Sunday, June 26, 2011

My Ten Worries About America and How I'd Address Each

Here is the latest iteration of my plan to reinvigorate America. It addresses job creation, health care,k-16 education, U.S. involvement in the Middle East, our electoral system, the national debt, taxation, ethnocentrism, ethics, political correctness, even an ethical approach to improving the gene pool.

Regular readers of this blog will find most of the ideas familiar. Indeed, it is a revision of an earlier post but hopefully it's better thought-through and presented. And this is video; the previous version was audio.

The video below is 12 minutes long. To read the transcript, click HERE.


Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, but out of all the eruditional points you were trying to make in your lengthy transcript, you lost me at this statement: "not to mention that thousands of young men have died, yes men, not "men and women" as the media likes to say. More than 99% of the deaths have been men."

Women have died in combat, they suffer depression and PTSD, just as the men do. Your statement that women should not be acknoledged for their heroics is extrememly insulting to all soldiers who put their lives in danger. It's especially insluting coming from someone who hasn't been near combat and couldn't begin to understand a soldier's life.

The law prohibits women from fighting in combat yet they are often on the front lines. As a result they die. You should have written a mission statement to allow women the opportunity to fully serve in the military so they can receive the respect they deserve. They are soldiers and they die. We cannot forget that.

Anonymous said...

Dr.Nemko, as a follow-up to my anonymous message, I don't understand how you can say I am incorrect. I stated that women have died as soldiers fighting in the armed services (I was referring to Iraq and Afghanistan). That is a fact. I didn't list any statistics. I haven't had a chance to research your 99+% statistic that you list. But your 99+% statistic hides the fact that over 100 women have died as soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. How many deaths are needed before you would acknowledge them as a group? What's the cut-off?

To state that "feminists aren't fighting for women [to engage in combat]...because they don't want fairness. They want to be unfair to men" is an unsubstantiated claim.

I can "hear" the anger in your message. I'm sure we won't agree on the point that female soldiers who have died in our wars should be acknowledged.

I apologize as this is a digression from your more global message.

Anonymous said...

There is a group of women in the military who want to fight in combat. Currently, there is a military advisory commission that is recommending that the Pentagon do away with the policy that bans them from combat participation.

Marty Nemko said...

Anonymous, you are incorrect. 99+% of the war deaths have been to men, because, as you say, women are prohibited from serving in direct combat. I wonder why feminists aren't fighting for women to do so. It's because their goal is advocacy for women, not fairness to men and women.

Marty Nemko said...

Per the U.S. Dept. of Defense, 97+% of the deaths have been to men.

That doesn't make women irrelevant. It does however, suggest that the media's relentlessly describing the deaths as to "men and women" without mentioning the overwhelming gender disparity is yet one more example of our society treating men as the disposable sex.

When women have a far smaller deficit, and one not a matter of life and death, there is far greater anger expressed, and the media doesn't criticize them for their anger, they devote lots of supportive ink to it.

Marty Nemko said...

Re a move to have women fight in combat, indeed that would be fair and I would support that.

Anonymous said...

I have another worry: I worry about our energy. What would you do with respect to increasing demand/costs and decreasing supply while balancing the need for plentiful, inexpensive energy while not polluting too much?

Marty Nemko said...

I believe that for the 50 years or so that will be required for alternative energy to become viable as a major source of energy, I believe the new generation of smaller, safer nuclear plants should be a significant player. While we should encourage conservation, I deeply believe that it is NOT cost-beneficial to impose such major infringements on human freedom such as not building freeways to force people onto mass transit lest they sit in ever more time- (and fuel!) using gridlock.

Monika P said...

I've only made it through worry #3 on the long video but so far, Bravo. I very much agree with your thoughts on education and healthcare.

Also - nice suit.

ST said...

Per your comment on mass transit, it really only works in more densely-populated areas, anyhow. It's a city gig.

Overall, the most efficient method for people to get from point A to point B is their individual vehicle.

Anonymous said...

Hi Marty:

My comment is on your observation that, in your own words,

"Politicians are supposed to be upbeat on America, but if I am to be honest with you, I'm worried about America."

Perhaps that is a key reason why so many people regard politicians as dishonest..."What, you mean you aren't worried about the economy, health care, education, defense, etc.?"

What do you think?

Marty Nemko said...

I (and most Europeans) find amusing Americans' absurdly optimistic veneers.