The attacks in Paris raise the fear factor around the world

Terrorism: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal (Merriam-Webster)

Terrorism is also a low-cost way groups like ISIS can attack so-called “soft targets” like restaurants, concerts and sports stadiums where civilians cluster in often large groups with little or no security. One wonders if, even with increased security at some such venues, attacks by well trained and devoted attackers can be stopped. How can all such places be protected?

So more often than not, it’s the “chatter” between groups or individuals that attract the attention of anti-terrorist organizations, including loco police forces.

Unfortunately, as seen by the coordinated attacks in Paris, “chatter” can be non-existent, leaving anti-terrorist organizations literally in the dark about potential attacks. Now they need, therefore, to try and track weapons shipments (which means smuggling), local suspects and suspect groups and travel data. It seems to me much of this may be trackable, but much of it, too, seems like trying to grasp fog with your hand.

Patterns change, “networks” have isolated cells that don’t communicate with other cells, electronic data becomes sparse and suddenly the once obvious tracking disappears.

The simple truth is that even large terrorism attacks, like in Paris, may kill relatively few people in the grand scheme of things, but the attacks at regular, open venues raise the fear factor throughout the region. Suddenly maybe you don’t want a window seat at a restaurant, or you nervously check for back exits out of a movie theater or market, or you decide not to go to a bar frequented by ex-pats or your army buddies for fear it’s a target.

Terrorism is not new, but its effect may be more widespread in today globally connected world.

Day in and day out routines start to take safety into account. That’s something we take for granted here, but it’s something in the minds of every Paris resident and visitor now . . . and on the minds of those in Israel or Egypt or Kenya. We are lucky.

I’ll assume we only know a fraction of the efforts to fight these types of attacks, but in today’s world, the difficulty lies not only in identifying potential attackers and stopping them before they start killing people, but also a measured public response to such attacks.

Unfortunately, that response probably doesn’t have much impact many of the would-be terrorists. If the Paris attackers were “home grown” group, then does it really help to bomb ISIS targets in Syria. While the French have promised to intensify the bombing in Syria and throughout the region, one must wonder about those other home grown cells we know nothing about. The bombing certainly can eliminate ISIS (or Al-Qaeda) leaders and disrupt the chain of command, but can an air campaign stop the training, planning and actions of a determined group in Europe or elsewhere?

A friend of mine noted that these types of attacks are “scalable” like a war or standard military battle, with continual fighting, increased troop and supplies, bigger and bigger troop movements and escalating amounts of equipment and resources.

All very true. But the problem we face is a well-funded group of people focused on a wide variety of targets throughout the world. They are not restricted to a small region or a limited list of potential targets. They are not restricting themselves to military targets like some groups have in the past. Instead, they oppose all that is the West, so regular people gathered in regular people places are their fair game.

These attackers also hide among us. They don’t necessarily have to sneak into a target area. They may already be there. They could be the people you pass in the street every day.

So the nets are cast widely . . . over anyone we see as different, or “foreign,” or any number of other traits we think might be to blame for bringing terror to our doors. We’ll blame immigrants, poor people, people who don’t worship as we do, and anyone who we feel doesn’t embrace the Western way of life.

We have no real idea of how the professionals hunt for would-be bombers, but we sure know how politicians feel. They throw out their best guesses as to who they see as evil people. But let’s remember they are politicians, who often look to place blame simply and without much insight. And we listen. But beware the simple answers or the simple solutions. Some of the people who will try to kill us are, as we said, here already next to us. It can be hard to accept that, but a group of middle class people who might gather for a cocktail party are instead gathering to discuss potential targets. Maybe they didn’t travel to Syria or northern Africa. Maybe they never left Queens, or Montreal, or Paris. Maybe they trained on the weekends when we thought they we just a bunch of guys going camping. Or maybe they’re a bunch of women.

