Power out in India
Power out India
The nation of India in Southern Asia has been hammered this week by massive power outages. Due to a host of causes, it has impacted more than half of the nation’s population. Think about that: It would be like power being out for 150 million Americans. SHUDDER!!!
Think about it more than twice, because it CAN happen here. Oh, I know the US electric grid is in better shape than India’s but that does not mean it is invulnerable. Just a few weeks ago a couple millions of us got a dose of what it would be like to be without power, including 500,000 in the state where I live as well as myself.
What do you think would happen if the grid had a catastrophic failure or collapse, like back in 2003 when a good chunk of Canada as well as the northeastern quarter of the U.S. tripped the circuit breaker?
I don’t think we Americans really appreciate a) how much our lives depend on electricity and b) how lucky we are to have a stable source of it. A lot of countries don’t have that luxury. Like a lot of Americans, we take our luxuries for granted and think our privileges are rights. Well, folks, you need to disabuse yourselves of that notion.
You hear the warnings, and yet we all (including me for a great part) just slough it off as “it can’t happen here.”
However, there are people out there who would just love to see it happen, ranging from the environmental wackos who would shut down all the coal, gas and nuclear powered electric plants to various groups and nations which love to hack into the control systems of the power grid and crash it. And that is not counting the very few nations who possibly are toying with the idea of launching an EMP nuclear burst or two or three in to the atmosphere and frying the whole system. Now, that is a scary idea.
When you think about nuclear weapons, you usually think of Hiroshima or Nagasaki and scale it up a magnitude or two, but really that is not the threat. Oh, yes, it could be done, but why do it. It takes far too many bombs to do much damage and a few large Electro-Magnetic-Pulses from nuclear airbursts high in the atmosphere doesn’t have to cause a whole lot of damage to the environment or on the ground to wreak havoc. You see, when a nuke goes off, it sends out a huge pulse of electro-magnetic radiation. Some of this radiation can kill you, but a bunch of it that doesn’t just sends a huge surge through the electrical system of anything that doesn’t happen to be shielded (like the American power grid, or the grid in most nations) and while it is happily tripping breakers everywhere, it also is making toast of big chunks of the control hardware.
Can you imagine what it would be like in the U.S. if we didn’t have power? Does anyone remember what it was like on 9/12 when the American transportation system essentially was shut down? Well, take that in spades and add a few orders of magnitude to it, as not only transportation will be screwed but also most of the communications networks (think cell phones and probably a good chunk of the Internet, although it was originally designed to just take a lick and keep on ticking, just like the old Timex watch).
Anyway, it is enough of a horror story that you probably don’t need to go to a vampire movie for a while if you let your mind dwell on it. However, since most of us just ignore it, in our ignorance we blithely go along as if it will never happen. I think that is a blessing sometimes.
Still, my heart (what is left of it) goes out to the 680 million or so Indians who have been without power for much of this week. I do know somewhat of what you are going through and urge you to endeavor to preserve. But then I remember that much of India doesn’t have reliable electrical power, so I guess in a way they are much better prepared than I would be to deal with the circumstances.
Still, it sucks … to use that time-honored American phrase.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Amen!
Presidents, policies - foreign and domestic - and elections
The author of the article linked above has a really good grasp of reality when it comes to the powers of the presidency, to which I add my hearty: Amen! Definitely read the article, it really is good.
You see, contrary to a lot of people’s opinions, the American president ain’t all that powerful. That is malice by design by the people who created this republic 225 years ago.
The so-called “founding fathers” had a really strong dislike for a strong executive authority, which in that time normally was wielded by a monarch of some variety. So, the president was not given all that much authority to do anything, without the advice and consent of Congress, the Supreme Court and the states. Despite the passage of time, the president still finds himself (so far, just hims) very limited in what he actually can accomplish. I think that President Obama probably is getting around to understanding that lesson, but unfortunately, a lot of Americans and very few non-Americans get it.
No matter who wins in November, whoever is sworn in on January 20, 2013, they will find themselves in the same bind.
In addition, as the author pointed out, no matter how much the president wants to control things, he ain’t in control. No one is. That to me is the salient point of the article. People, in their hubris, think we can control events. Well, I have news for you, if you haven’t figured it out already: We don’t, we can’t and we never will.
George W. Bush opposed nation-building and that is just what trapped his administration in Afghanistan and Iraq. Barack Obama was going to step back and let other nations help carry the load, and found out that everybody still looks to the Americans to take the lead.
Whether it is trying to control the weather or stop climate change, or bring global peace to all mankind, or ensure that no one goes hungry or without medical care: It is not going to happen. That may sound like a pretty ugly assessment, but it is facing reality.
The best we all can do is to try to cope with whatever contingencies we are faced with. Rarely will they be the ones we chose and often they will be seemingly overwhelming … and sometimes they might well be. But we can’t delude ourselves into thinking that somehow, someone, somewhere will be able to bring this chaos we see around us under control. It is not going to happen.
Remember the ancient curse – “May you live in interesting times” - well, it may come as a revelation to you, but all times are interesting times.
I don’t have a crystal ball, nor am I clairvoyant, but I can tell you all: BUCKLE UP, we are in for a wild ride.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Colonial connection? Give me a break.
Obama's family tree on his mother's side
This is really rich. Some genealogical researchers are really reaching with this. If you read the story, it will claim that President Barack Obama’s Caucasian mother is related in some way to a family in colonial Virginia that in some way shape or form was related (or was that involved) with the first African-American slave in what is now the U.S.
I, literally, about fell off the couch laughing when my wife read this story to me. Then, reread the story on my computer. Talk about a stretch and I mean a real stretch.
Well, at least according to the article, the case has some really serious holes in in. Granted that in 1619, some indentured Africans were brought to the colony of Virginia, but note that is not “revolutionary” Virginia by about 160 years. Second, it was the Dutch, who six years later, who introduced African slaves to what was New Netherlands (Now New York) in 1625. Slavery, at the time, was not in Virginia and Africans, at least according to the history I learned, and have recent re-researched just to refresh my memory, initially were treated just as other indentured servants brought over from England in the 17th century and release from their bond upon completion of seven years of service.
So, there is a little problem of timing.
Second, there is the absolute chasm spanning leap from Punch to Bunch. This assumption on the part of the genealogists that it is merely a variation in the spellings of the times is not beyond credulity, but it stretches it a bit. Slaves were often given the surname of the slaveholder’s family. Granted, the researcher admits the evidence is quite circumstantial but really, I would hope that there was just a little bit more to go on.
Heck, if I wanted to, I suppose, I could claim – as is claimed in my family legend – to be related to the current King of Sweden. I mean there is a vague resemblance between my grandfather, my brother and the king and supposedly my great-great-grandmother was a lesser princess in the royal house who was disowned for following true love and marrying a common wood cutter/forester.
I think, for whatever reason, somebody really is reaching in order to link the president to someone in early colonial American history. I guess it diverts people away from the birth certificate story (which is a non-story as far as I am concerned) about whether President Obama is a native-born American. Sorry, don’t care about that story, don’t believe it is a false certificate either.
But I guess, one could make the argument that linking President Obama to having one of his ancestors being an American slave gives him a better link to today’s African-Americans – many of whom really are descendants of slaves held more than 150 years ago – than his father’s family tree being from Kenya and East Africa, where few American slaves came from as the majority came from West Africa.
Personally, as Pappy used to say, I think it is a tempest in a teapot.
But then, it is almost August … and the Washington press corps always picks up the weirdest stories in August.
Addendum: And if you really want to get technical a Spanish colony in South Carolina in the 1500s (later abandoned) and the first permanent settlement in St.Augustine in 1565 also had African slaves.
This is really rich. Some genealogical researchers are really reaching with this. If you read the story, it will claim that President Barack Obama’s Caucasian mother is related in some way to a family in colonial Virginia that in some way shape or form was related (or was that involved) with the first African-American slave in what is now the U.S.
I, literally, about fell off the couch laughing when my wife read this story to me. Then, reread the story on my computer. Talk about a stretch and I mean a real stretch.
Well, at least according to the article, the case has some really serious holes in in. Granted that in 1619, some indentured Africans were brought to the colony of Virginia, but note that is not “revolutionary” Virginia by about 160 years. Second, it was the Dutch, who six years later, who introduced African slaves to what was New Netherlands (Now New York) in 1625. Slavery, at the time, was not in Virginia and Africans, at least according to the history I learned, and have recent re-researched just to refresh my memory, initially were treated just as other indentured servants brought over from England in the 17th century and release from their bond upon completion of seven years of service.
So, there is a little problem of timing.
Second, there is the absolute chasm spanning leap from Punch to Bunch. This assumption on the part of the genealogists that it is merely a variation in the spellings of the times is not beyond credulity, but it stretches it a bit. Slaves were often given the surname of the slaveholder’s family. Granted, the researcher admits the evidence is quite circumstantial but really, I would hope that there was just a little bit more to go on.
Heck, if I wanted to, I suppose, I could claim – as is claimed in my family legend – to be related to the current King of Sweden. I mean there is a vague resemblance between my grandfather, my brother and the king and supposedly my great-great-grandmother was a lesser princess in the royal house who was disowned for following true love and marrying a common wood cutter/forester.
I think, for whatever reason, somebody really is reaching in order to link the president to someone in early colonial American history. I guess it diverts people away from the birth certificate story (which is a non-story as far as I am concerned) about whether President Obama is a native-born American. Sorry, don’t care about that story, don’t believe it is a false certificate either.
But I guess, one could make the argument that linking President Obama to having one of his ancestors being an American slave gives him a better link to today’s African-Americans – many of whom really are descendants of slaves held more than 150 years ago – than his father’s family tree being from Kenya and East Africa, where few American slaves came from as the majority came from West Africa.
Personally, as Pappy used to say, I think it is a tempest in a teapot.
But then, it is almost August … and the Washington press corps always picks up the weirdest stories in August.
Addendum: And if you really want to get technical a Spanish colony in South Carolina in the 1500s (later abandoned) and the first permanent settlement in St.Augustine in 1565 also had African slaves.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Best bargain?
U.S. Government is one of the best bargains
The author of the above article contends that since the American taxpayer is, on average, paying fewer taxes than ever … which probably is not totally true, since the CBO study he cites only started keeping records back 30 years … but who the heck cares. He thinks that makes the U.S. government a great bargain.
His point is that the American taxpayer is getting a whole lot for his buck. In fact, they are getting 20 percent more than 15 years ago. Why that makes it so good is beyond me. I mean, this guy never was a business person and that is obvious.
Let me pose you a scenario. Suppose you own a business and you are losing money. Do you spend more, expand your business, and borrow more in hopes that you can get it back while at the same time you are discounting your prices 20 percent? Well, the auto companies tried that … and I think a few of them went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the taxpayer. Also, they still are walking a tightrope and offering much less than they did four years ago and had to make drastic spending cuts.
Ok, if anybody else tried this, say your mom and pop store down the street, they would not stay in business very long. How do I know this? Well, I saw a good friend of mine do just that. He and his wife sank a lot of money into the business of theirs, which was a real nice store and they were not charging outrageous prices (actually, they were great deals, but they knew how to buy low and sell higher). Still, they struggled and finally gave up the fight.
