The Day’s ‘Top’ Stories: The ‘bottom’ line!

So we begin by expression of annoyance at the ongoing division between Donald Trump vs the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi. We end with another round of personal criticism from both sides as to who might be the perpetrator of not doing the people’s will.

I’m reluctantly reading an article, if for nothing else, than for its entertainment value (if you want to even call it that) and take notice of Nancy’s explanation of what a temper tantrum is – that she has experience based on said number of children and grandchildren she has raised!

Bottom line: Do I really care who is right and who is wrong about justifications from either side for criticisms lobbed at the other? Maybe I would if I felt kin to identify with either Republican or Democrat. For me, it isn’t the priority in this exercise of political interest. The priority is always the bottom line: which argument for or against the wall serves to most compliment my perception of what seems most logical or not. I have my own ideas. But if I am honest with myself, I know that what I know is largely acquired by what I have heard from many news snippets aligned with either Democrats, Republicans or Independents and those in between.

I can candidly express what I would like to hear more of and less of. I would like to hear more about specific arguments for not building a wall as much as for building a wall. So far I can see possibility on either side as solutions. But I do have to choose one or the other.

Bottom line: my annoyance lies in having to sort through the countless justifications for the impasse, and wait to see if my “hunch” proves to be the right one. I can honestly say that I am waiting for specifics why a wall should NOT be built, and how building one is such a “waste of money”. I site Ronald Reagan’s speech about “star wars” and how it became an initiative in the United States that the military begin work on a complex “shield” built in space to take out incoming ballistic missiles filled with nukes, before they have a chance to hit their target (as best as could be had, anyway).

Bottom line there? History tells us, and the Russians agree that this set into motion a chain of economic events that basically shut down the Former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from acquiring the ability to answer to that and be able to exist without bankrupting itself. Somehow, although many at the time argued the feasibility of a network of defensive missile killers in space, the very concept set off a chain of events where one side basically won and the other lost; where our betterment in the quest for security succeeded where the latter failed. As far as I can see, with human nature, this sort of competition between what is right and wrong will never end. So I say, lets get to the focus of all the reason’s for and against, boil it down, keep it simple and move ahead. If you think Nancy’s people are right, then let me read more about those specific reasons to substitute what a wall would otherwise do, how much that is going to cost and get to the details. I’m not interested in generalizations such as we’ll deal with it via technology applications. Really? and so far, it’s all technology from where I came from, whether that includes building a wall or not. The wall, wherever it is built, will require a tunnel be built by the other side where before there was none. That requires more time and money from the opposition’s side in their pursuit of rendering said wall impotent. That’s the same thing that became the bottom line in the outcome of the dispute that resulted in the dissolving of the Soviet Union. The threat, although never really ended, did diminish as far as agenda and values are concerned from what I can see looking back. Although both sides in any conflict often come back to rear their ugly heads time and again, the world I grew up in taught me that the idea is to fight for what you believe in. and to fight smartly is to stay focused on the outcome, not the skirmish. To focus on the rock hurled at you rather than the larger than life threat of one’s way of life or existence is not my idea of what the media’s main focus could and should be about.

So, look…  We have a nation who is forging ahead with one of the strongest economies going. There is competition in the world and opportunities at long-term betterment and improvement of that nation’s and values. Kicking any can down the road for any reason is not something I wish to be made aware of if it is happening. If I’m aware of it, I start to conclude there are a bunch of elitists running the show who care more about not upsetting the applecart for the sake of self-preservation of the individuals in charge rather than long-term betterment of the nation in a manner of priorities and values!

If I focus on what may appear ugly or out of sync with methodology,  rather than the substance of the problem, I’ve just adjusted my priorities in a manner where this becomes a distraction and ultimately a threat to the real focus of solving a problem or making an improvement. Thus, the bottom line for me is that criticisms mean little. It might be an attention getter but in the end, I intend to judge the intent and the means for which the solution is carried out to achieve that intent. If man’s ego is to be “that” highly valued and there is a contest as to who has the better one, or who looks or acts more civilized and peaceful, and thus more intelligent(?), is there really more security in that? If we need a leader to get things done and we aren’t making much headway, and yet one side is forging new roads and the other is concentrating on roadblocks, that is a relevant “heads’ up” as far as what all are in my own interests in my place in the society I thrive in. Thus, I like to come back to the bottom line as a reminder of what all this is suppose to be about. Articulation and communication about the focus of a solution are the bottom line and the most valued aspect in the forging ahead and achieving of goals in our nation. The bottom line is I really don’t care about banter regarding the definition of a temper tantrum, or emotional judgement as a distraction from the objectives at hand. I care about forging ahead with an idea – not distracting me with who wore what or acted like what when the idea was introduced. My leader for me is an instrument for action. His competitors are the same; whomever articulates their reasons for or against a solution in the most successful way with the most detailed information on the subject, wins – bottom line!