Posted on Apr 26, 2022
A Time for Choosing – Will We Ensure an American-Led 21st Century?
21.3K
189
62
41
41
0
NOW is a time for choosing.
Will we allow the 21st century to be Chinese-led or will we ensure the 21st century is American led?
We are now deeply engaged in a global, philosophical debate – a debate so consequential that it will not only decide how the world is organized but also the United States’ role in it.
This, at its core, is a debate between authoritarianism and democracy. And it is technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship that again will help settle this debate. In fact, there is precedent with respect to technology’s unique role in the philosophical debates at other times in history.
For example, during World War II, the United States and the West were locked in a war to determine whether the future would be fascist or free. At that time, it was the atomic bomb, radar, jet engines, Alan Turing’s Bombe and Deliliah machines – among other technologies – that helped determine the outcome of the war – and, by extension, this debate.
During the Cold War, innovative technology brought us to outer space and led us through an arms race to determine the outcome of another philosophical debate between communism and democracy.
In each of these examples, technology was key to settling these global, philosophical debates.
Today, we again find ourselves locked in a global, philosophical debate between modern authoritarians the likes of Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin and democrats in the West. And, like World War II and the Cold War, it will be technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship that will again help us settle this philosophical debate.
The problem is we have neither committed to fully engaging in this debate nor are we acquiring the innovative technology necessary to win the debate.
Our country has not yet decided whether to transform the interaction between our government and commercial technology sectors for radical engagement. The objective of such a transformation should be the development, acquisition, and adoption of the new and emerging innovative technologies required to compete and overtake China’s civilian-military fusion – a Chinese effort to build its national power with the objective of rewriting international rules and norms and overtaking the United States as the leading country in the world.
Luckily, China’s efforts and objectives have gotten the attention of our national leaders.
In the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the Trump Administration wrote:
“We are facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing rules-based international order—creating a security environment more complex and volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory. Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security…”
“China is a strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing features in the South China Sea. Russia has violated the borders of nearby nations and pursues veto power over the economic, diplomatic, and security decisions of its neighbors…”
“This increasingly complex security environment is defined by rapid technological change…”
More recently, we see the Biden Administration share this perspective in its March 2021 Interim Strategic Guidance:
“We face a world of rising nationalism, receding democracy, growing rivalry with China, Russia, and other authoritarian states, and a technological revolution that is reshaping every aspect of our lives.”
Moreover, during speech at the annual Reagan National Defense Forum in Simi Valley, California in December 2021, Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, laid out the stakes:
“…President Biden has said that we are in ‘stiff competition’ with the People’s Republic of China. And as he’s made clear, Beijing is the only competitor ‘capable of combining its economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to mount a sustained challenge to a stable and open international system…’”
“…the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party have been increasingly vocal about their dissatisfaction with the prevailing order—and about their aim of displacing America from its global leadership role…”
“China’s President, Xi Jinping, regularly talks about ‘great changes unseen in the world in a century.’ And he recently assured his fellow Party members that ‘time and momentum are on China’s side.’”
“…China’s military is on pace to become a peer competitor to the United States in Asia—and, eventually, around the world. China’s leaders are expanding their ability to project force and to establish a global network of military bases.”
The Secretary then went on describe the new technological areas in which the competition will manifest and the risks therein:
“…new areas of competition in space and cyberspace, where the norms of behavior aren’t well-established and the risks of escalation and miscalculation are high…”
“China is pouring state funds into key sectors, including quantum research. And Beijing is pursuing what its leaders call ‘indigenous innovation’ to cut its reliance on imports. And all that is fueling swift advances in PRC technology, with significant implications for China’s military.”
Secretary Austin’s prescribed solution in this speech included drawing on “all tools of national power to meet the China challenge.”
I would respectfully amend Austin’s prescription: We must draw of all tools of national and societal power to meet the challenge from China – not only our military, economic, diplomatic power – but also our “people power.”
Our “people power” will be achieved when our technologists, innovators, and entrepreneurs are able to work in a virtually seamless environment with our government. A “sandbox-safe space” where the government and the private sector can be creative and unconstrained by the typical bureaucratic rules of government.
But, at present, the government and the commercial sector are all-too-often at arms-length. And, by extension, our “people power” is siloed – not only physically from one-another – but also culturally – thereby, rendering it ineffective.