Now, Americans are not ignorant (they may seem like it sometimes, but if you put it before them in words they understand, they do). They can tell, just like my friends there, that they are the owners of the business known as the U.S. Government. You know government of the people, by the people and for the people.
They also know from their own personal finances you can live off those credit cards and run them up just so high and then the day comes when it will just come all crashing down on you. A lot of people have learned that lesson these past four years.
Well, the current people who govern us still haven’t got the message (and I guess a lot of voters haven’t either) that you can go on just so long borrowing and borrowing until you dig yourself in a pit so deep that the tiger is going to eat you when it falls in with you.
Oh, you can rob the rich, but that will only get you so much. There aren’t enough rich to make the difference, unless you keep redefining who is rich until you get well down into what used to be called the “middle class.”
No, the American people are not getting a bargain. The American people are spending themselves into oblivion. We could stop doing what we are doing, but then we would stop being insane and I am beginning to think that insanity has overcome the vast majority of Americans (much less the rest of the world … but that is another topic).
The author of the above article contends that since the American taxpayer is, on average, paying fewer taxes than ever … which probably is not totally true, since the CBO study he cites only started keeping records back 30 years … but who the heck cares. He thinks that makes the U.S. government a great bargain.
His point is that the American taxpayer is getting a whole lot for his buck. In fact, they are getting 20 percent more than 15 years ago. Why that makes it so good is beyond me. I mean, this guy never was a business person and that is obvious.
Let me pose you a scenario. Suppose you own a business and you are losing money. Do you spend more, expand your business, and borrow more in hopes that you can get it back while at the same time you are discounting your prices 20 percent? Well, the auto companies tried that … and I think a few of them went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the taxpayer. Also, they still are walking a tightrope and offering much less than they did four years ago and had to make drastic spending cuts.
Ok, if anybody else tried this, say your mom and pop store down the street, they would not stay in business very long. How do I know this? Well, I saw a good friend of mine do just that. He and his wife sank a lot of money into the business of theirs, which was a real nice store and they were not charging outrageous prices (actually, they were great deals, but they knew how to buy low and sell higher). Still, they struggled and finally gave up the fight.
Now, Americans are not ignorant (they may seem like it sometimes, but if you put it before them in words they understand, they do). They can tell, just like my friends there, that they are the owners of the business known as the U.S. Government. You know government of the people, by the people and for the people.
They also know from their own personal finances you can live off those credit cards and run them up just so high and then the day comes when it will just come all crashing down on you. A lot of people have learned that lesson these past four years.
Well, the current people who govern us still haven’t got the message (and I guess a lot of voters haven’t either) that you can go on just so long borrowing and borrowing until you dig yourself in a pit so deep that the tiger is going to eat you when it falls in with you.
Oh, you can rob the rich, but that will only get you so much. There aren’t enough rich to make the difference, unless you keep redefining who is rich until you get well down into what used to be called the “middle class.”
No, the American people are not getting a bargain. The American people are spending themselves into oblivion. We could stop doing what we are doing, but then we would stop being insane and I am beginning to think that insanity has overcome the vast majority of Americans (much less the rest of the world … but that is another topic).
And the flag was still there!
It sounds almost like a like a line out of the Star-Spangled Banner … and the flag was still there. It seems the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has peeked at all seven of the Apollo mission landing sites and at six of them, the U.S. flag put up by the visiting astronauts is still standing, still “waving.”
Having watched Apollo 11 (the only one that blew down its flag when the lander launched itself back into space) and most of the rest, it still makes the old heart swell with pride to know that the vagaries of time and space have not wiped out the souvenirs America left on the moon.
Lots of hot days and cold nights have passed, but the flag is still there. Where is Frances Scott Keys when you need him.
It would be my dearest wish to be able to see a return of manned flight to the moon. Of course, it won’t be by the U.S., but maybe the Chinese will do it next. Maybe, being that the Chinese traditionally take a much longer view on things that the Americans, the Chinese will go to stay and set up camp on the moon.
As I said, it is what humans do. We explore and, yes, we conquer. I would hope that there would have been more of an effort from my fellow Americans about pursuing manned spaceflight, but alas, unlike other things, the pace of history of exploration has not sped up like other human developments.
If you look at history, especially of the European exploration of the planet that basically opened the world up to all the advances we have seen in the last two centuries, you would see that that exploration, that began in the 15th Century under Henry the Navigator, the king of Portugal, would extend almost five centuries before our small domain was pretty much explored out. We have been only going into space for less than half a century. Essentially, we are about where Henry and his explorers were at the same time, barely halfway down the west coast of Africa.
Like most Americans, I guess, I lack the patience to look at the long term and realize that we actually have come a long way in conquering a very hostile environment that is just low earth orbit. It is a bit like sailing out into the Atlantic Ocean in 90-ton caravel. It would be almost 200 years before ships displacing nearly 1000 tons would be sailing the oceans and more than 500 years later, we are finally putting ships 500-times that size to sea.
If we persevere, we will get there. I just wish we would go faster.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Climate change: Let’s all panic now
Rare levels of Greenland ice melt
NASA reports satellites show ice melt
Sudden massive ice melt in Greenland
Not so fast ... seems it has happened before
Oh, and by the way, there is this rift in Antarctica that is melting ice
Ok … I will admit that I am very agnostic about anthropomorphic climate change. Recently, the news was about a NASA release that “unprecedented” amounts of the ice sheet in Greenland (which really isn’t green much these days as it is almost completely covered in ice) melting due to higher than “normal” temperatures.
Oops, later they admitted that it seems to happen about every 150 years or so, and the last time was in the 1880s. Maybe this isn’t unprecedented. And maybe, just maybe, it ain’t all the humans fault.
Oh, that is the last story cited up top … it seems that this huge rift valley has been discovered in Antarctica. This rift allows warmer seawater to come in under the snow and ice pack and … melt some of it, weakening the ice shelf, which in turn makes it more susceptible to break off. Oops, another example of Mother Nature doing her own thing without having us humans to blame. You see rifts are where the crust of the earth comes up from below … you know, volcanoes, warm rock, that kind of stuff.
Ok, I admit we humans are doing a good job trashing the parts of the planet where we are and that not only does change the environment but also the ecology. But, while we could do a whole lot less trashing, the problem always has been how and who does it. Being on top of the pile, I don’t want to go down. Sorry, but if it is up to me, I ain’t going. Besides, I am probably not going to be here long enough longer to make a whole hill of beans difference.
The real problem is that nobody wants to go down, and everybody wants to come up. I wish them luck. Granted, there probably are enough resources on the planet, if used efficiently and wisely, to make that happen. But we all know how wise and efficient us humans really are.
So what do you do? My suggestion, as heartless as it may sound, is to let Mother Nature take her course. And by that I don’t mean that we humans should try to blow each other up, just because we can. Of course, that always is an alternative, but I suspect about the time we humans start really coming to blows, Mother Nature already will have stoked the pot, so to speak, with famines, plagues and other pestilence. That is her way of evening things out. She does it with “wild” animals, why should we human beings be all that different? Because we are sentient enough to realize that God exists? As thankful as I am for being here (there were several times when I wasn’t so sure and one time, I am convinced I got told it was not my time yet, but I know you all won’t probably believe that so leave me with my own delusions), I also think that we really are not in control of things either. And I don’t think we should delude ourselves into thinking that we really are. God may control things but I long ago gave up asking where God was leading us and just said my Serenity Prayer and tried to find the strength to keep putting one foot in front of the other.
Still, us humans, being as cocky as we are, like to think we really are in control of events and our environment. So, we get all in a dither about ice melting, when it seems to be a rather routine occurrence when you look at the geologic history of the world.
Oh, well, we will die on December 21 (or is it 23) this year anyway.
NASA reports satellites show ice melt
Sudden massive ice melt in Greenland
Not so fast ... seems it has happened before
Oh, and by the way, there is this rift in Antarctica that is melting ice
Ok … I will admit that I am very agnostic about anthropomorphic climate change. Recently, the news was about a NASA release that “unprecedented” amounts of the ice sheet in Greenland (which really isn’t green much these days as it is almost completely covered in ice) melting due to higher than “normal” temperatures.
Oops, later they admitted that it seems to happen about every 150 years or so, and the last time was in the 1880s. Maybe this isn’t unprecedented. And maybe, just maybe, it ain’t all the humans fault.
Oh, that is the last story cited up top … it seems that this huge rift valley has been discovered in Antarctica. This rift allows warmer seawater to come in under the snow and ice pack and … melt some of it, weakening the ice shelf, which in turn makes it more susceptible to break off. Oops, another example of Mother Nature doing her own thing without having us humans to blame. You see rifts are where the crust of the earth comes up from below … you know, volcanoes, warm rock, that kind of stuff.
Ok, I admit we humans are doing a good job trashing the parts of the planet where we are and that not only does change the environment but also the ecology. But, while we could do a whole lot less trashing, the problem always has been how and who does it. Being on top of the pile, I don’t want to go down. Sorry, but if it is up to me, I ain’t going. Besides, I am probably not going to be here long enough longer to make a whole hill of beans difference.
The real problem is that nobody wants to go down, and everybody wants to come up. I wish them luck. Granted, there probably are enough resources on the planet, if used efficiently and wisely, to make that happen. But we all know how wise and efficient us humans really are.
So what do you do? My suggestion, as heartless as it may sound, is to let Mother Nature take her course. And by that I don’t mean that we humans should try to blow each other up, just because we can. Of course, that always is an alternative, but I suspect about the time we humans start really coming to blows, Mother Nature already will have stoked the pot, so to speak, with famines, plagues and other pestilence. That is her way of evening things out. She does it with “wild” animals, why should we human beings be all that different? Because we are sentient enough to realize that God exists? As thankful as I am for being here (there were several times when I wasn’t so sure and one time, I am convinced I got told it was not my time yet, but I know you all won’t probably believe that so leave me with my own delusions), I also think that we really are not in control of things either. And I don’t think we should delude ourselves into thinking that we really are. God may control things but I long ago gave up asking where God was leading us and just said my Serenity Prayer and tried to find the strength to keep putting one foot in front of the other.
Still, us humans, being as cocky as we are, like to think we really are in control of events and our environment. So, we get all in a dither about ice melting, when it seems to be a rather routine occurrence when you look at the geologic history of the world.
Oh, well, we will die on December 21 (or is it 23) this year anyway.
What is poverty?
Poverty level highest since 1960s
To solve poverty, raise the minimum wage
Americans are too poor to have babies
Poverty and what constitutes it is going to be a debate this election cycle and you know what? Except for probably some really rare cases in some very small pockets, real poverty doesn’t exist in America.
Gasp! Horrors! What is he saying? Are there no people going hungry or without every day in America? How can he say such blasphemy?
Well, folks, you see, poverty is relative. And I contend that except in some really rare cases that real poverty – like homes without facilities and utilities, people actually living on the streets with nowhere to go – basically does not exist in the U.S., not like it does say in other countries, even “developed” countries.
Oh, yes, we have our poor, our homeless, those who don’t have as much as maybe the “mainstream” individual has, but we really don’t have masses of refugees, unless you want to count the stream of illegal immigrants crossing our southern border. We don’t have masses of people starving; not just hungry but starving. We really don’t have masses of people living in totally unsanitary conditions. Yes, you can find isolated examples of this, but it is not like it was when I was a kid and before.