Like trying to grab fog with your hand. This weekend the people of Paris are shocked by the viciousness of the attacks and mourn to loss of those killed, put forth a brave “we are not afraid” face, and hope their skilled terrorist hunters can find the next shooters, bombers, planners and supporters before another attack. Around the world, security is increased in a show of determination, but the fact remains that while attacks may be stopped and plots thwarted, somewhere, sometime there will be more attacks and more people will die.

It’s not a war “over there,” but a different war waged anywhere in the world by warped people who think killing diners or concertgoers furthers their cause . . . A cause of intolerance, hate and violence. That’s scary. It may not be scalable as we’ve thought of battles in the past, but it is spreading. It spread here with the Boston bombing, and it will spread here again. If we’re lucky, the continued pounding from the air in Syria and other places, combined with the ground war there, and the terrorist hunters will neuter ISIS and other groups to the point of eliminating their foreign attacks, but we also know that those so-called home grown attackers can pop up anywhere and anytime.

So today we mourn with the people of Paris. Tomorrow we may mourn with other people in other places.

That is the mad, mad world in which we live today. 

Got some pet peeves? How about a few of those annoying Facebook things?

We all have pet peeves of one sort or another. 

Yes, I have a few . . . don’t put things in the refrigerator that are still in their packaging (like 6-packs of beer or plastic-wrapped energy drinks), relax about telling people what they “should” do, please don’t preach to me about anything . . . I cringe when I see tomatoes, onions or potatoes in someone’s fridge . . . It bugs me when people sing loudly to a song playing on the radio or in a bar (they’re usually off key and not as good as the artists to whom they are listening, of course) . . . Just remember to tip well and smile lots.

Yeah, don’t be mopey and don’t screw the server.

But one of the most continually annoying pet peeve areas, if you will, in people’s lives swirls in and around Facebook. In part, no doubt because Facebook is so much a part of people’s lives. We chat, connect, bitch and moan, complain, share our trips, meals and friendships on Facebook. I like Facebook, but some of the things there are annoying.

Let’s consider the dangling, unexplained post . . .

“Feeling crappy today” . . . “Can’t believe life sometimes” . . . “Depressed and angry” . . . “How can people be so bad?” . . . “Life is just terrible.”

And that’s it . . . no follow ups or explanations about what’s going on to. You thought it important enough to post the statement, why do that and not tell is why life sucks, or why you’re depressed, angry or feeling crappy?

We want to know, and you threw out the bait . . .

“Can little Johnny who lost his cat get 1 million shares? Share his photo if you care.”

You’re saying if I’m a good person I’ll share the photo and the story and a horrible person if I don’t. Really? I do care that little Johnny lost his cat, or has cancer, or a vet gets fewer “shares” than a bikini-clad female sunbather, but if I don’t want to share the 10 million of those posts that I see every day then I won’t.

Get over it. I’m not Satan.

What about those little sayings and inspirations we see every time we sign on? There seem to be about 20 million of them . . . and I “like” and “share” them frequently. And my Facebook friends share them all the time. I like them.

One of the problems, of course comes back to that “what do you mean” thing. We share one and suddenly all our friends are wondering if we’re getting married, or dumped our partners or are about to die.

Since I’m not getting married and have already tried the nearly dying thing as well, I’m usually in the clear, but I sometimes have a habit of sharing them because I think they’re worthy (though rather one dimensional) . . . before I really think about all the ramifications of sharing them . . . so sometimes that little “share” comes up in an email or phone call . . .

“Gee, no . . . I didn’t mean you . . .”

Oy

Of course I won’t get into the fact that many of those little sayings do reflect an oversimplified picture of something that may be going on in our lives. Oh well . . . In those cases, I’ve managed to smooth over the bumps that bumped a bit too close to home.

The continual onslaught of game offers, ads and targeted sidebar ads is also annoying . . . though I do understand the need to pay for what to us is a freebie social network. It’s just kind of creepy having an L.L. Bean ad pop up an hour after I bought a shirt.