Deputy Secretary of Defense, Dr. Kathleen Hicks, recently traveled to Silicon Valley. Secretary Hicks is a thoughtful leader who wanted to hear from technologists, innovators, and entrepreneurs about their experience working with the US government – and, more specifically, the Department of Defense. Secretary Hicks heard the “horror stories” and acknowledged that there was not a “magical fix,” stating:
“My view isn't like, I'm going to magically unlock special secret approaches that haven't been touched before…I think it's more about how you start to shift the incentives."
Secretary Hicks hit the proverbial nail on the head. It isn’t going to be “magic.” But it is not only about incentives.
What it’s about is value proposition.
It is about ensuring there is a strong value proposition for technologists, innovators, and entrepreneurs to deeply engage with the US government. And the only way to understand one’s unique and differentiated value proposition – no matter the range of stakeholders – from the government, to universities, to the private sector – is through working together in an applied way on a critical public problem.
Not talking at each other.
Or even listening to one-another.
What it takes is doing.
Working together in an applied way and on real-world problems – at scale.
And that is what programs like Hacking for Defense (H4D), a program sponsored by National Security Innovation Network at the Department of Defense, do.
H4D is not only a strategic innovation capability for the US Department of Defense but increasingly also for our partners and allies in the United Kingdom and Australia. It uniquely convenes the government, universities, and the private sector around critical public problems.
Through the core method in the program, each of these stakeholders conduct deep, purposeful discovery to learn over time: (1) How they can uniquely contribute to the true nature of the problem and (2) How they can help solve the problem.
In doing so, what we see is not “magic” but, instead, the hard work of problem-solving.
H4D and other such “Hacking for” programs are not just a convening event – in fact, they are a whole-of-society innovation capability to solve problems.
Call it 21st century problem-solving.
This model can be our version of societal fusion that holds the potential of overtaking China’s “civ-mil” fusion.
Indeed, this type of abductive-oriented, analytical approach can help us solve our problems in ways that may not yet have been considered or tried. It allows us to get ahead of uncertainty and incomplete information – the known unknowns as well as the unknown unknowns – to envision a way forward and leverage the minimum number of resources necessary to create new solutions that may not have been thought of before.
This is much better than the government and Silicon Valley continuing to simply talk at each other. It is also much better than the listening tours that have gotten a lot of attention but have produced little result.
This is doing.
Which will get us much closer to where we need to be – faster – before it is too late.
We must find new ways to solve our problems and create new technology to settle this new, modern philosophical debate between authoritarianism and democracy.
If we don’t, our world will look much different for ourselves, our children, and beyond.
So…
What do you choose?
Alex Gallo is the Executive Director of the Common Mission Project, a Visiting Fellow with George Mason University’s National Security Institute, and an adjunct professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University. He is also a US Army Veteran.
Will we allow the 21st century to be Chinese-led or will we ensure the 21st century is American led?
We are now deeply engaged in a global, philosophical debate – a debate so consequential that it will not only decide how the world is organized but also the United States’ role in it.
This, at its core, is a debate between authoritarianism and democracy. And it is technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship that again will help settle this debate. In fact, there is precedent with respect to technology’s unique role in the philosophical debates at other times in history.
For example, during World War II, the United States and the West were locked in a war to determine whether the future would be fascist or free. At that time, it was the atomic bomb, radar, jet engines, Alan Turing’s Bombe and Deliliah machines – among other technologies – that helped determine the outcome of the war – and, by extension, this debate.
During the Cold War, innovative technology brought us to outer space and led us through an arms race to determine the outcome of another philosophical debate between communism and democracy.
In each of these examples, technology was key to settling these global, philosophical debates.
Today, we again find ourselves locked in a global, philosophical debate between modern authoritarians the likes of Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin and democrats in the West. And, like World War II and the Cold War, it will be technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship that will again help us settle this philosophical debate.
The problem is we have neither committed to fully engaging in this debate nor are we acquiring the innovative technology necessary to win the debate.
Our country has not yet decided whether to transform the interaction between our government and commercial technology sectors for radical engagement. The objective of such a transformation should be the development, acquisition, and adoption of the new and emerging innovative technologies required to compete and overtake China’s civilian-military fusion – a Chinese effort to build its national power with the objective of rewriting international rules and norms and overtaking the United States as the leading country in the world.