How many houses do you find today with an outdoor privy? Well, there might be some, but I think if you did your research you would find that the number of people who do without indoor plumping is very small.
How many people are without electricity? Again, the number is very, very small and oftentimes it is by choice – they live where it is very, very difficult and expensive to extend electrical service in.
In the United States, the “poor” - as defined by the U.S. government - typically have clothes, a place to stay or access to one, indoor plumbing, at least one television set, probably a cellular phone, usually a mode of transportation like a car worth at least, if not more, than half the poverty line, food, access to more food, access to health care. If you go elsewhere, at least in my experience, you will find that often is not the case.
Americans are privileged. We don’t want to admit that, but we are. So privileged, that we take it for granted and some of us think we are so wealthy that we can give this privilege to everyone. That is the problem. We really aren’t that wealthy. No one is and no one could ever be.
Gasp! Why do I say that? Because the definition of what it is to be “poor” keeps getting revised upwards. Don’t have enough poor? Revisit the definition.
In the process, you can extend the elite’s control over some of the people by making them dependent on government largess. I am not ranting like some person who says to hell with the poor. It just is not the government’s role, per se, to do things like that.
Alexander De Tocqueville, more than 175 years ago made an interesting observation about American culture – a culture that unfortunately has been made obsolete by the unsustainable entitlement society that we have today. He noticed that Americans had this wonderful way of coming up with civic – that is private – solutions to age-old problems. Americans, he noticed, did not seem to expect that government was the source of all the things necessary in life.
De Tocqueville was right, it isn’t, but that is not what a lot of people in this country will tell you.
Don’t have enough money from your job? Raise the minimum wage. That, I contend is the biggest load of fecal material ever sold the American public. I spent far too much of my life living barely above the minimum wage level. I have seen far too many people thrown back to the bottom of the pile by raises in the minimum wage. You train, you work, you get experience … and then wham, you are shoved back to the bottom by those who think those just entering the work force should get more. Of course, I suppose, we could let government set all the pay scales in this country, but what gives “government” that privilege? Besides, who or what is the government?
Despite what I did or did not get paid during my years of work, I was somewhat proud of the fact that I did indeed “own” my own labor and I could, if I wanted, sell it elsewhere (why do you think I have lived in 12 different states?) and possibly get more money for my skills and talents.
Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, it is the progressives – those people who believe they are enlightened enough to tell the ones who are not enlightened in the same manner how to live and that they need the government to help them – are the ones, in my estimation who are mounting a full-scale attack on the individual and individual rights. In their estimation, I suppose, people are not smart enough, or educated enough, or capable enough, to take care of themselves.
Well, I disagree.
If people are not having babies, then it is not the government’s role to subsidize them into having babies. It just doesn’t make any sense to me, but, alas, I am among those who are unenlightened.
You may think I am arrogant (and maybe I am) but I firmly believe in the individual; in the individual’s rights and responsibilities (as those go hand in hand). All individuals have the right to life and dignity. That right is denied them when their decisions are taken over by anyone else.
Remember, life is tough. Life isn’t fair. It never has been and it never will be. It is a journey that we all take, essentially, by ourselves, hopefully with comrades and companions and helpmates along the way. But it still is our journey and not someone else’s.
Poverty? Only the individual can define what poverty means to themselves.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
This is asinine, people
Chicago Seek to Ban Chik-Fil-A
Chik-Fil-A is bad (as are Christians)
Boston wants to Ban Chik-Fil-A
Politicians face road to unconstitutional acts
Ok, boys and girls – my fellow Americans – this is absolutely stupid with a capital S.
It seems the mayor of Boston and the mayor of Chicago (and some other town out in California) and the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite rights advocates have their nose out of joint because the president of the private company that franchises all the Chil-Fil-A restaurants happens to be a card-carrying Baptist who believes that homosexuality is a sin.
These people want to use the law to ban this person’s business from operating in their cities and if possible run them out of business. WRONG ANSWER!!!
First of all, there is not documented case to my knowledge of Chik-Fil-A restaurants ever denying service to any gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite person. The company even makes a point of this that it is NOT their policy to do so.
So, the president of the privately-held company tells a Christian publication that if it is said that he is against gays getting married, then he is guilty as charged. That is what he believes, that only a man and woman can get married.
So the progressives, ever so willing to tolerate differing views from their own, throw an absolute temper tantrum.
Give me a break. I am sorry, but this pushes my buttons. I may disagree with what you believe, but honestly – after 26 years as an active and reserve component soldier and 30 years as a civilian newspaper journalist – I will put my life and my reputation on the line for your right to hold your views without threat from the government.
For years, I worked one block and lived about five blocks from a very infamous store in South Carolina. It was the Redneck Shop and Klu Klux Klan Museum. If you don’t think I didn’t hate that shop and all it stood for, then you have no clue who I am. However, I -- in print and in person -- defended the right of the owner of that shop to operate his souvenir store just off the public square in that town. I may not of liked it, and may have told everyone who asked if they please would not patronize the store, but I fought just as hard against any effort by the city government or any level of government to force it to close.
You see, freedom isn’t just a one way street. People are not just free to do and say things that you like. They are also free to do things that you absolutely detest or express views that are so stupid you want to vomit.
My progressive friend out west seems, from his Facebook posts, to be one of those people who, if I showed the same sense of tolerance he seems to, I would be banning him from Facebook and the world. I let him rant, because – to be honest, Don Carlito – it makes me laugh and shake my head how silly you can be.
Now, for what it is worth, the GLBT people are literally trying to force their views down “our” collective throats. If you don’t agree with the “rights” as they define them, then they want government to punish you. No, that will not happen. I am sorry. You have every right to your sexuality, your beliefs, your views, but you have no right to dictate to me what my views on your sexuality, your beliefs, your views, your actions, are or will be! That is a line you do not cross.
I had no problem with the military GLBT people marching in uniform in the recent parade in San Diego. No problem at all, as long as each individual maintained proper military decorum as a representative of their service. That, among other things, basically means no sexual hijinks, no over the top displays of affection, etc. It doesn’t matter what parade you are in, that sort of behavior represents improper military decorum.
If you are not in uniform, and then do what you want, but once you put that uniform on, you have sworn to uphold that military decorum under the articles of the Universal Code of Military Justice. It does not matter how many stripes, or lack of, or bars, stars or leaves you have, it is still wrong.
I really am getting tired of the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite community ramming their views of a proper life down people’s throats. I hate to think what would happen to them if they were doing this stuff in some other countries, particularly Muslim countries.
Anyway, if you can’t tell, I really am pissed off. And I am really getting tired of the so-called progressives and liberals who put up with this bovine scatology. Almost as pissed off as I am at conservatives and religious fundamentalists and evangelicals who just won’t let the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite people live their lives.
Chik-Fil-A is bad (as are Christians)
Boston wants to Ban Chik-Fil-A
Politicians face road to unconstitutional acts
Ok, boys and girls – my fellow Americans – this is absolutely stupid with a capital S.
It seems the mayor of Boston and the mayor of Chicago (and some other town out in California) and the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite rights advocates have their nose out of joint because the president of the private company that franchises all the Chil-Fil-A restaurants happens to be a card-carrying Baptist who believes that homosexuality is a sin.
These people want to use the law to ban this person’s business from operating in their cities and if possible run them out of business. WRONG ANSWER!!!
First of all, there is not documented case to my knowledge of Chik-Fil-A restaurants ever denying service to any gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite person. The company even makes a point of this that it is NOT their policy to do so.
So, the president of the privately-held company tells a Christian publication that if it is said that he is against gays getting married, then he is guilty as charged. That is what he believes, that only a man and woman can get married.
So the progressives, ever so willing to tolerate differing views from their own, throw an absolute temper tantrum.
Give me a break. I am sorry, but this pushes my buttons. I may disagree with what you believe, but honestly – after 26 years as an active and reserve component soldier and 30 years as a civilian newspaper journalist – I will put my life and my reputation on the line for your right to hold your views without threat from the government.
For years, I worked one block and lived about five blocks from a very infamous store in South Carolina. It was the Redneck Shop and Klu Klux Klan Museum. If you don’t think I didn’t hate that shop and all it stood for, then you have no clue who I am. However, I -- in print and in person -- defended the right of the owner of that shop to operate his souvenir store just off the public square in that town. I may not of liked it, and may have told everyone who asked if they please would not patronize the store, but I fought just as hard against any effort by the city government or any level of government to force it to close.
You see, freedom isn’t just a one way street. People are not just free to do and say things that you like. They are also free to do things that you absolutely detest or express views that are so stupid you want to vomit.
My progressive friend out west seems, from his Facebook posts, to be one of those people who, if I showed the same sense of tolerance he seems to, I would be banning him from Facebook and the world. I let him rant, because – to be honest, Don Carlito – it makes me laugh and shake my head how silly you can be.
Now, for what it is worth, the GLBT people are literally trying to force their views down “our” collective throats. If you don’t agree with the “rights” as they define them, then they want government to punish you. No, that will not happen. I am sorry. You have every right to your sexuality, your beliefs, your views, but you have no right to dictate to me what my views on your sexuality, your beliefs, your views, your actions, are or will be! That is a line you do not cross.
I had no problem with the military GLBT people marching in uniform in the recent parade in San Diego. No problem at all, as long as each individual maintained proper military decorum as a representative of their service. That, among other things, basically means no sexual hijinks, no over the top displays of affection, etc. It doesn’t matter what parade you are in, that sort of behavior represents improper military decorum.
If you are not in uniform, and then do what you want, but once you put that uniform on, you have sworn to uphold that military decorum under the articles of the Universal Code of Military Justice. It does not matter how many stripes, or lack of, or bars, stars or leaves you have, it is still wrong.
I really am getting tired of the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite community ramming their views of a proper life down people’s throats. I hate to think what would happen to them if they were doing this stuff in some other countries, particularly Muslim countries.
Anyway, if you can’t tell, I really am pissed off. And I am really getting tired of the so-called progressives and liberals who put up with this bovine scatology. Almost as pissed off as I am at conservatives and religious fundamentalists and evangelicals who just won’t let the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite people live their lives.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Mars and beyond
Group plans mission to mars
A group from the Netherlands plans to start an emigration effort to Mars. Wow.
Now the headline on the Fox News story up there is a bit of a misnomer. It says it is a “suicide mission.” No, for Americans, this is no more a suicide mission than were the English and other European nations’ efforts to establish colonies in North America in the 16th and 17th Centuries. Some succeeded, others didn’t.
The point to me is that they even tried.
If you go back to the 16th Century, you will find a number of references to unsuccessful settlements along the U.S. Atlantic Coast. I suspect that none of the people in this “colonies” viewed their trip as a suicide mission, although it ultimately turned out to be one for many of them.
In all of these colonies, the people who moved there undoubtedly knew the opportunities to return to their native lands were marginal at best … and in some cases they were successful in bailing out. There probably will be no such opportunities for these space-faring pioneers.
Only St. Augustine survived of the pre-1600 efforts and the most successful efforts in the U.S. came in 1607 (Jamestown, which nearly failed) and 1620 (at Plymouth, which also had a rough time of it). More followed and the risk of dying in the process was reduced.