I’ll also cop to getting peeved by people who seem to get all their news and information off Facebook, as apparently many people do. It’s Facebook, folks . . . The fact that you’re counting on it to provide you with real news and worthwhile articles is a big pet peeve of mine. Not as big a pet peeve as watching people cook a really good steak to well done, but a pet peeve nevertheless.

It’s nice connecting with people I don’t get to see much, or family across the country, or old classmates (maybe “old” is the wrong word . . . former?), but Facebook does hit my pet peeve button a few times . . .

I guess that’s not all that bad in today’s wired world . . .

Why, when it comes to talking about guns does all common sense leave the room?

There are few topics that elicit as much furor as a discussion about guns. Whether one believes people should be allowed to buy guns without restriction, or that nobody should be allowed to buy guns, there’s plenty of room for yelling, screaming and talking . . . and plenty of room in between the two ends of the argument.

And an argument it is, often with little sense or reasonable resolutions in sight.

I don’t want to take your guns, I merely think there should be a couple of reasonable steps taken to own one. I’m not interested in getting into the debate about “types” of guns here . . . We can do that another time.

But . . .

What’s the fear of having to register or wait a few days to pick up your gun?

Frankly, it wouldn’t bother me if I were buying a gun.

Why not have the same process apply at gun shows?

Again, it wouldn’t bother me if I were buying a gun. Why do I need a gun today instead of in a week?

Two points . . . There should be nationwide limits on who is allowed to purchase a firearm, and that should include restrictions on those who have a documented history of mental illness, those who have convictions for assault or domestic violence, and those convicted of stalking or similar threatening behavior. Simple.

Second . . . There should be a mandatory waiting period so those background checks can be run. We’ll also assume there’s a national data base connecting all law enforcement agencies so there are no gaps between local, state and federal checks.

I’ll also argue that any owner whose gun causes the accidental death of a child should lose the right to own guns. (You can add the accidental death of an adult if you'd like.) And finally, would it not be sensible to mandate that guns be safely locked either in a safe or with a trigger lock? Statistics show just doing that might save several hundred lives a year. The fundamental “problem” with guns is that if there’s an accident, it can be deadly . . . unlike an accident with your food processor, coffee maker or fax machine.

Some people freak at the words “restrictions” or “mandatory” or “regulations” when it comes to guns, but we routinely deal with those things when we register our cars, buy a bottle of wine, write a check, apply for a job or credit card, or vote, as examples. I don’t see a thing wrong with putting gun-buying onto the same field as most other things we do.

There are no “hurdles” seen for those things, so why if we try to apply them to someone buying a gun do they suddenly become threats to the very nature of America? Suddenly people start chirping about the Second Amendment, the government swooping in to take their guns and those silly concerned but misinformed parents.

Stop it . . . You probably haven’t even read the Second Amendment, and there’s not a thing in there about having an arsenal of semi-automatics and 10,000 rounds of ammo in your basement.

I grew up around guns. Not a basement full, but a couple for shooting skeet and trap, or grouse and pheasant or target shooting. I hunted mostly birds with friends and enjoyed plinking cans with my Dad at a dump in Vermont. I think that was during a time before everyone went crazy over “gun rights.” With the loudest fear and shouting coming from and fueled by the National Rifle Association, any past civil conversation has shifted to a very polarizing “us versus them” scream fest.

It doesn’t need to be that way. As grownups, we should be able to sit down at a table and figure out where there is common ground. No talk about assault weapons, or clip size or number of guns a person can own . . . Just a couple of reasonable rules that might save a few lives. 

We’ve stepped over the line here. Some people freak when Target or Waffle House says patrons can’t bring their guns into stores. Is that a reasonable response? My doctor’s office and the local hospital have signs by their entrances that advise, “No weapons permitted inside.” That’s fine with me. I don’t need to be sitting in a doctor’s waiting room filled with people carrying guns, and I’m guessing the staff wouldn’t be entirely comfortable with that either. We need to turn down the volume. Common sense has taken a vacation . . .