Luckily, China’s efforts and objectives have gotten the attention of our national leaders.
In the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the Trump Administration wrote:
“We are facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing rules-based international order—creating a security environment more complex and volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory. Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security…”
“China is a strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing features in the South China Sea. Russia has violated the borders of nearby nations and pursues veto power over the economic, diplomatic, and security decisions of its neighbors…”
“This increasingly complex security environment is defined by rapid technological change…”
More recently, we see the Biden Administration share this perspective in its March 2021 Interim Strategic Guidance:
“We face a world of rising nationalism, receding democracy, growing rivalry with China, Russia, and other authoritarian states, and a technological revolution that is reshaping every aspect of our lives.”
Moreover, during speech at the annual Reagan National Defense Forum in Simi Valley, California in December 2021, Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, laid out the stakes:
“…President Biden has said that we are in ‘stiff competition’ with the People’s Republic of China. And as he’s made clear, Beijing is the only competitor ‘capable of combining its economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to mount a sustained challenge to a stable and open international system…’”
“…the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party have been increasingly vocal about their dissatisfaction with the prevailing order—and about their aim of displacing America from its global leadership role…”
“China’s President, Xi Jinping, regularly talks about ‘great changes unseen in the world in a century.’ And he recently assured his fellow Party members that ‘time and momentum are on China’s side.’”
“…China’s military is on pace to become a peer competitor to the United States in Asia—and, eventually, around the world. China’s leaders are expanding their ability to project force and to establish a global network of military bases.”
The Secretary then went on describe the new technological areas in which the competition will manifest and the risks therein:
“…new areas of competition in space and cyberspace, where the norms of behavior aren’t well-established and the risks of escalation and miscalculation are high…”
“China is pouring state funds into key sectors, including quantum research. And Beijing is pursuing what its leaders call ‘indigenous innovation’ to cut its reliance on imports. And all that is fueling swift advances in PRC technology, with significant implications for China’s military.”
Secretary Austin’s prescribed solution in this speech included drawing on “all tools of national power to meet the China challenge.”
I would respectfully amend Austin’s prescription: We must draw of all tools of national and societal power to meet the challenge from China – not only our military, economic, diplomatic power – but also our “people power.”
Our “people power” will be achieved when our technologists, innovators, and entrepreneurs are able to work in a virtually seamless environment with our government. A “sandbox-safe space” where the government and the private sector can be creative and unconstrained by the typical bureaucratic rules of government.
But, at present, the government and the commercial sector are all-too-often at arms-length. And, by extension, our “people power” is siloed – not only physically from one-another – but also culturally – thereby, rendering it ineffective.
Deputy Secretary of Defense, Dr. Kathleen Hicks, recently traveled to Silicon Valley. Secretary Hicks is a thoughtful leader who wanted to hear from technologists, innovators, and entrepreneurs about their experience working with the US government – and, more specifically, the Department of Defense. Secretary Hicks heard the “horror stories” and acknowledged that there was not a “magical fix,” stating:
“My view isn't like, I'm going to magically unlock special secret approaches that haven't been touched before…I think it's more about how you start to shift the incentives."
Secretary Hicks hit the proverbial nail on the head. It isn’t going to be “magic.” But it is not only about incentives.
What it’s about is value proposition.
It is about ensuring there is a strong value proposition for technologists, innovators, and entrepreneurs to deeply engage with the US government. And the only way to understand one’s unique and differentiated value proposition – no matter the range of stakeholders – from the government, to universities, to the private sector – is through working together in an applied way on a critical public problem.
Not talking at each other.
Or even listening to one-another.
What it takes is doing.
Working together in an applied way and on real-world problems – at scale.
And that is what programs like Hacking for Defense (H4D), a program sponsored by National Security Innovation Network at the Department of Defense, do.
H4D is not only a strategic innovation capability for the US Department of Defense but increasingly also for our partners and allies in the United Kingdom and Australia. It uniquely convenes the government, universities, and the private sector around critical public problems.
Through the core method in the program, each of these stakeholders conduct deep, purposeful discovery to learn over time: (1) How they can uniquely contribute to the true nature of the problem and (2) How they can help solve the problem.