This “pioneering” spirit is part of the energy that was invested in what became America. A similar spirit has been replicated in other places around the world, but can be seen going back as far as the Natives immigrating to the Americas more than 10 millennia ago. It was seen in the people from Europe who went on to explore and, yes, conquer the vast relatively open spaces of North America.
It is what humans do. It is what has been done throughout the history of humankind.
It, to me, is inspiring and incredible to see this Dutch group embark on organizing this adventure not as some government project, but as a private venture. They have the technology … we have the technology … mankind has the technology. We have the resources. It will be interesting if this group can raise the resources for this effort.
It is also inspiring to see American private space pioneering companies willing to join in the effort.
The tragedy is that such an effort could have been undertaken years ago to just the moon, which is not such a big leap. It still could be taken, although, this effort shows much more inspiring imagination. To the moon (been there, done that) is one thing, but to MARS … and maybe someday beyond.
My mother, who spent much of her life studying orbital mechanics and writing computer programs to mathematically model missions to orbit the earth, to go to the moon AND to go to Mars, I hope would be smiling down on these adventurers and infusing them with the spirit that she had as child of the American West in Montana.
These are the new pioneers - wish them luck
A group from the Netherlands plans to start an emigration effort to Mars. Wow.
Now the headline on the Fox News story up there is a bit of a misnomer. It says it is a “suicide mission.” No, for Americans, this is no more a suicide mission than were the English and other European nations’ efforts to establish colonies in North America in the 16th and 17th Centuries. Some succeeded, others didn’t.
The point to me is that they even tried.
If you go back to the 16th Century, you will find a number of references to unsuccessful settlements along the U.S. Atlantic Coast. I suspect that none of the people in this “colonies” viewed their trip as a suicide mission, although it ultimately turned out to be one for many of them.
In all of these colonies, the people who moved there undoubtedly knew the opportunities to return to their native lands were marginal at best … and in some cases they were successful in bailing out. There probably will be no such opportunities for these space-faring pioneers.
Only St. Augustine survived of the pre-1600 efforts and the most successful efforts in the U.S. came in 1607 (Jamestown, which nearly failed) and 1620 (at Plymouth, which also had a rough time of it). More followed and the risk of dying in the process was reduced.
This “pioneering” spirit is part of the energy that was invested in what became America. A similar spirit has been replicated in other places around the world, but can be seen going back as far as the Natives immigrating to the Americas more than 10 millennia ago. It was seen in the people from Europe who went on to explore and, yes, conquer the vast relatively open spaces of North America.
It is what humans do. It is what has been done throughout the history of humankind.
It, to me, is inspiring and incredible to see this Dutch group embark on organizing this adventure not as some government project, but as a private venture. They have the technology … we have the technology … mankind has the technology. We have the resources. It will be interesting if this group can raise the resources for this effort.
It is also inspiring to see American private space pioneering companies willing to join in the effort.
The tragedy is that such an effort could have been undertaken years ago to just the moon, which is not such a big leap. It still could be taken, although, this effort shows much more inspiring imagination. To the moon (been there, done that) is one thing, but to MARS … and maybe someday beyond.
My mother, who spent much of her life studying orbital mechanics and writing computer programs to mathematically model missions to orbit the earth, to go to the moon AND to go to Mars, I hope would be smiling down on these adventurers and infusing them with the spirit that she had as child of the American West in Montana.
These are the new pioneers - wish them luck
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
The M-1911 returns
Marines pick Colt for new pistol
Mr. Browning probably would be happy. The U.S. Marine Corps recently let a contract for the pistol to be used by its special operations community and the contract went to a company offering basically a version of the venerable pistol that John Browning designed a century ago and was designated the M-1911.
The M-1911, known as the Colt Automatic, was designed by Mr. Browning when he worked for the Colt Firearms Company way back when. It has since been built by a variety of other manufacturers but the basic design and parts have always been the same. It literally is a work of art, as far as I am concerned.
The Colt .45, or just THE FORTY-FIVE, as it is fondly remembered by about three or four generations of Americans, has been carried by soldiers in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the first Persian Gulf War. It has been carried by soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not “officially” for most of them because the U.S. military switched in the late 1980s to the Beretta M-92 in 9 mm.
Why has the M-1911 returned to service with the Marines? Because it does the job, period. The .45 shoots a relatively unsophisticated .45 caliber bullet (.45 of an inch in diameter bullet) that travels at a relative slow speed (roughly 800 feet per second) but when it hits a person, the bullet tends to stop the person. A 9mm doesn’t do this, nor does the similarly-sized .38 caliber bullet. I don’t know what the magic is, but it has something to do with physics, but there are literally thousands of stories floating around veterans and handlers of the .45 Colt of its stopping and knockdown power. In other words, when you get shot with a .45 Colt, you will know it, in spades.
Since I joined people like Alvin York, Audie Murphy, and countless other American heroes when I carried the .45 M-1911A1 Automatic Colt Pistol (mine, however was made by the Remington Arms Company) as my personal sidearm in the Persian Gulf War I (with all of 16 rounds for it, but that is another story), I have a special place in my heart for the old Colt. I never had to fire it, but I had confidence that if I hit what I aimed at, it was going to stop them and at least make them think again about coming after me. (Of course, after my 16 bullets were gone, I was going to be in deep doo-doo).
I am glad that Mister Browning’s pistol is back in service and once again protecting U.S. servicemembers as they go in harm’s way.
Mr. Browning probably would be happy. The U.S. Marine Corps recently let a contract for the pistol to be used by its special operations community and the contract went to a company offering basically a version of the venerable pistol that John Browning designed a century ago and was designated the M-1911.
The M-1911, known as the Colt Automatic, was designed by Mr. Browning when he worked for the Colt Firearms Company way back when. It has since been built by a variety of other manufacturers but the basic design and parts have always been the same. It literally is a work of art, as far as I am concerned.
The Colt .45, or just THE FORTY-FIVE, as it is fondly remembered by about three or four generations of Americans, has been carried by soldiers in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the first Persian Gulf War. It has been carried by soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not “officially” for most of them because the U.S. military switched in the late 1980s to the Beretta M-92 in 9 mm.
Why has the M-1911 returned to service with the Marines? Because it does the job, period. The .45 shoots a relatively unsophisticated .45 caliber bullet (.45 of an inch in diameter bullet) that travels at a relative slow speed (roughly 800 feet per second) but when it hits a person, the bullet tends to stop the person. A 9mm doesn’t do this, nor does the similarly-sized .38 caliber bullet. I don’t know what the magic is, but it has something to do with physics, but there are literally thousands of stories floating around veterans and handlers of the .45 Colt of its stopping and knockdown power. In other words, when you get shot with a .45 Colt, you will know it, in spades.
Since I joined people like Alvin York, Audie Murphy, and countless other American heroes when I carried the .45 M-1911A1 Automatic Colt Pistol (mine, however was made by the Remington Arms Company) as my personal sidearm in the Persian Gulf War I (with all of 16 rounds for it, but that is another story), I have a special place in my heart for the old Colt. I never had to fire it, but I had confidence that if I hit what I aimed at, it was going to stop them and at least make them think again about coming after me. (Of course, after my 16 bullets were gone, I was going to be in deep doo-doo).
I am glad that Mister Browning’s pistol is back in service and once again protecting U.S. servicemembers as they go in harm’s way.
Islam: A Continuing Dialogue
This post is a continuation of a dialog started in the comments section of my post entitled: Criticism v. A Teaching Moment. Which, in itself was a continuation of a discussion of two earlier posts: Islam needs a Reformation and Update on Islam and Reformation.
To me this has been a pleasurable journey into sharing perceptions. However, as my interlocutor who is Muslim has found out, there is only so many characters that can be put in one of those comment boxes and what we want to say oftentimes exceeds that limit.
So, rather than try multiple comments, I have taken advantage my ability to express myself more fully in one take, as we used to say in the newspaper business.
To My Friend, The Anonymous Muslim
Salamalaikum
I would agree with much of your post, but I would take issue with some points.
First, I would never say that the U.S, or the West for that matter, is without sin. The U.S. and the Europeans, pretty much like all the other nations have been responsible for a lot of things, some times they have been good and others not so good. But that is because we are humans.
Second, to say that Islam allows what an American would call “freedom of conscience” is belied, at least in part, by the actions in a lot of countries that profess to be Islamic and are ruled by Sharia law.
http://www.cfr.org/malaysia/religious-conversion-sharia-law/p13552
Third, I would point out that what is one person’s luxury is often considered another person’s need. It really is a matter of perspective. I have no doubt that no matter where one goes this will be true. Now, for whatever reason you want to lay it to, people in the United States generally have more “things” that qualify as “luxuries” in other people’s eyes because they don’t have them. Yet, in America, we are having a great debate about the number of people living “in poverty.” I would point out that how you define luxuries and poverty really frame the debate and that real poverty, such as can be found primarily in the “undeveloped” world, is absent in the US. It is only a relative poverty. In fact, the terms developed, developing and undeveloped all are relative terms. They are relative to what you consider developed.
I would contend that the ancient civilizations throughout Asia, Africa, Central America, South America and even on remote islands across the Pacific were highly “developed” and not just the civilizations of Southwest Asia, Northeast Africa and Europe that the student of “western civilization” studies most intently.
Fourth, I would point out the BRIC nations are not being altruistic but rather cooperating in an effort to advance their own individual national interests. I think this is particularly true with the Russians and the Chinese. How else would one explain the creation of a new city in the South China sea far from the southeast coast of China.
Russian flexes its own muscles in its neighborhood through its control of many nations energy supplies.
My point would not be that the US is without sin, but that all are sinners.
Granted, there also is a cultural difference in viewing the use of “natural” resources. Do the resources belong to the people upon the land on which it is found? Do they belong to their neighbors? Do they belong to the world at large?
Do the people who would develop ways to recover these resources deserve any reward for their efforts or should it just go into a pot for everyone in the world? How do you determine who gets to benefit from those resources? Who gets what and how much? The bigger question being: Who decides?
I contend that no matter where you go, when those questions get asked and you involve humans in answering them, you will undoubtedly find those who see the process as unfair and unjust. It is inevitable.
Do not the foreigners deserve a return on their investment in the knowledge, technology and effort they bring to developing a resource in a given land. Who decides who gets how much of the benefits of that development?
Fifth, I would correct you on one point, the U.S. government did not (and could not) prohibit the airing of the tapes of Bin Laden. That the “American news media” did not give it the play that maybe you would have desired is different saying that the government prevented it. Having been a member of that “news media” for nearly 30 years, I can tell you honestly: It didn’t happen. It wouldn’t happen. I also know that the tapes were reported at the time, although very low key, and that the U.S. people were aware of the the threats. (We just didn't listen. Hey, I said Americans weren't always the smartest bulb in the pack)
Now, is the American news media parochial and myopic to the point that it often ignores what people are saying in other countries about American government policies? You can take that to the bank. You are absolutely correct, but the news media in the U.S. is not an extension of the government (even though sometimes it may appear that way, but more often than not the “media” is a real pain in the side of the government.)
As for Muslims being investigated in US for their possible views: Would not Christians be detained and “investigated” by your authorities, if a group of Christian warriors attacked your communities. To argue otherwise, I would think would be to ignore reality and would defy at least my expectations.