We need to walk through the process and see where we can close the gaps.

That’s a good start. 

Ups and downs . . . The end of fossil fuels, or just our usual short-term thinking?

Oil. Oil. Oil. Have we forgotten how valuable it is? Or are we merely accepting that it will never be as valuable as it once was?

Is this the end of the fossil fuel era?

Perhaps we’re at a tipping point. A point when we still use and depend on fossil fuels, but are moving ever closer to a place where we get our power from so-called clean sources, like solar and wind. It seems to me if we want to increase the use of solar and wind we need to make it ever more cost-effective for homeowners to cover their roofs with solar panels, have grey water systems, water storage and water collection systems, as well as small wind energy systems.

During the recent past hay days of oil and gas, investors boomed then busted even as the world seemed ever more on the edge of major crises in the Middle East and Ukraine and China Sea. But unlike days gone by, energy prices fell, driving virtually all speculators out of the markets and states like North Dakota, which banked heavily on its fracking surge, are left with empty real estate developments, rising unemployment (though still one of the lowest in the U.S.) and tons of busted dreams. Two other energy-heavy states, Louisiana and South Carolina also saw upticks in their unemployment over the past several months, even as most states saw their rates fall.

In the not too distant past, even a hint of global disruption would send oil prices higher and investors running to line their portfolios with gold as well. While gold prices have stayed pretty high (gold was about $350 an ounce in 2001, and is now just over $1,000 an ounce (down from a high of nearly $1,900 in 2011).

For history buffs, gold hit just over $2,000 in 1980.

Ups and downs . . .

A barrel of oil was $150 in 2008, just over $106 in 2013, under $40 earlier this summer and is about $45 a barrel now. Between the highs in 1980 of $115 and, say, 2008 and 20013, oil trended down to a low of $22 in 1998 before starting to rise gain.

Ups and downs.

Few of these things head up or down in a straight line, and today’s investors love playing short-term swings and not long-term holds.

So the energy economy doesn’t look so bright right now. Are we seeing a long-term trend, or are we a bit too focused on the now?

Clearly the game is changing with increased solar and wind use, though water shortages may turn out to be the nation’s biggest natural resource issue. But I’d be willing to bet a nickel that before my kids are close to middle age, they’ll see another major oil crisis, spiking prices and yet another push for more fuel-efficient cars, higher tax incentives for alternate energy construction and maybe even a few long lines at the gas station.

Ups and downs . . .

Too many cooks in the GOP kitchen, but maybe not enough burning the toast for the Dems

While the flock of Republican candidates is proving more is actually not good, the Democrats, once you get past Hillary and Bernie, look like they have a pretty weak bench. Two parties with very different problems. But the same result . . . uninspiring “leadership.”

I guess that’s really what we seem to be missing here . . . a leader. Someone who seems to rise above the maddening crowd. And a maddening crowd it is.

No?

People hate Hillary, don’t trust her, despise her “above it all” sense of entitlement and find her presentations stilted, practiced and robotic.

Bernie is a self-proclaimed democratic socialist with an all-in, in your face narrative that is nothing but straight shooting (as far as we know). But he’ll never attract anyone much to the right of center, though he is drawing big crowds and could be the anti-candidate candidate. He kind of comes across as your crazy Uncle Fred at times. No doubt many in business, the military and Congress are shaking at the thought of Bernie as President. People trust what he says, but we’ll see if his vision catches on . . . He seems to be fading a bit now.

Dr. Ben Carlson has surged ahead of the Trumpster in national polls, in large part, it would seem, because of his quiet demeanor and strong religious faith. But it seems to me the anti-evolution, anti-science candidate will get tripped up when people start to pay attention to what he says and has said. It could be, perhaps, that most voters don’t think government here should be based on Biblical passages and teachings.

Donald Trump himself has slipped a bit, something people said months ago would happen . . . though they thought his campaign would totally collapse . . . months ago. It has done everything except collapse. Trump’s appeal comes from his brash and unfiltered rhetoric, but how long will people follow the, “I’ll hire the best people” or “I’ll make it work” before they see there not much behind the curtain?