In doing so, what we see is not “magic” but, instead, the hard work of problem-solving.
H4D and other such “Hacking for” programs are not just a convening event – in fact, they are a whole-of-society innovation capability to solve problems.
Call it 21st century problem-solving.
This model can be our version of societal fusion that holds the potential of overtaking China’s “civ-mil” fusion.
Indeed, this type of abductive-oriented, analytical approach can help us solve our problems in ways that may not yet have been considered or tried. It allows us to get ahead of uncertainty and incomplete information – the known unknowns as well as the unknown unknowns – to envision a way forward and leverage the minimum number of resources necessary to create new solutions that may not have been thought of before.
This is much better than the government and Silicon Valley continuing to simply talk at each other. It is also much better than the listening tours that have gotten a lot of attention but have produced little result.
This is doing.
Which will get us much closer to where we need to be – faster – before it is too late.
We must find new ways to solve our problems and create new technology to settle this new, modern philosophical debate between authoritarianism and democracy.
If we don’t, our world will look much different for ourselves, our children, and beyond.
So…
What do you choose?
Alex Gallo is the Executive Director of the Common Mission Project, a Visiting Fellow with George Mason University’s National Security Institute, and an adjunct professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University. He is also a US Army Veteran.
VetSpective
Leadership
WWII World War Two
Technology
American History
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 24
4
4
0
Technology doesn't have the capability to leverage our harness our "people power." What does it mean to be American and why should the world care? ... when every American can really behind the answer, then we can employ technology and innovation to harness our "people power." As it stands, we have some authoritarianism sprinkled in key places of our democratic Republic that impedes our ability to do so.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
Absolutely LOVE Your Article.
It's A BEAUTY For Sure.
But I Think You May Have Inadvertently Left Out An Important Factor.
That Of Americas Lack Of True Education.
We Don't Have It On ANY Level; K-12 + The PhD's We Produce & Turn Loose On The Unsuspecting Public & Employers Alike......
Here's Just a Couple Of Examples:
After 13 Years Of Attending School To Achieve A High School Diploma,
I'll Bet There's Not One Single Person Reading This,
Whom Even Was Taught To Balance Their Own Check Book, Unless They Took An Elective Program Designed For That Purpose.
How About Anything At All About Finances? Employment, Earning, Investments, The Advantages Of Purchasing Property Or Renting Your Home?
These Are Important Factors In Your Life To Know, Yet NOT Taught In Our Schools.
In The End, Who Gives A Crap About Learning To Bounce A Ball & Toss It Through A Hoop.?
Chances Of Making A Living At It Are About ZERO.
And Ask Yourself THIS:
"Once I Completed The 6th GRADE,
What Did I Learn Of Value, And Useful To My Life, Up Through & Including Graduation From The 12th Grade"?
That's 50% Of The YEARS You Sat In A Chair In School.
Was It Worth Those Added 6 Years?
If You're Curious Of WHY I Feel This Way, Please Feel Free To View My Bio.
It's A BEAUTY For Sure.
But I Think You May Have Inadvertently Left Out An Important Factor.
That Of Americas Lack Of True Education.
We Don't Have It On ANY Level; K-12 + The PhD's We Produce & Turn Loose On The Unsuspecting Public & Employers Alike......
Here's Just a Couple Of Examples:
After 13 Years Of Attending School To Achieve A High School Diploma,
I'll Bet There's Not One Single Person Reading This,
Whom Even Was Taught To Balance Their Own Check Book, Unless They Took An Elective Program Designed For That Purpose.
How About Anything At All About Finances? Employment, Earning, Investments, The Advantages Of Purchasing Property Or Renting Your Home?
These Are Important Factors In Your Life To Know, Yet NOT Taught In Our Schools.
In The End, Who Gives A Crap About Learning To Bounce A Ball & Toss It Through A Hoop.?
Chances Of Making A Living At It Are About ZERO.
And Ask Yourself THIS:
"Once I Completed The 6th GRADE,
What Did I Learn Of Value, And Useful To My Life, Up Through & Including Graduation From The 12th Grade"?
That's 50% Of The YEARS You Sat In A Chair In School.
Was It Worth Those Added 6 Years?
If You're Curious Of WHY I Feel This Way, Please Feel Free To View My Bio.