I agree that oftentimes the American government refuses entry to people whose past or political views it finds objectionable, but then what country doesn’t? All countries view those who might possibly pose a threat to the established order with disfavor and do everything that they can to discourage dissemination of those views. I don’t care if you are in the West or East, North or South, that is a given because that is the way people are.
To conclude, I would say that we all have a long journey ahead of us. God willing, Enshallah, maybe we will make it, maybe we won’t. I doubt that I will live to see it, but maybe my grandchildren, or their grandchildren will.
To you, my “friend”: Salamalaikum.
And thank you for continuing our dialogue
To me this has been a pleasurable journey into sharing perceptions. However, as my interlocutor who is Muslim has found out, there is only so many characters that can be put in one of those comment boxes and what we want to say oftentimes exceeds that limit.
So, rather than try multiple comments, I have taken advantage my ability to express myself more fully in one take, as we used to say in the newspaper business.
To My Friend, The Anonymous Muslim
Salamalaikum
I would agree with much of your post, but I would take issue with some points.
First, I would never say that the U.S, or the West for that matter, is without sin. The U.S. and the Europeans, pretty much like all the other nations have been responsible for a lot of things, some times they have been good and others not so good. But that is because we are humans.
Second, to say that Islam allows what an American would call “freedom of conscience” is belied, at least in part, by the actions in a lot of countries that profess to be Islamic and are ruled by Sharia law.
http://www.cfr.org/malaysia/religious-conversion-sharia-law/p13552
Third, I would point out that what is one person’s luxury is often considered another person’s need. It really is a matter of perspective. I have no doubt that no matter where one goes this will be true. Now, for whatever reason you want to lay it to, people in the United States generally have more “things” that qualify as “luxuries” in other people’s eyes because they don’t have them. Yet, in America, we are having a great debate about the number of people living “in poverty.” I would point out that how you define luxuries and poverty really frame the debate and that real poverty, such as can be found primarily in the “undeveloped” world, is absent in the US. It is only a relative poverty. In fact, the terms developed, developing and undeveloped all are relative terms. They are relative to what you consider developed.
I would contend that the ancient civilizations throughout Asia, Africa, Central America, South America and even on remote islands across the Pacific were highly “developed” and not just the civilizations of Southwest Asia, Northeast Africa and Europe that the student of “western civilization” studies most intently.
Fourth, I would point out the BRIC nations are not being altruistic but rather cooperating in an effort to advance their own individual national interests. I think this is particularly true with the Russians and the Chinese. How else would one explain the creation of a new city in the South China sea far from the southeast coast of China.
Russian flexes its own muscles in its neighborhood through its control of many nations energy supplies.
My point would not be that the US is without sin, but that all are sinners.
Granted, there also is a cultural difference in viewing the use of “natural” resources. Do the resources belong to the people upon the land on which it is found? Do they belong to their neighbors? Do they belong to the world at large?
Do the people who would develop ways to recover these resources deserve any reward for their efforts or should it just go into a pot for everyone in the world? How do you determine who gets to benefit from those resources? Who gets what and how much? The bigger question being: Who decides?
I contend that no matter where you go, when those questions get asked and you involve humans in answering them, you will undoubtedly find those who see the process as unfair and unjust. It is inevitable.
Do not the foreigners deserve a return on their investment in the knowledge, technology and effort they bring to developing a resource in a given land. Who decides who gets how much of the benefits of that development?
Fifth, I would correct you on one point, the U.S. government did not (and could not) prohibit the airing of the tapes of Bin Laden. That the “American news media” did not give it the play that maybe you would have desired is different saying that the government prevented it. Having been a member of that “news media” for nearly 30 years, I can tell you honestly: It didn’t happen. It wouldn’t happen. I also know that the tapes were reported at the time, although very low key, and that the U.S. people were aware of the the threats. (We just didn't listen. Hey, I said Americans weren't always the smartest bulb in the pack)
Now, is the American news media parochial and myopic to the point that it often ignores what people are saying in other countries about American government policies? You can take that to the bank. You are absolutely correct, but the news media in the U.S. is not an extension of the government (even though sometimes it may appear that way, but more often than not the “media” is a real pain in the side of the government.)
As for Muslims being investigated in US for their possible views: Would not Christians be detained and “investigated” by your authorities, if a group of Christian warriors attacked your communities. To argue otherwise, I would think would be to ignore reality and would defy at least my expectations.
I agree that oftentimes the American government refuses entry to people whose past or political views it finds objectionable, but then what country doesn’t? All countries view those who might possibly pose a threat to the established order with disfavor and do everything that they can to discourage dissemination of those views. I don’t care if you are in the West or East, North or South, that is a given because that is the way people are.
To conclude, I would say that we all have a long journey ahead of us. God willing, Enshallah, maybe we will make it, maybe we won’t. I doubt that I will live to see it, but maybe my grandchildren, or their grandchildren will.
To you, my “friend”: Salamalaikum.
And thank you for continuing our dialogue
Monday, July 23, 2012
Wealth envy pure and simple
$21 Trillion stashed in offshore tax haven banks
Oh my God! Corrupt government officials, criminals and wealthy people have stashed away $21 trillion (yes that is with T, folks, according to the Guardian newspaper in the UK) to avoid paying taxes on the money. How nefarious is this? This must be stopped right now!
Oh, and since Mitt Romney is worth $250 million and has some of his money in non-U.S. bank accounts, he obviously a member of this nasty elite rich and, I guess, should have all his wealth confiscated and … well, I am not sure what is supposed to be done with it, but something should.
My progressive friend out west is the one who posted the above link and to him it is a prima facie case why one should not vote for Romney. In addition, it seems that he thinks the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes. My question would be what is fair? How much is fair? Oh, he who is the Chief Operating Officer for a small computer gaming company, is he jealous that Bill and Melinda Gates have more than he does; or the heirs of Steve Jobs?
I am sorry, before you get me wrong, I don’t necessarily like “rich” people, but I don’t dislike them either. My brother, who is a surgeon, has made 10 times annually what I made annually for most of my life; does that make him a bad man? Not in my book. Does he pay enough in taxes? You betcha! And I don’t fault him for looking for ways to keep more of the money he still is earning at 67 and give less of it to the governments at various levels. I also know that he gives far more than his fair share to help people he thinks need assistance and not just in the United States. But those are his choices and not ones that someone else or the government has compelled him to make. And that, I contend, is as it should it be.
Now, this money stashed away in tax havens around the world: It seems that most of it comes from criminal enterprises. Ok, then it is a problem of catching the criminals. Well, that falls to national governments and the last time I looked, we didn’t have a sovereign uber-government over all the world, much less a police force that could enforce the law everywhere. And at the moment, I am not sure I would want a global government ruling over all of us.
Be that as it may, still it would be much more admirable if the money was used in something that was productive in the country in which it originated before it landed in the offshore accounts. However, that is not always the case.
Yet, these banking havens do offer services to many people, not just corrupt politicians and gang lords, especially in underdeveloped countries.
You have to understand something about banking. It is not like keeping your money in a cookie jar. Remember James Stewart’s movie “It’s A Wonderful Life”(one of my favorites). Well, Stewart’s character was … A BANKER. Yes, I know it was a savings and loan, but those really are just another form of a bank. Why was he in the S&L business? I think it was to make money for him and his wife to live on, but that might be too obvious.
No, as he tried to explain to his customers when he faced a run on his funds, that he didn’t have all their cash in the vault (see ‘Cookie Jar”), but it was invested in the community. Well, offshore banks are no different. They loan money at interest to all sorts of people, and a lot are not going to get a loan from JP Morgan or CitiBank. If they don’t loan the money out, then the people running the banks are going to starve, unless they want to make their customers mad by taking their money from them, which is why those customers have the money there in the first place: To keep others from taking what they see as “their” money.
The problem progressives have with this is that it can’t always be snapped up by the government to fund programs that make progressives feel good because either they can’t or won’t fund the programs themselves privately. Now, I know I am generalizing here about progressives, and to those who do spend vast parts of their personal wealth to aid those they perceive to be less fortunate, I apologize and commend their choices.
However, it bugs me when they say that the government, which for the most part in societies like the U.S. has a virtual monopoly on the use of force to enforce and compel people to do as it says, should get more money. Heck, if they believe that, then don sackcloth and ashes and give all but personal survival sums to the government. They can do that, you know. They can make that choice.
It just seems bizarre to me that people who for whatever legal reason have accumulated more wealth than others should be punished for doing so. I just don’t see the fairness in that.
Yes, the people on “Wall Street” are a bunch of scallywags, and if they are breaking any laws defrauding people, then have at them. But remember, they are innocent until proven guilty in this country and entitled to their day in court. That is due process and everybody, even scallywags, is entitled to it. Unless you want to abandon the concept that people are supposed to be equal before the law.
Now, I won’t argue that rich people can hire smart lawyers and smart accountants that will use every twist and turn of the law to their benefit. That is life … get used to it. You can do it too if you get enough money, or pool enough money, to hire those smart people.
As for corrupt politicians: Unfortunately, they will be with us forever. Sorry, no magic wand to wish them away. Integrity, honesty, truthfulness, sincerity, those are individual things. Individuals have to make the conscious choice to apply them in their lives. Some do, some don’t, but that is the human condition so you try to design a system that rewards those who do and doesn’t reward those who don’t. Simple concept, but one that is tough to make happen. Remember, we the people keep electing the ragamuffins to office.
But for sure, hoping that the discredited concept of “from each according to his ability and to each according his need” is somehow after all these years of trying going to work, well, it fits Einstein’s definition of insanity.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Oh my God! Corrupt government officials, criminals and wealthy people have stashed away $21 trillion (yes that is with T, folks, according to the Guardian newspaper in the UK) to avoid paying taxes on the money. How nefarious is this? This must be stopped right now!
Oh, and since Mitt Romney is worth $250 million and has some of his money in non-U.S. bank accounts, he obviously a member of this nasty elite rich and, I guess, should have all his wealth confiscated and … well, I am not sure what is supposed to be done with it, but something should.
My progressive friend out west is the one who posted the above link and to him it is a prima facie case why one should not vote for Romney. In addition, it seems that he thinks the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes. My question would be what is fair? How much is fair? Oh, he who is the Chief Operating Officer for a small computer gaming company, is he jealous that Bill and Melinda Gates have more than he does; or the heirs of Steve Jobs?
I am sorry, before you get me wrong, I don’t necessarily like “rich” people, but I don’t dislike them either. My brother, who is a surgeon, has made 10 times annually what I made annually for most of my life; does that make him a bad man? Not in my book. Does he pay enough in taxes? You betcha! And I don’t fault him for looking for ways to keep more of the money he still is earning at 67 and give less of it to the governments at various levels. I also know that he gives far more than his fair share to help people he thinks need assistance and not just in the United States. But those are his choices and not ones that someone else or the government has compelled him to make. And that, I contend, is as it should it be.
Now, this money stashed away in tax havens around the world: It seems that most of it comes from criminal enterprises. Ok, then it is a problem of catching the criminals. Well, that falls to national governments and the last time I looked, we didn’t have a sovereign uber-government over all the world, much less a police force that could enforce the law everywhere. And at the moment, I am not sure I would want a global government ruling over all of us.
Be that as it may, still it would be much more admirable if the money was used in something that was productive in the country in which it originated before it landed in the offshore accounts. However, that is not always the case.
