senator McCain?

As to why I singled out Senator McCain and didn’t mention others who may end up being the deciding “No” vote which when added to McCain’s and Paul’s will scuttle the bill [e.g., Murkowski, Collins (who said 9/25 that she’s a “No”, but that could just mean the Maine-centric sweeteners the leadership has offered aren’t yet sweet enough for her), perhaps others], that was a conscious omission for a very good reason [my making the phrase end up in bold type is a clue] — but I’m already over my self-imposed length limit here. I’ll probably get to that in an upcoming post entitled Last Chance On The ACA? Or Not?.

…

Thanks for reading this post, and if you regularly follow my Blog, for that, too. Please consider sharing this or other posts with your friends, colleagues and associates.

Charles M. Jones

Here’s a challenge for you. … Please watch the full video of President Trump’s speech today to the U. N. General Assembly [this link will access it, possibly preceded by a 20-30 second commercial]: President Trump’s U. N. Speech – Full Video (41:24)]. It would have been great if every citizen and non-citizen resident of this country could have watched this speech before watching any media commentary and endless point-by-point analysis sessions by media pundits and their “international relations experts”. Since that is practically impossible these days, I would simply ask that regardless of your political and ideological leanings and whether you “like” our President or “hate” him, you do your very best to put all that aside, watch the speech, and simply listen to his actual words, all in their intended context [which is often lost in collections of “clips” shown by media outlets].

Also, while listening, watch him, trying earnestly to put aside any perceptions you have of him, personally [whether positive or negative] — i.e., just think of him in the context of what he was doing today: addressing the leaders of the world in his capacity as President of the United States. Consider his demeanor, his “Presidentialness” [whatever that means any more], etc., and decide for yourself whether or not you think his words represent who he is and how he thinks, and whether or not he truly has America’s interests at heart.

If your conclusion falls in line with negatives on which the largely liberal elements of the media will no doubt focus in characterizing this speech [and our President as the one delivering it], so be it. Although I disagree with your conclusion, I respect the fact that you are entitled to it and that you and I are two out of over 320 million people who are all entitled to our opinions.

If, however, your conclusion is positive, it certainly matches mine. I believe our President, in this speech today, was just as “presidential” as any President who has ever been characterized in that way in the past. However, he “told it like it is”, and was much more direct in his remarks than most Presidents tend to be [i.e., he didn’t “water down” his remarks to try to make his points without offending specific U. N. members]. To me, that’s a good thing — and I believe that kind of candor is a necessary and important part of “draining the swamp” [the international “swamp”].

Whether history will ultimately characterize Mr. Trump’s presidency as successful, mediocre or a failure remains to be seen, but after watching his speech live today I understand better than I have before what he means as he stresses themes like America First, patriotism, and our country’s respect in the world.

Regardless of where you come down on this, I would like to encourage all of us to consider getting away from the partisan polarity that seems to be the norm these days, respect our President, quit bickering with each other on less important issues than those he addressed today, and become more involved in our nation’s affairs — at a minimum, by keeping ourselves aware of what is going on, and by being more active in making this nation function the way it was designed to function.

Thanks for reading this post, and if you regularly follow my Blog, for that, too. Please consider sharing this or other posts with your friends, colleagues and associates.

Charles M. Jones

On September 7, 2016, I started up this website [www.USAparadigm.com] and began weekly posts to its Blog section, so my post last week marked the beginning of my second year in this mode. As I began writing today’s post, something from “back when …” came to mind: Paul Harvey saying “Page 2 …” as he transitioned to one of his self-written commercials or another section of content in his radio news broadcasts.

For this “Page 2” of my Blog posts, I’d like to recap why I decided to embark on this endeavor, restate my main goal at that time, give you my assessment of the overall situation now, and outline in broad terms my intentions going forward from here.
In The Beginning …

Although with a much broader long-term purpose, I started this website and began posting to its Blog section with a much more focused initial short-term goal — to do everything I could to clearly lay out for anyone who would listen the fact that, like him/her or not, either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton would be our next president, and that either abstaining from voting or voting for any other candidate was, in effect, an unwitting vote for one of these two candidates.

The overall long-term purpose of this website appears in the tagline on the Home Page … “Currently dedicated to identifying and understanding the current paradigm, and the new paradigm that is rapidly developing, in the USA [and as applicable, in the World]. Future plans: monitor development of the new paradigm and identify signs of future paradigm shifts.”

The Situation Now …

It is doubtful that my efforts here, viewed in isolation, had any impact on the outcome of the 2016 election outcome. However, if I was one of thousands, maybe tens or even scores of thousands of people who felt compelled to personally do something about what was going on in this country, and if I played one tiny part in creating the current situation, it was well worth the effort.