(3)
(0)
A1C Medrick "Rick" DeVaney
SPC James Drury -
Added To So Many Other Issues About American Schools, We Also Have That Treasured "No Child Left Behind" Program.
It Was Intended To Bring The Lower Level Student UP To The Level Of Their Classmate, But Failed.
So To MAKE It Work, Classes Are Taught DOWN To The Level Of The Lowest Students Abilities.
Therefore "No Child IS Left Behind", But None Learn Anything Either..
But The Program Itself, IS Successful.....
Since That Was Initiated, Chances Are, You've Never Heard Of Any Student
"Flunking Out Of School".... Therefore It's OBVIOUSLY Working......My Ass.
Added To So Many Other Issues About American Schools, We Also Have That Treasured "No Child Left Behind" Program.
It Was Intended To Bring The Lower Level Student UP To The Level Of Their Classmate, But Failed.
So To MAKE It Work, Classes Are Taught DOWN To The Level Of The Lowest Students Abilities.
Therefore "No Child IS Left Behind", But None Learn Anything Either..
But The Program Itself, IS Successful.....
Since That Was Initiated, Chances Are, You've Never Heard Of Any Student
"Flunking Out Of School".... Therefore It's OBVIOUSLY Working......My Ass.
(1)
(0)
A1C Medrick "Rick" DeVaney
SPC James Drury - ...
JIM.? I Actually QUIT School Mid-9th Grade And Have Been Self-Educated Ever Since. Our Schools Don't Seem To Be ABLE To Provide Quality Education,
Even Through The College Years
Here's A Little Proof :
Question of the Day: What pct. of college grads work in their field of study ?...
http://www.ngpf.org/blog/question-of-the-day/qod-what...
Behind the numbers ( Intelligent ): "In addition to dealing with financial insecurity, only 46% of college grads surveyed say they currently work in their field of study. 29% report working in a different field, while 16% of those under age 54 (and therefore not likely retired) say they are currently unemployed.
JIM.? I Actually QUIT School Mid-9th Grade And Have Been Self-Educated Ever Since. Our Schools Don't Seem To Be ABLE To Provide Quality Education,
Even Through The College Years
Here's A Little Proof :
Question of the Day: What pct. of college grads work in their field of study ?...
http://www.ngpf.org/blog/question-of-the-day/qod-what...
Behind the numbers ( Intelligent ): "In addition to dealing with financial insecurity, only 46% of college grads surveyed say they currently work in their field of study. 29% report working in a different field, while 16% of those under age 54 (and therefore not likely retired) say they are currently unemployed.
(1)
(0)
SPC James Drury
A1C Medrick "Rick" DeVaney -
Rick, your spot on again. So sad, what's happened to our education system. Good for you, self schooling. One doesn't learn much after the 9th grade anyway. I went to college with a major in Accounting and became a police officer...????
Another proof of the accuracy of your info.
Rick, your spot on again. So sad, what's happened to our education system. Good for you, self schooling. One doesn't learn much after the 9th grade anyway. I went to college with a major in Accounting and became a police officer...????
Another proof of the accuracy of your info.
(1)
(0)
A1C Medrick "Rick" DeVaney
JIM, I About Come Unglued When It Comes To America's Sloppy Excuse For What We Call "Education". You'd Think They'd Educate Me Better Than I Could Educate Myself,
But That Was FAR From The Case... Had I Stayed In School, I'd Have Been Lucky To Have Found Employment Cleaning Toilets At A McDonald's DRIVE THROUGH.
And That's More Than "Just Sad" And It Should Almost Be Criminal....
As You Can Probably Tell, I'm Still Angry About This Issue; And I'm Now 78 Years Of Age.
At Least You Have A Great Job; And The Fact That You Attended College, May Have Been The Factor.
But Here's A Beauty For Ya:
I'll Just Use Their First Names, For Obvious Reasons.
Jim & Jean... Both Graduates Of Michigan State University (MSU) & Married To Each Other. He Had A Bachelors In Forestry With An Associates In Horticulture; Wanting To Go Into Forestry As A Ranger. She Had Her's In World History, With Intent Of Teaching.
Upon Her Graduation, She Had To Return Just For The Purpose Of Obtaining Her Teaching Certification.. A Standard Procedure.