Yet, these banking havens do offer services to many people, not just corrupt politicians and gang lords, especially in underdeveloped countries.
You have to understand something about banking. It is not like keeping your money in a cookie jar. Remember James Stewart’s movie “It’s A Wonderful Life”(one of my favorites). Well, Stewart’s character was … A BANKER. Yes, I know it was a savings and loan, but those really are just another form of a bank. Why was he in the S&L business? I think it was to make money for him and his wife to live on, but that might be too obvious.
No, as he tried to explain to his customers when he faced a run on his funds, that he didn’t have all their cash in the vault (see ‘Cookie Jar”), but it was invested in the community. Well, offshore banks are no different. They loan money at interest to all sorts of people, and a lot are not going to get a loan from JP Morgan or CitiBank. If they don’t loan the money out, then the people running the banks are going to starve, unless they want to make their customers mad by taking their money from them, which is why those customers have the money there in the first place: To keep others from taking what they see as “their” money.
The problem progressives have with this is that it can’t always be snapped up by the government to fund programs that make progressives feel good because either they can’t or won’t fund the programs themselves privately. Now, I know I am generalizing here about progressives, and to those who do spend vast parts of their personal wealth to aid those they perceive to be less fortunate, I apologize and commend their choices.
However, it bugs me when they say that the government, which for the most part in societies like the U.S. has a virtual monopoly on the use of force to enforce and compel people to do as it says, should get more money. Heck, if they believe that, then don sackcloth and ashes and give all but personal survival sums to the government. They can do that, you know. They can make that choice.
It just seems bizarre to me that people who for whatever legal reason have accumulated more wealth than others should be punished for doing so. I just don’t see the fairness in that.
Yes, the people on “Wall Street” are a bunch of scallywags, and if they are breaking any laws defrauding people, then have at them. But remember, they are innocent until proven guilty in this country and entitled to their day in court. That is due process and everybody, even scallywags, is entitled to it. Unless you want to abandon the concept that people are supposed to be equal before the law.
Now, I won’t argue that rich people can hire smart lawyers and smart accountants that will use every twist and turn of the law to their benefit. That is life … get used to it. You can do it too if you get enough money, or pool enough money, to hire those smart people.
As for corrupt politicians: Unfortunately, they will be with us forever. Sorry, no magic wand to wish them away. Integrity, honesty, truthfulness, sincerity, those are individual things. Individuals have to make the conscious choice to apply them in their lives. Some do, some don’t, but that is the human condition so you try to design a system that rewards those who do and doesn’t reward those who don’t. Simple concept, but one that is tough to make happen. Remember, we the people keep electing the ragamuffins to office.
But for sure, hoping that the discredited concept of “from each according to his ability and to each according his need” is somehow after all these years of trying going to work, well, it fits Einstein’s definition of insanity.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Mosque vs. Tennessee Community
Mosque in Tennessee faces opposition
Never say that Americans lack bigotry. They can be just as bigoted as anyone in the world. In that sense, Americans are pretty much are like everybody else, regardless of color, creed or national background.
In this case, a Tennessee community took umbrage at group of Muslims in their community building a mosque to hold their prayer services in. The county officials went along with majority in the county and did all sorts of things to block the mosque.
I think it was pretty stupid of them, but I have known plenty of local government officials who, to put it generously, were not the brightest bulb around.
So what should we make of this? Well, I could point out that in places like Saudi Arabia and other countries, people of minority faith also are prohibited from building their own houses of worship, but then, America is supposed to be better than that.
Yes, we are supposed to be better than that, but then again we are only human, so we are reduced to just trying to be better than that. Still, I can think of any number of issues on which some Americans are just out there with their prejudices. Of course, if you call them on it, they go: “What? Who me? There isn’t a prejudiced bone in my body!”
And they would be full of bovine scatology. We are all prejudiced to one degree or another, only some are more than others. We just don’t want to admit it.
I admit it. Won’t tell you what my prejudices are, but I have them, and I suspect that anyone reading this, if they are honest with themselves, would admit they have prejudices.
Now, I can understand why these “Christians” in Tennessee might be a bit apprehensive around Muslims setting up shop in their community. I mean we are fed our daily ration in the news everyday about Muslim violence. It is not that we don’t have our own violence, but if I wanted to I could cite several stories in the current news cycle that would illustrate Muslim violence, whether it is Muslim v. Muslim, Muslim v. Jew, or just Muslim v. infidels in general. It is not a pretty picture and unfortunately paints the entire faith with an image of violence. So, it is not surprising, that the people in this Tennessee community are a bit chary of having an obvious rallying point for “those people.”
The thing is that not all Muslims are Jihadis, just as not all Americans are religious bigots or racial bigots. (It seems most are financial bigots, however)
So, for a nation that once prided itself on its religious tolerance (which was less than legend would have you believe), this is a sad chapter and a classic example of the millennia-old NIMBYism that infects just about all of humanity.
Note: NIMBYism is an acronym: Not In My BackYard. In other words, you can do what you want near somebody else, just don’t do it around me.
Never say that Americans lack bigotry. They can be just as bigoted as anyone in the world. In that sense, Americans are pretty much are like everybody else, regardless of color, creed or national background.
In this case, a Tennessee community took umbrage at group of Muslims in their community building a mosque to hold their prayer services in. The county officials went along with majority in the county and did all sorts of things to block the mosque.
I think it was pretty stupid of them, but I have known plenty of local government officials who, to put it generously, were not the brightest bulb around.
So what should we make of this? Well, I could point out that in places like Saudi Arabia and other countries, people of minority faith also are prohibited from building their own houses of worship, but then, America is supposed to be better than that.
Yes, we are supposed to be better than that, but then again we are only human, so we are reduced to just trying to be better than that. Still, I can think of any number of issues on which some Americans are just out there with their prejudices. Of course, if you call them on it, they go: “What? Who me? There isn’t a prejudiced bone in my body!”
And they would be full of bovine scatology. We are all prejudiced to one degree or another, only some are more than others. We just don’t want to admit it.
I admit it. Won’t tell you what my prejudices are, but I have them, and I suspect that anyone reading this, if they are honest with themselves, would admit they have prejudices.
Now, I can understand why these “Christians” in Tennessee might be a bit apprehensive around Muslims setting up shop in their community. I mean we are fed our daily ration in the news everyday about Muslim violence. It is not that we don’t have our own violence, but if I wanted to I could cite several stories in the current news cycle that would illustrate Muslim violence, whether it is Muslim v. Muslim, Muslim v. Jew, or just Muslim v. infidels in general. It is not a pretty picture and unfortunately paints the entire faith with an image of violence. So, it is not surprising, that the people in this Tennessee community are a bit chary of having an obvious rallying point for “those people.”
The thing is that not all Muslims are Jihadis, just as not all Americans are religious bigots or racial bigots. (It seems most are financial bigots, however)
So, for a nation that once prided itself on its religious tolerance (which was less than legend would have you believe), this is a sad chapter and a classic example of the millennia-old NIMBYism that infects just about all of humanity.
Note: NIMBYism is an acronym: Not In My BackYard. In other words, you can do what you want near somebody else, just don’t do it around me.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Roger Rabbit Bullet?
Holy Toledo! They done invented my “Roger Rabbit Bullet”.
It seems that they have invented the “guided bullet” that homes in on its target. Wow, that is neat. The only problem, according to the article above is that it has to see a laser target designator in order to home in on the target and then it can only hit a circle with an 8-inch radius around the laser point.
Shoot, it doesn’t quite reach the fire and forget stage where you tell the bullet what target to hit and where to hit it. Also, it is an awfully big bullet (.50 caliber and about four inches long). I will bet your shoulder hurts when that baby goes off. And when it hits somebody, they really will know that they have been tagged.
Of course, it is only for snipers and really effective only at extreme ranges. I guess that means that the poor snuffies on the line will have to do with the old unguided bullets for a long time because they do their shooting at ranges that you don’t need a laser target designator to spot the target; you just point and shoot.
Of course, that is the problem with small arms. The projectile is just too small to integrate all those fancy devices that can guide to hit what you want it to hit. You see, nowadays, when you shoot a pistol or a rifle at short ranges, you really don’t have time to mess with telescopic sights. I mean those sights are helpful, and the attached laser designators are really nifty assistance, but up close and personal, it is less about accuracy as it is about volume and weight of your fire power.
That is what makes war so impersonal. You see, when you fire a bullet, it only goes off basically in a straight line in the direction you have your muzzle pointed. The bullet doesn’t care really what gets in its way. People, property, dirt, it is all the same to the bullet. It will just hit it with whatever velocity and mass that it has and let that energy do the work.
IF the first shot doesn’t take the target down, hit again, and again, and again, as fast as you can and hopefully the cumulative effect will be able to do the job. The problem being that with all those unguided objects flying through the air, they really are only addressed to the occupant of the space through which it passes.
Now, trained soldiers usually can do a fair job of using whatever sighting devices to maintain a certain amount of accuracy, but studies have shown that that accuracy declines as the adrenaline flow goes up as incoming rounds get closer and closer. This is strictly a human thing and is hard to overcome.
Still, bullets, being bullets, really don’t care who or what they hurt. They just do it.
Maybe someday, the Dumb-Dumbs from the Roger Rabbit movie will become Smart-Smarts, but I doubt we will see that anytime soon.
Insurance costs in more ways than one
Where car insurance costs least ... and why
"It's a balancing act," he says. "Insurance is all about pricing risk fairly so that those with higher risk are paying what they should."
--- A quote from way down at the end of the article.
When we are talking about insurance – car, health, life, travel, business, unemployment, bank – we should make sure that statement is kept most prominent in our minds. Unfortunately, we don’t … at least in the U.S. of A.
Take health insurance, a favorite whipping boy these days, where health insurers are compelled to accept people who not only are a high risk, but a sure thing, that they will accrue costs to the insurer. How can they balance that absolute certainty with what they insure so that those with higher risks pay more than those who have risks of a lower order? They really can’t but isn’t that the point? If we burden these private entities that attempt to make a profit (ooo … bad word) off trying to price the risk of paying out by balancing it against the risk that they won’t have to and can invest the money elsewhere then we make it impossible to make that profit (ooo … bad word) and stay in business. Then I suppose we can all depend on “government” to provide that all the risks that we take will be paid for by “society” at large and at no increased penalty or consequence to the individual. Better yet, we can make it progressive: The more you have, therefore the more you are able to pay, then the more you have to pay. That is fair, isn’t it?
In the shipping industry, it is a simple transaction. You are moving cargo through a dangerous area, the rates go up. IF the danger is high enough, you may have to pay as much as the entire value of the cargo in order to have underwriters touch it, or in some cases, underwriters – the people who assess the risk and set the price of insurance – may refuse to insure your cargo at all. Is that not unfair? It seems to be with health insurance. I guess government should ensure all cargoes against all damages at 100 percent.
That means everybody in the country should have to pay into the fund to pay off whenever there are damages, even if they never have anything to do with the cargo. Of course they have a tangential involvement in that they are affected by the prices those cargoes bring on the market, which has effects on other commodities that are remotely tangential to the affected, insured cargo. So, since “society” is paying the price, does it not make sense that everyone … well, at least those who can afford it … has to pay into the pot so people can be compensated.