Rubio is the young charger and has stifled fellow Floridian Jeb Bush, who just doesn’t have any spark, seems forced and lacking direction and a message. Cruz is a hit with government and Obama haters, but hasn’t shown much of anything other than a willingness to shut down the government. Chris Christie is staking out his positions, but, like Graham, Fiorina and others just can’t get enough traction to move up the popularity ladder. He does seem completely at ease on the stump, though, so that may start to play with voters.

Lastly, John Kasich is a clear, more moderate voice, criticizing some of his GOP opponents for their seemingly shallow and often nonsensical policy statements and trying to sell his experience, but his may be a clear voice drowned out in the hurricane that is the Republican primary race. The primaries will probably shred his chances.

Candidates have gathered together to circumvent their own Republican National Committee over their displeasure with the debates thus far, and it wouldn’t surprise me a bit to see the top four of six candidates work a network deal to hold their own debate. Makes sense . . . there are simply too many candidates on the stage to hold a 2-hour debate and get more than a few minutes from each one.

It’s raucous to be sure.

And Democrats best not get too comfortable with Hillary and Bernie. She’ll be a mostly sitting target when the PACs start their billion-dollar attacks. Bernie may not have the Hillary baggage, but while he’s probably better on his feet than most of the Republicans, it’ll be a question of him getting his message through the maddening GOP noise.

We’re nowhere near those tipping points yet. Once the primaries and caucuses start, the GOP will be whittled down fast . . . no money, no campaign . . . That’ll make it easier for the last candidates standing to be heard . . . for better or worse.

The Republican debates . . . Lots of talking, but little insight

This week’s Republican debate sure was a raucous affair, wasn’t it?

Did you learn anything about any of the candidates and their positions on what you’d consider important issues? Can I pick a few? Immigration? Job growth? Taxes? Foreign policy (let’s say in the Middle East)? Military spending? Foreign trade? Canadian maple syrup?

OK, I was kidding about that last one, but I, for one really didn’t learn much. (Besides, I buy New Hampshire maple syrup.) Clearly a few candidates came to beat up on each other, and pretty much all of them beat up in the CNBC moderators. Granted, the questions really weren’t all that insightful and in all the Republican debates, there seems to be more of an interest in encouraging the candidates to squabble than to debate.

As we know from debate class, the debate structure is generally pretty rigid . . . Usually an opening statement, timed answers and responses and a closing statement. Anyone see anything like that so far?

So let’s look at this week’s cage fight . . .

My take? Cruz and others scored points with their supporters by hammering on the press, always an easy target and one that plays well with Republicans and their backers. Cruz scored the most points.

Rubio proved fairly fast on his feet and managed some style points in his jabs with Job Bush, who looked like someone off the set of the Walking Dead. Incredibly unimpressive. He may be able to manage the job, but it’s starting to look like his downtrend is not merely a blip in the polls.

Trump and Carson say a fair bit, but not much of it makes much sense, though I find the contrast in styles rather amusing. Carson will play well in Iowa. And while the voting is still a ways off, and there will be a million ups, downs, withdrawals and TV appearances until then, trends are starting to emerge.Rubio will be tripped up by his past financial dealings. People will eventually tire of Trumps “I know how to fix it” speeches, though these potential primary voters thus far seem more enamored with style than substance. Bush, unless he can turn his sinking ship around and refloat it, will be an afterthought (He just doesn’t seem to have any campaign personality . . . A Republican Al Gore, perhaps.) Cruz is sharp- tongued, but besides riling up his base, he’s offered nothing on the policy side other than to bash Obama at every turn. (I’ll say it again . . . Obama’s not running again . . . he already won twice.)