Neither Could Find Employment Immediately, So Took Other Employment As Temporary..
Jim Was Finally Hired By MSU, But As A Building Custodian.
Jean Got A Job Teaching In a Preschool...
Here's The End Result:
Jim Retired From MSU As A Head Custodian.
Jean Retired From WAL-MART, And Never Even Advanced To A Department Manager.......
All Those Years At MSU And The THOUSANDS Of Dollars Shot In The Ass To Be Employed In Positions Anyone With A High School Diploma Could Have Just As Easily Filled...
About Enough To Make Ones Stomach Churn.
But That Was FAR From The Case... Had I Stayed In School, I'd Have Been Lucky To Have Found Employment Cleaning Toilets At A McDonald's DRIVE THROUGH.
And That's More Than "Just Sad" And It Should Almost Be Criminal....
As You Can Probably Tell, I'm Still Angry About This Issue; And I'm Now 78 Years Of Age.
At Least You Have A Great Job; And The Fact That You Attended College, May Have Been The Factor.
But Here's A Beauty For Ya:
I'll Just Use Their First Names, For Obvious Reasons.
Jim & Jean... Both Graduates Of Michigan State University (MSU) & Married To Each Other. He Had A Bachelors In Forestry With An Associates In Horticulture; Wanting To Go Into Forestry As A Ranger. She Had Her's In World History, With Intent Of Teaching.
Upon Her Graduation, She Had To Return Just For The Purpose Of Obtaining Her Teaching Certification.. A Standard Procedure.
Neither Could Find Employment Immediately, So Took Other Employment As Temporary..
Jim Was Finally Hired By MSU, But As A Building Custodian.
Jean Got A Job Teaching In a Preschool...
Here's The End Result:
Jim Retired From MSU As A Head Custodian.
Jean Retired From WAL-MART, And Never Even Advanced To A Department Manager.......
All Those Years At MSU And The THOUSANDS Of Dollars Shot In The Ass To Be Employed In Positions Anyone With A High School Diploma Could Have Just As Easily Filled...
About Enough To Make Ones Stomach Churn.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
We cannot even agree what our problems are. How are we supposed to solve them and work together?
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
We are certainly at a serious crossroads or decision point. We must work on unity within or we will fall together.
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
Like the old saying goes, "shit rolls downhill". In this case it starts with commie Joe, then camel toe Harris, to pig losi. The head of the Joint Chiefs is an alpha kilo. The idiot that is the sec. of defense is just as bad. He reminds me of the one that was in office when oblamo was potus and the b.s. policies he came up with to tie our troops hands in combat.
The current potus is out to turn this once great nation into a third world country, especially with his open border policy concerning our southern border. Giving the benefits we earned as Veterans to illegals in this country. Giving them social security benefits, that they have not earned or deserve
Biden and Harris both, along with Pelosi need to be removed from office. Biden is not running this country, he is nothing but a puppet. Imo he no longer has enough brain power left to pour piss out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heal.
The current potus is out to turn this once great nation into a third world country, especially with his open border policy concerning our southern border. Giving the benefits we earned as Veterans to illegals in this country. Giving them social security benefits, that they have not earned or deserve
Biden and Harris both, along with Pelosi need to be removed from office. Biden is not running this country, he is nothing but a puppet. Imo he no longer has enough brain power left to pour piss out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heal.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Well, it' good to know who to blame, huh? All those selfish and predatory non-democracys; shame on them! In reality, we're to blame: arrogant, selfish, grasping, argumentative, hypocritical, and spoiled rotten! I'm not sure my parent's generation was the 'greatest', but we can't claim any honors since then, can we? Really? Get this: Americans today won't -- or can't -- negotiate and compromise even enough to save our wonderful country, and that's the whole story. Would you believe that MAD Magazine ran a whole feature on the un-able future -- in 1954?! Glad I'm 77, I guess. Wick
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The military was lost as soon as they let mental illness into the ranks. The government has used the military as a "petri" dish.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
Lots of fear on China and lots of people stating they will overtake us Economically someday but......the date is never fixed, it keeps pushing back and back and never arrives. I remember it used to be 2020 when China would overtake us. Now we are told it is sometime in the 2030's or 2040's. Personally, I don't think it will ever happen. Nor do I think China will ever lead the world.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google