Take life insurance: Should we not all get the same amount of coverage from the government so that our families and children … or just heirs … can be assured to benefit from our deaths? Is that not a responsibility of society to ensure that we are all taken care of? We don’t have to make our own arrangements; somebody in the government will take care of it for us.
Of course, it matters not that a) we are the government. It is not some separate entity out there hovering over us to make sure that we are taken care of, but it is us, or people like us, making decisions for us. The individual doesn’t have to worry about taking care of themselves. They can just focus on what makes them feel good; what makes them feel fulfilled. They just can focus on themselves in the moment in time. Nothing else really matters anyway.
And b) somebody has to pay for it. Of course, those who have “wealth” can always cover for those who don’t have wealth. That is the answer. So those who have more just have to pay more and those who don’t have enough, don’t have to pay anything.
Oh joy! How simple this all is.
Only problem is that this “solution” already has been tried, repeatedly and it works on the small scale, but when it is “scaled up” to large numbers of people, it doesn’t. In fact, it fails rather abysmally.
Why has it failed? For two reasons:
The first is that when you remove reward or incentive for being good at something, or successful, or just doing more (which removes the equality, oftentimes referred to as fairness, of the reward), then you tend to stifle the willingness for people to do good, be successful or do more. People, I contend, when given the option, usually will chose the option that involves less work, less effort on their part. Not all people, but the vast majority, will take this option. I am not saying it is bad. It has given people around the world a standard of living that was unthinkable a century or two ago. People have been so busy inventing things to save labor and effort that today life is much easier than say in most of our own grandfathers’ time.
Second, the only way, unfortunately, if people try to take the easy way out, is to force them to work. Yes, you have to have some people with means of coercion (guns, food, water, bats, knives) go around and tell people that either they do what the government says, the ruler says (as this usually has devolved into some form of dictatorship) or you will suffer.
Of course, the alternative is to let individuals take responsibility for their own actions and let them be allowed to make their own choices. Radical idea, I know, and fraught with risks. What if they fail? What if they don’t do enough? Won’t they get hurt? Won’t they miss out feeling fulfilled? Aren’t we rich enough to protect them from these ills?
Well, in answer to the last question, it is simple: No, and we never will be.
It is not that such people won’t be assisted, but that choice will be left up to other individuals. It won’t be compelled. Others can and will assist (because it is in their own interest to do so, but that is another treatise).
Still, when you follow the debate in the U.S. this fall on health care insurance, you will see stories of all these people who either will be saved or their lives have been destroyed by the presence or lack thereof of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. And at the bottom of this debate will reside the question: Who am I responsible for? Who are YOU responsible for? Only we, as individuals can provide that answer.
Must you be your neighbor’s keeper and can government compel you to be?
"It's a balancing act," he says. "Insurance is all about pricing risk fairly so that those with higher risk are paying what they should."
--- A quote from way down at the end of the article.
When we are talking about insurance – car, health, life, travel, business, unemployment, bank – we should make sure that statement is kept most prominent in our minds. Unfortunately, we don’t … at least in the U.S. of A.
Take health insurance, a favorite whipping boy these days, where health insurers are compelled to accept people who not only are a high risk, but a sure thing, that they will accrue costs to the insurer. How can they balance that absolute certainty with what they insure so that those with higher risks pay more than those who have risks of a lower order? They really can’t but isn’t that the point? If we burden these private entities that attempt to make a profit (ooo … bad word) off trying to price the risk of paying out by balancing it against the risk that they won’t have to and can invest the money elsewhere then we make it impossible to make that profit (ooo … bad word) and stay in business. Then I suppose we can all depend on “government” to provide that all the risks that we take will be paid for by “society” at large and at no increased penalty or consequence to the individual. Better yet, we can make it progressive: The more you have, therefore the more you are able to pay, then the more you have to pay. That is fair, isn’t it?
In the shipping industry, it is a simple transaction. You are moving cargo through a dangerous area, the rates go up. IF the danger is high enough, you may have to pay as much as the entire value of the cargo in order to have underwriters touch it, or in some cases, underwriters – the people who assess the risk and set the price of insurance – may refuse to insure your cargo at all. Is that not unfair? It seems to be with health insurance. I guess government should ensure all cargoes against all damages at 100 percent.
That means everybody in the country should have to pay into the fund to pay off whenever there are damages, even if they never have anything to do with the cargo. Of course they have a tangential involvement in that they are affected by the prices those cargoes bring on the market, which has effects on other commodities that are remotely tangential to the affected, insured cargo. So, since “society” is paying the price, does it not make sense that everyone … well, at least those who can afford it … has to pay into the pot so people can be compensated.
Take life insurance: Should we not all get the same amount of coverage from the government so that our families and children … or just heirs … can be assured to benefit from our deaths? Is that not a responsibility of society to ensure that we are all taken care of? We don’t have to make our own arrangements; somebody in the government will take care of it for us.
Of course, it matters not that a) we are the government. It is not some separate entity out there hovering over us to make sure that we are taken care of, but it is us, or people like us, making decisions for us. The individual doesn’t have to worry about taking care of themselves. They can just focus on what makes them feel good; what makes them feel fulfilled. They just can focus on themselves in the moment in time. Nothing else really matters anyway.
And b) somebody has to pay for it. Of course, those who have “wealth” can always cover for those who don’t have wealth. That is the answer. So those who have more just have to pay more and those who don’t have enough, don’t have to pay anything.
Oh joy! How simple this all is.
Only problem is that this “solution” already has been tried, repeatedly and it works on the small scale, but when it is “scaled up” to large numbers of people, it doesn’t. In fact, it fails rather abysmally.
Why has it failed? For two reasons:
The first is that when you remove reward or incentive for being good at something, or successful, or just doing more (which removes the equality, oftentimes referred to as fairness, of the reward), then you tend to stifle the willingness for people to do good, be successful or do more. People, I contend, when given the option, usually will chose the option that involves less work, less effort on their part. Not all people, but the vast majority, will take this option. I am not saying it is bad. It has given people around the world a standard of living that was unthinkable a century or two ago. People have been so busy inventing things to save labor and effort that today life is much easier than say in most of our own grandfathers’ time.
Second, the only way, unfortunately, if people try to take the easy way out, is to force them to work. Yes, you have to have some people with means of coercion (guns, food, water, bats, knives) go around and tell people that either they do what the government says, the ruler says (as this usually has devolved into some form of dictatorship) or you will suffer.
Of course, the alternative is to let individuals take responsibility for their own actions and let them be allowed to make their own choices. Radical idea, I know, and fraught with risks. What if they fail? What if they don’t do enough? Won’t they get hurt? Won’t they miss out feeling fulfilled? Aren’t we rich enough to protect them from these ills?
Well, in answer to the last question, it is simple: No, and we never will be.
It is not that such people won’t be assisted, but that choice will be left up to other individuals. It won’t be compelled. Others can and will assist (because it is in their own interest to do so, but that is another treatise).
Still, when you follow the debate in the U.S. this fall on health care insurance, you will see stories of all these people who either will be saved or their lives have been destroyed by the presence or lack thereof of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. And at the bottom of this debate will reside the question: Who am I responsible for? Who are YOU responsible for? Only we, as individuals can provide that answer.
Must you be your neighbor’s keeper and can government compel you to be?
Life imitating Art
Ancient aquifer discovered in East Africa
This report is almost funny. Not because it isn’t important and good news that hopefully will provide much needed fresh water in a region that desperately needs it. No, it strikes me as funny because I read about this “discovery” a couple of years ago … only it was in novel, a work of fiction, a fantasy.
I wish I could remember the author or the title of the book, but it slips my mind. But a synopsis of a subplot in the story is that one of minor characters is this Western scientist in Ethiopia, or maybe it was Somalia, doing research on just such a development of an ancient aquifer that will solve the region’s water problems. She actually finds it, but the war that rages the area engulfs her expedition and she is captured by the rebels after attempting to flee. This is a subplot to the book to the main plot which is a techno-thriller about some US Navy officer and his elite unit who are taking on terrorists.
I don’t know if the author knew about these efforts, but it just strikes me as funny how in this case Life apparently is imitating Art.
Strange world we live in.
War v. Law Enforcement
NY Times: US Officials sued over deaths in Yemen
Fox: Families of US citizens killed in Yemen drone strikes file suit
The families of two American members of the Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula organization are suing the American government for killing their relatives with missiles fired from unmanned aerial reconnaissance craft - UAVs.
It seems, they feel that being a member of a quasi-state organization that has declared war on the United States does not qualify their family members to be shot on sight. The American Civil Liberties Union, who I sometimes think thinks the U.S. Constitution applies worldwide, has taken their case to federal court to charge the deaths were wrongful because the individuals involved were never charged with any criminal act and thus deprived of their constitutionally guaranteed due process.
Ok, first of all, I haven’t a clue how this case will play out in the courts. I just don’t know where the courts will come down on this issue or whether the courts will even accept that they do have jurisdiction in the case (a very real possibility).
The problem as I see it is that what we have here is a failure to understand the difference between “war” and “law enforcement.”
In war, the rules of law enforcement as applied in the U.S. do not apply. I am sorry, but the bad guys do not have to be given an opportunity to surrender. They don’t have to be read their constitutional rights when they are arrested or detained. In fact, they can be killed by just about any means available. Ok, international law, as reflected in the Geneva/Hague Conventions, does say that certain weapons really aren’t allowed, but that is open to interpretation.
For example, it really isn’t kosher to use a 2000-pound bomb to kill a single person standing in the desert. Not to say that it doesn’t happen but somewhere in the language of the conventions are passages about the “appropriate” use of force to kill people.
Another example, the white phosphorus used to generate smoke screens and to mark targets is not supposed to be used directly against dismounted troops. Phosphorus does create rather nasty wounds that are difficult to treat, as I can attest to. However, it can be used against buildings and vehicles in the open. What happens when there are dismounted troops next to armored vehicles? White phosphorus is a perfectly valid and effective weapon to use on armor (it burns through it), but what about the poor troops outside? Are you supposed to ignore what might be your best weapon against the armor in order not to violate the prohibition against using it against troops in the open? Good question and one my soldiers and I would debate around a campfire at night. Remember, however, when your life is at stake, there are no rules. It is kill or be killed and you want to survive.
Okay, in this case, the father was killed while riding in a car that was hit by an air-to-surface missile. Now was that a legitimate target? Well, he was in Yemen, but the Yemeni government lets U.S. UAVs fly over its country assisting in its fight against the Al-Qaida bunch.
Again, does that make it illegal, as the ACLU contends, to kill a member (who happens to be an American) who is aiding, abetting and controlling portions of a group that openly admits it is waging a war against the United States? Now, in a ”real” war between two nations the answer would not only “yes” but “HELL YES!”
But then is the war with Al-Qaida really a war? The ACLU would tell you it isn’t and in that case the law enforcement paradigm holds: You have make every effort to arrest the person alive (regardless of the hazards to the persons making the arrest), read them their rights, offer them an attorney and tell them that anything that they say can be used against them, bring them to a court in the U.S., charge them, try them … and then maybe, just maybe, you can put them to death. This is known as due process.
This standard really is hard to apply in combat … and so the debate is whether the use of armed UAVs is governed by the laws of crime or the laws war? And what if, the American is only one of several people in the target area – non-Americans and some of them are combatants and some of them aren’t? And then, what if they are not innocent civilians but don’t qualify as combatants according to the definitions in the conventions? The conventions allow you to summarily (without trial) execute illegal combatants and spies.