Huckabee, Jindal, Santorum and probably Graham are bench warmers now, and only Graham has much of a chance (slim) of getting on the big boy’s field. Kasich is probably in the same boat, but still holds appeal with his background and often moderate views. A moderate probably won’t get through the primaries. Carly Fiorina faded fast after her bump following the two previous debates. Her business background will hold back support for her as she tries to carve out her niche. Chris Christie is gaining a bit of traction, but his record in New Jersey will haunt him. 

The fundamental problem Republicans have now is too big a flock of candidates. With each one trying to make a mark and get their 30-second sound bite, the messages are muddled, often too sharp and too pointed. And lack, therefore, much of a policy slant.

One hopes we get debates that showcase policy, issues, and solutions from the candidates. That’s the only way voters can make at least partially reasoned decisions on who they might support.

My fear is that we’ll continue to get more infighting, less discussion and little insight.

The Tea Party has evolved . . . into a loud-mouthed, do nothing movement. Too bad.

I have to admit, on the face of it, the so-called Tea Party sounded like a good idea. A grass roots movement focused on cutting government overspending and reducing the size and waste of the federal government. Sounds good, right?

After all, if we set aside how we think the government should spend its budget (taxpayer money for the most part), we can get behind the idea that money should be spent efficiently and with care. Obviously we all might think differently about governmental departments and spending, but we’ll talk overall spending for a minute, not political differences.

So the Tea Party was born (more or less). The “Tea Party” is actually not a single entity, but a scattering of like-minded groups that started to pop up shortly after Obama was elected as a growing protest over his spending plans. The Tea Party, therefore, has been largely tagged as a Republican-based group. Never mind the fact that government spending spun wildly out of control with George W. Bush in office, and while Republicans held both the Senate and House. Neither party has shown much overall respect for the idea of holding to a budget, unlike nearly every family in America wrestling with their own budgets.

So the government, many people believe, overspends. (We’ll leave that hanging on its own for now . . . with no political inserts or “this department needs more” or “this department’s budget should be cut.”) If we accept that the government does indeed overspend, is apparently incapable of reigning in costs and expenses, and is blindly oblivious to its rising deficits, then maybe, so the theory went, we need a movement to stop those things.

Therein lies, at least in theory, the seed for the growth of the Tea Party. Even if we skip over growing evidence that the idea of a Tea Party movement was first proposed by the Koch brothers (in 2002) as a way to cut government regulation (therefore business costs) and (paraphrasing) “return the country to its citizens by cutting government and its influence,” the ideal idea seemed like a good one. Sounds good, but the ultimate goals seemed to be, at that point, more about improving their business environment than improving the federal budgeting process.

But when it started to rise, the multi-headed beast that became the Tea Party as we know it today, took on the added weight of pushing a “conservative” social agenda.

That approach grew. Now what once was supposed to be a non-social agenda movement has evolved into what many see as a radical conservative pocket of political discontent, willing to shut down the government over funding Planned Parenthood based on manipulated videos and despite the fact that no investigation has shown any wrong-doing regarding the use of fetal tissue. A political issue . . . not a financial issue. This evolution has in part killed the political discussions, debate and policy creation that marked much of our history.

An ebb and flow, compromise and debate is now yelling, screaming, threatening, posturing, political roadblocks and a stalled political process. On both sides.

It’s a shame, really. Many movements start with a goal in mind, but that can change quickly. Any “let’s cut government over spending” soon becomes let’s cut this and that, but not this. The movement starts to pick and choose what it wants cut . . . let’s cut the EPA or Department of Education, but not the military . . . or, oh, no, we can’t possibly make changes to Social Security or Medicare . . . and on and on. These are fake conservatives . . . thoughtless, uninspired, and under producing.

Throw in a rigid social agenda (which has not a thing to do with government spending) and you have a movement that has evolved into nothing more than a narrow focused entity (or a flock of entities) that creates nothing, has no policy direction or solutions to challenges that most Americans see as important . . . jobs, education, taxes, income, retirement and immigration . . . and now merely shouts demands. 

Too bad. There used to be a working political process. It wasn’t perfect, but it usually worked.