The one thing about the situation now that is absolutely certain from my perspective is that the Old Paradigm is already dead [even though many in both the “swamp” and the mainstream media still don’t realize it], and the New Paradigm is rapidly maturing as the Current Paradigm [re: the A Major Paradigm Shift Well Underway page at this site]. Hardly a day goes by that evidence of this huge shift is not clearly visible — e.g., the President’s obvious focus on doing “whatever it takes” to get things done [recently, to the chagrin of Republican leadership in passage of a Continuing Resolution with support from enough Democrats to outweigh opposition from some “entrenched” Republicans].

Today, despite opposition on every front to the President’s agenda, hardly anybody can make a substantive argument that the country is not better off today than it has been in recent years — employment, GDP, equity markets, etc., not to mention a reasonably balanced Supreme Court that has not gone completely off the liberal end of the scale.

The best way I can think of to articulate what we need most now is to use two cartoons from an extremely liberal newspaper [The Nashville Tennessean] lampooning Hillary Clinton’s book “What Happened?”. Interestingly, many liberal media moguls, even uber-liberal comedians, have expressed a disdainful “just get over it” impression of the book. Our leaders need to “get over” brooding about the election and discrediting our President at every possible opportunity [Democrats], quit thinking of everybody who has viewpoints other than ours as “the enemy” [both parties], and get on with doing what this country needs its government to do — fix the Healthcare debacle, get our economy moving [create jobs, reduce taxes and regulations, etc.], put us on a sustainable fiscal path, and restore the balance of powers among the three branches of our Government.

What Lies Ahead …

The short description of what lies ahead is “I’m not sure”. My thinking at this time is to focus less on specifics [healthcare reform, tax reform, etc.] and pursue the general theme of picking items from day-to-day “goings on” to paint a clearer and clearer picture of what this New Paradigm is and how our future will be developed under that paradigm. Because of specific knowledge and experience I bring to the table on the subject of Healthcare [see the Repealing And Replacing The ACA page at this site], I may continue, as I have heretofore, to get into more depth in that specific area, but my general thinking is to “rise above” the details and write about the bigger picture [the paradigm shift].

Thanks for reading this post, and if you regularly follow my Blog, for that, too. Please consider sharing this or other posts with your friends, colleagues and associates.

Charles M. Jones

Interestingly, on this 16th anniversary of 9/11, a commercial that aired thirty years before that tragic event came to my mind [Follow this link to that one-minute ad:  [Link To Ad]. The ad, which featured Native American Iron Eyes Cody, was about the environment — not pushing the “climate change” rhetoric that’s so prevalent today, but depicting the need to be mindful of keeping the environment pristine for future generations. Sadly, I’m in Mr. Cody’s mode today, because I’m doubtful that the esprit de corp that for now has drowned out or at least dampened the constant vitriol that has unfortunately become the “new normal” in America will last more than a few months at the very most — probably more like a few weeks. All it will take is for one post of some silly remark on some dingbat’s Social Media account to “go viral” — and the vitriolic atmosphere will be immediately back to “normal”.

On 9/11/2001, the iPhone was still five years into the future, Social Media was not an integral part of our vocabulary, and the news reported in the media was still orders of magnitude closer to being actual news than the polarized commentary, even propaganda, that it is today. It is worth noting here that in at least one respect, 9/11 came at a time not altogether unlike now, when there were deep political divides stemming from a still relatively recent highly contested Presidential election. In the compassion being shown in the aftermath of two major hurricanes in the past few weeks, there is a glimmer of hope that we can still come together as we did at least for a while in the aftermath of 9/11, put our differences aside, and accomplish much as Americans.

I think the following excerpt from something Reverend Franklin Graham posted on his FaceBook page today is something we should all think about:

“When tragedy strikes, historically Americans pull together. Neighbors help neighbors; strangers help each other—without giving a thought to political affiliation or any other differences. Once again with the disasters of Harvey and Irma, we see ordinary citizens rise up as heroes. I hope in the coming days we can build on this unity and remember the importance of being “one nation under God” [Source: FG – FB].

While I look at the situation in this country a month ago [before all the hurricane domination of media time] through tearful eyes like those of Iron Eyes Cody’s in 1971, I honestly hope that somehow the long-range outcome of the time of transition in which we find ourselves now will be better and more durable than the time since 9/11.

Thanks for reading this post, and if you regularly follow my Blog, for that, too. Please consider sharing this or other posts with your friends, colleagues and associates.
 
Charles M. Jones

Donald Sussman, Oscar de la Renta, Emanuel Ax== CARNEGIE HALL Celebrates It’s 120th Anniversary (After Party)== Plaza Hotel, New York== May 5, 2011== ©Patrick McMullan== Photo-JIMI CELESTE/patrickmcmullan.com== ==

This week, I decided to take a shot at backing away from the day-to-day din of vitriolic activity going on in our country these days to see if I could discern the “root” of it all. As I got into that thought process, I’ll have to admit that my disdain for those pushing us toward liberalism as a thing in itself probably affected any objectivity I might otherwise have brought to the table. Given that admission up front, though, I do think there is merit in at least considering something I came up with.

