---
Who is Dick? Cheney, of course. Why is he of importance? Some think that he is at the core of all types of faults that triggered in the past few years, including those of an economic flavor.
---
Of course, Dick was not an economist; he was in the position of influence on a lot of decisions.
---
The book did give the blogger a different view of Dick. From the press' print of the past decade or so, the 'dark side' seemed to be the most prominent thing. That made Dick the focal for those who have angst about all sorts of thing, both political and economical. Of course, he seems to like to reinforce that sort of thing, as some claim when reviewing the book.
For one, he is not of the 'prep' crowd that subsumes most of the seats in the best-and-brightest collection (some of whom showed themselves to be idiots). Yet, he's a member (but, not by birth). He talks about getting booted out of Yale; then, he went out and lived with the lowly working type until he started his educational efforts again. What 'preppie' type could do that? The blogger, on the other hand, studied the alternative reality that surrounds us all.
Too, he is about the same age as the blogger, yet the his path and the blogger's path were quite divergent within the same milieu. Of course, his focus was politics and power; the blogger's focus was economics with a mathematical bent that tends to attempt resolution of 'truth' and its necessary maintenance. Yes, the blogger's work has been in computational models; why else the blogger's stance on how bad these have turned (and will continue to turn) out to be?
---
Aside: the top-down and bottom-up resolve their issues through the middle-out (conceptualization to be updated), in a sense. That is, if power lets truth come to the fore. Does the top-down need to be the political mess that it is now with the disparate partisan views? We'll have to look at that when considering issues of economics. At the lower levels that support the bottom-up, what does 'politics' mean anyway? From that view, the imperatives are more important. It is nice that Dick's book will allow a re-look at this type of thing.
---
Dick mentions the time when he heard President Kennedy talk about public service. I, of course, have had both military and civil service experiences in the support of this country. Too, I've worked, as did Dick, in the business world (including an international scope). He, of course, was of the CEO MVP type; the blogger was more of the technical type who work to make things better all around, including advances in systems, and product, engineering.
---
Aside: engineering has given us marvels. What has politics wrought? Too, the current jobs problem brings to fore another unfolding. Many went from engineering to finance (the blogger has even heard of a MD going from practice of medicine to financial gaming). Then, their 'train' wrecked (despite the fairy dusting). Such could have been (was) foreseen. Now, if the cadre of youth goes into politics? Perish the thought.
---
As the blogger has said before, finance is in trouble since it is not considered to be a realm of public service. Nope. It's a trough for the fat cats (pigs, actually) to gorge themselves. It ought to be run by those who take a vow of simple living, plus who do not salivate when a buck is passed beneath their nose (yeah, Dick knows all about this trait).
Think the core of the military (no, not the star officers); even thinking of monks would not be too far off the mark. This is not strange, people. It is the only way to keep the arses from screwing up things.
---
As the blogger has said before, all Americans need to do public service. Yes, even the preppies. And, we need to have it like the barracks experience of old. All classes, and types, together in an environment where they live and work together.
That would help remove the egos who now run things. Too, it would allow people to attempt to resolve their preconceptions, and such, about those of the unknown classes.
---
The blogger's reading of Dick's book allowed the blogger, somewhat, to see beyond his 'dark' facade. He is more shallow than the blogger had feared. Dick, if you want to understand the American phenomenon (as it has unfolded in the past 50 (and 400) years) from a deeper sense, come talk to the blogger. Yes. Of course, you'll have to perturb your political worldview, somewhat.
---
The turmoil, and those who want such, that Dick sees all about is not a wrong perception. But, it is no more than the natural state of pecking order. Did he really think that he raised the perception (in the several senses) of the U.S. through his thoughts and actions?
---
To be continued.
Remarks
07/06/2012 -- Today, we have the one-year remembrance of George Edward Kimball III (GEK III).
05/11/2012 -- This week almost got by me. Let's hear it for the government worker.
05/10/2012 -- At least Jamie admitted that his bank lost two-thousand million in a few weeks time.
01/16/2012 -- Ah, Jamie did an "ah shucks" interview. How can one demonize him and his industry? Yes, he even talks OWS without barfing. Is he after Timmy's job?
12/16/2011 -- Those in power need their carvers. See Remarks 12/16/2011, Hitchens (the recently departed) undergoing a waterboarding experience.
11/30/2011 -- Need to respect the bottom up. Will the computer finally let that come about?
10/17/2011 -- The king maker ought to awaken to its errors.
10/09/2011 -- Kings have sovereignty over their dominion however large it may be. There, currently, is no king of the world of this type. CEOs have sovereignty over their companies. Now, many of these have domains that are larger (measured many ways) than geographical types of kingdoms. BUT, each has sovereignty over themselves (or ought to), ideally (constitutionally, if you're in the U.S.A.).
Now, being able to exhibit sovereignty requires talent of various sorts. Throughout history, those who ruled others may or may not have had this talent. From all of the turmoil over the millenia, one has to just marvel at the stupidity of these types, exhibited, in the modern age, by the CEO MVPs.
Our task is to foster that which enhances one's self-sovereignty and diminishes others' influence on oneself. Oh wait. The social media seem to be antithetical to this notion. Also, all of those issues related to mature interactions (of a peaceful manner) must be resolved (philosophers have long been involved with that dilemma).
It is this type of notions that are behind a lot of what motivates the current protests. Those who could (LT 1%) have exploited (and have been allowed to exploit) the rest (GT 99%).
09/27/2011 -- Some like to polarize thought and opinion; to boot, that means that other humans are demonized. So, for some reason, Dick took it upon himself to play such a role on that right part of the spectrum. Oh, it's a spectrum? Now, something that we'll have to look at closely as we unfold the real basis are conflicts of a nature that are 1200 years old (look at Charles the hammer, for instance -- look, that's 700 A.D. -- we're having the same conflict -- sheesh). Some have awakened to the idiocy; others are still under the influence of those in power who like to perpetuate the misinformation. Now, is Dick one of those? When Dick and the blogger were younger, the badie types were 'communist' and out to get us. Since Reagan, some seem to think that the conflict there is over. Don't count on it (if we look at the characteristics involved, we'll see many analogs). These social issues pertain to economics? Of course. To whom can one go to see some coherent philosophy, and history, of the economical as it relates to the human experience (which is?)?
Modified: 07/06/2012