I follow quite a bit of opinion expressions in the media, and I have not heard what I’ll be expressing here from any of the sources I monitor — so if I’m repeating a concept somebody more famous than I am has already promulgated, it’s not plagiarism, it’s just ignorance.

What — and/or who— is driving this rapidly-accelerating move toward liberal interpretations of almost everything — the Constitution [including, perhaps especially, the 1st and 10th Amendments], human sexuality, religious liberty, even the Bible [i.e., whether it’s relevant anymore, and if so, its interpretation] …?  My career experience taught me that consistent movement in a direction over time isn’t something that “just happens”. Such movement is the result of conceptualizing what that direction should be, developing a plan for converting that concept to reality, and effectively managing the execution of that plan.

Who’s At The Helm?

Although they might argue with use of the label “Liberal” [preferring labels with less potential for negative connotation, like “Progressive”], I doubt that most Democrats would argue that they clearly fit into this ideological category [their Party Platform document would certainly support that characterization]. However, at the risk of sounding a bit sarcastic, maybe even crass, I honestly don’t think that our current elected Legislators [by and large, with some exceptions, of course] are the “sharpest knives in the drawer”, capable of effectively performing the requisite components mentioned above to produce movement in a direction over time. I’d even go so far as to say that an alarming number of them are “a couple of bricks shy of a load”, “a few French fries short of a Happy Meal”, … well, you get the picture.

So if Democrats are not driving the movement, what — or who — is? I took to heart and have always considered very wise something one of my college professors said — “If you want to figure out how things work and who the movers and shakers are, draw a diagram of the ‘system’, and follow the money” [“system” in this context means people and entities involved, and interactions / transactions that take place among them; a popular methodology for depicting “systems” this way is to draw Entity Relationship Diagrams].

I mentioned in a post last February [Fake News Or Just Meaningless News?] that 90 percent of U.S. media is controlled by six corporations [see this Link to the Source of information referenced in that post]. We can logically assume that they are driven by at least two factors that bring into question their objectivity: 1) their responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profits; and 2) the worldview of their top leadership [i.e., the context within which these leaders make decisions about what does and does not make it into their publications and broadcasts]. Could it be that the media is driving this liberal agenda, and that Democrats — as well as scores, maybe hundreds, of well-funded advocacy organizations — are simply pawns [operatives]? [The “follow the money” train of thought would suggest that the actions of most Legislators are driven by two things: lobbyists pushing the interests of businesses and other organizations (including advocacy organizations); and donors who can provide the funds to get them re-elected.]

The Bigger Question

That liberal media moguls are driving movement in their preferred direction may seem far-fetched, particularly to people [like me] who want this country to operate in the way envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Realistically, though, how else could even a hint of activity [particularly in confrontational situations that make for good headlines and “breaking news”] on some particular issue [gay marriage, transgender “rights”, “discrimination” against LGBT citizens, police “brutality”, a $15 minimum wage, tearing down monuments that some people consider offensive, sanctuary cities …] almost instantly flood the media on any given day — maybe for days or even weeks? One could argue that the issue itself doesn’t matter. It’s the liberal agenda, as a thing in itself, that matters — i.e., any “hot button” event du jour on which well-known people whose livelihoods depend on controversy and media visibility can capitalize.

The Even Bigger Question

A fourth element I would add to the requisite components mentioned above to produce movement in a direction over time is a Project Manager — sort of a CEO of the process. The space program of the 1960s, brought about by John Kennedy’s bold 1961 charge to “put a man on the moon by the end of this decade”, was successful because of the efforts of many highly intelligent people in multiple disciplines — Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Materials Science, Mathematics, Astronomy, Medicine, Psychology, … . However, without the organizational and management skills [in addition to his substantial technical skills as an Aerospace Engineer] of Dr. Werner Von Braun [1912-1977], that success would not have been possible [Von Braun was Center Director at NASA’s facility in Huntsville, Alabama, where he headed the Apollo Applications Program that NASA had established in 1968 to develop manned space missions].

So the even bigger question, if the basic premise of what I’m postulating here is valid, is “Who is the Werner Von Braun of the Liberal movement?”. I didn’t get into that phase of this thought process before reaching my self-imposed length limit in this post, but it’s an intriguing question. I may pick up on this theme in a future post.

Thanks for reading this post, and if you regularly follow my Blog, for that, too. Please consider sharing this or other posts with your friends, colleagues and associates.

Charles M. Jones