Murky, isn’t it?
This is the problem with the so-called Global War on Terror. Is it a war-war or is it a law enforcement “war” like the war on drugs or organized crime?
Some, such as me, see the GWOT as a war-war. We authorized the president back in 2001 to seek and destroy the parties responsible for the attack on the U.S. on 9/11. In essence, Congress declared war on Al-Qaida. It didn’t issue a “declaration of war” in the technical sense in that those only really apply to inter-nation conflicts. Al-Qaida really isn’t a nation, although it has at various times controlled parts of several, including Yemen and Afghanistan.
Others, such as the ACLU, say it is not a war but a law enforcement problem, even if American laws don’t apply outside the boundaries of the United States (as a general rule) and very few nations are going to enforce those laws for us. In many cases, those governments are going to actively contest the right of U.S. law enforcement agents operating in their country to capture miscreants.
Personally, I think the case should be thrown out by the first U.S. District Judge that gets the filing as a frivolous lawsuit because the law enforcement paradigm does not apply and the court, therefore, has absolutely no jurisdiction on which it has a right to hear the case.
Sorry, folks, but your relatives chose the bed they made … and unfortunately for you, they got blown up.
Besides, if your relatives had the chance, I am pretty sure they would have tried to kill me.
Fox: Families of US citizens killed in Yemen drone strikes file suit
The families of two American members of the Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula organization are suing the American government for killing their relatives with missiles fired from unmanned aerial reconnaissance craft - UAVs.
It seems, they feel that being a member of a quasi-state organization that has declared war on the United States does not qualify their family members to be shot on sight. The American Civil Liberties Union, who I sometimes think thinks the U.S. Constitution applies worldwide, has taken their case to federal court to charge the deaths were wrongful because the individuals involved were never charged with any criminal act and thus deprived of their constitutionally guaranteed due process.
Ok, first of all, I haven’t a clue how this case will play out in the courts. I just don’t know where the courts will come down on this issue or whether the courts will even accept that they do have jurisdiction in the case (a very real possibility).
The problem as I see it is that what we have here is a failure to understand the difference between “war” and “law enforcement.”
In war, the rules of law enforcement as applied in the U.S. do not apply. I am sorry, but the bad guys do not have to be given an opportunity to surrender. They don’t have to be read their constitutional rights when they are arrested or detained. In fact, they can be killed by just about any means available. Ok, international law, as reflected in the Geneva/Hague Conventions, does say that certain weapons really aren’t allowed, but that is open to interpretation.
For example, it really isn’t kosher to use a 2000-pound bomb to kill a single person standing in the desert. Not to say that it doesn’t happen but somewhere in the language of the conventions are passages about the “appropriate” use of force to kill people.
Another example, the white phosphorus used to generate smoke screens and to mark targets is not supposed to be used directly against dismounted troops. Phosphorus does create rather nasty wounds that are difficult to treat, as I can attest to. However, it can be used against buildings and vehicles in the open. What happens when there are dismounted troops next to armored vehicles? White phosphorus is a perfectly valid and effective weapon to use on armor (it burns through it), but what about the poor troops outside? Are you supposed to ignore what might be your best weapon against the armor in order not to violate the prohibition against using it against troops in the open? Good question and one my soldiers and I would debate around a campfire at night. Remember, however, when your life is at stake, there are no rules. It is kill or be killed and you want to survive.
Okay, in this case, the father was killed while riding in a car that was hit by an air-to-surface missile. Now was that a legitimate target? Well, he was in Yemen, but the Yemeni government lets U.S. UAVs fly over its country assisting in its fight against the Al-Qaida bunch.
Again, does that make it illegal, as the ACLU contends, to kill a member (who happens to be an American) who is aiding, abetting and controlling portions of a group that openly admits it is waging a war against the United States? Now, in a ”real” war between two nations the answer would not only “yes” but “HELL YES!”
But then is the war with Al-Qaida really a war? The ACLU would tell you it isn’t and in that case the law enforcement paradigm holds: You have make every effort to arrest the person alive (regardless of the hazards to the persons making the arrest), read them their rights, offer them an attorney and tell them that anything that they say can be used against them, bring them to a court in the U.S., charge them, try them … and then maybe, just maybe, you can put them to death. This is known as due process.
This standard really is hard to apply in combat … and so the debate is whether the use of armed UAVs is governed by the laws of crime or the laws war? And what if, the American is only one of several people in the target area – non-Americans and some of them are combatants and some of them aren’t? And then, what if they are not innocent civilians but don’t qualify as combatants according to the definitions in the conventions? The conventions allow you to summarily (without trial) execute illegal combatants and spies.
Murky, isn’t it?
This is the problem with the so-called Global War on Terror. Is it a war-war or is it a law enforcement “war” like the war on drugs or organized crime?
Some, such as me, see the GWOT as a war-war. We authorized the president back in 2001 to seek and destroy the parties responsible for the attack on the U.S. on 9/11. In essence, Congress declared war on Al-Qaida. It didn’t issue a “declaration of war” in the technical sense in that those only really apply to inter-nation conflicts. Al-Qaida really isn’t a nation, although it has at various times controlled parts of several, including Yemen and Afghanistan.
Others, such as the ACLU, say it is not a war but a law enforcement problem, even if American laws don’t apply outside the boundaries of the United States (as a general rule) and very few nations are going to enforce those laws for us. In many cases, those governments are going to actively contest the right of U.S. law enforcement agents operating in their country to capture miscreants.
Personally, I think the case should be thrown out by the first U.S. District Judge that gets the filing as a frivolous lawsuit because the law enforcement paradigm does not apply and the court, therefore, has absolutely no jurisdiction on which it has a right to hear the case.
Sorry, folks, but your relatives chose the bed they made … and unfortunately for you, they got blown up.
Besides, if your relatives had the chance, I am pretty sure they would have tried to kill me.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Bush v. Gore redux
http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/18/justice-antonin-scalia-on-2000s-bush-v-gore-that-comes-up-all-the-time-and-my-usual-response-is-get-over-it/?hpt=hp_t2
I see where the progressives’ favorite whipping boy justice is telling them to get over the 2000 election.
Justice Anatonin Scalia is not necessarily one of my favorite justices but he is articulate and has definite views on how the U.S. Constitution is to be interpreted. I can respect that.
However, on the 2000 election: Yes, it is high time for people to get over it.
I would point out as he did that even if the lawsuit that the Gore campaign filed to circumvent the legal process in Florida to challenge election results and the secure ballot recounts had gone forward, and the wishes of the Gore campaign had been granted, http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/ Gore would have lost.
So, the court really did not decide the election. It only stopped what, in my humble opinion, was a very crude effort to hijack the election using the judicial system and give the loser the victory.
Of course, don’t tell Democrats that. They have spent the last 12 years throwing mud and doubt on the electoral process.
I suspect, although I hope my expectations are incorrect, similar mud and doubt will be thrown on this November’s ballot, especially if it is close.
Having spent many a night in local election offices, I know how hard these people work to get it right, for the most part.
However, I also know that stealing elections are a long American tradition (Particularly among Democrats: Can anyone say Pendergast and Dailey. IF you have never heard of them, then look them up.)
Let us hope that this year, it is different.
I see where the progressives’ favorite whipping boy justice is telling them to get over the 2000 election.
Justice Anatonin Scalia is not necessarily one of my favorite justices but he is articulate and has definite views on how the U.S. Constitution is to be interpreted. I can respect that.
However, on the 2000 election: Yes, it is high time for people to get over it.
I would point out as he did that even if the lawsuit that the Gore campaign filed to circumvent the legal process in Florida to challenge election results and the secure ballot recounts had gone forward, and the wishes of the Gore campaign had been granted, http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/ Gore would have lost.
So, the court really did not decide the election. It only stopped what, in my humble opinion, was a very crude effort to hijack the election using the judicial system and give the loser the victory.
Of course, don’t tell Democrats that. They have spent the last 12 years throwing mud and doubt on the electoral process.
I suspect, although I hope my expectations are incorrect, similar mud and doubt will be thrown on this November’s ballot, especially if it is close.
Having spent many a night in local election offices, I know how hard these people work to get it right, for the most part.
However, I also know that stealing elections are a long American tradition (Particularly among Democrats: Can anyone say Pendergast and Dailey. IF you have never heard of them, then look them up.)
Let us hope that this year, it is different.
Criticism v. A Teaching Moment
A person who wished to remain anonymous posted the following on my posting about Islam needing both a Reformation and an Enlightenment:
You are very ignorant--why don't you go to a mosque near you---it is Ramadan and you might get a free dinner---as well as be able to talk to actual Muslims---and see how the understand their religion. (The Saudi's are not the only Muslims on the planet---you know---in fact the Middle East has only 15% of the global Muslim population---it in no way "represents" Islam)
I am not offended by such a posting. In fact, it actually gives me what I call a “teaching moment.”
This person calls me “ignorant” and they have every right to do so. I will not deny them that right. I would disagree, and here are my reasons:
A. The person assumes that I have a very limited knowledge of Islam. I would contend that assumption is incorrect. I have, for instance, read much of the Quran, the Islamic faith’s equivalent of the Christian Bible. I also have read many other writings on the history of Islam, the history of the Arabian Peninsula, the history of South Asia. All this has given me part of my perspective on the religion, which I hold is not necessarily “evil” or “bad”, no more than any other religion is. It does, however, have some what I call “disturbing” tenets which call for violence against non-believers.
B. The person seems to be laboring under the impression that I have never sat down with some of the Islamic religion and had a discussion about the differences from the Judeo-Christian background I was raised in (my grandfather that I knew and lived with and gave me my first Bible was a Congregationalist minister and missionary). Again, an incorrect assumption. I had the pleasure of having lengthy discussions with a man my parents were assisting in his studies at a private college in California. This gentleman, and he truly was a gentle man, was – according to his story – the minister of secondary education in Afghanistan and a tutor to the king’s son at that time. He taught me a little about his language and about Arabic, the language of Islam, as well as about Afghanistan and sparked my interest later to spend a considerable time studying the history of South Asia in college. But fast forward almost 30 years; I was in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for more than half a year in 1990-1991. Granted, I was in the service of the United States Army, but I was not off on some isolated desert base. No, I was living and working among Muslims, representing many different countries. They will tell I was a curious American. I was always asking them if they could find me a good English version of the Quran (none did, although I finally was able to download one off the Internet) and I would take every opportunity to engage them in conversations that involved their religion, their customs and culture. I spent many hours in conversation with the Saudi Bedouin prayer leader at a business I visited weekly for three months while I waited for projects I was overseeing to be completed. I also shared green tea and conversation with the Lebanese businessman who owned the printing press where the newspaper I was editor of for the US Army was printed. I learned a lot from these encounters. Then, while I was in Kuwait for two weeks, I again had many encounters with local people with whom I had interesting discussions.
So, I don’t consider myself fluent in all the facets of Islam, I am conversant enough to hold what I feel are valid opinions on the subject. I also would point out that the Saudis, as the custodians of The Two Holy Mosques, do play a major role in Islam.
Now, the teaching moment: It is not wise to assume when you don’t know. This person, who did not identify their self, leaves me wondering whether or not they are a Muslim? I have no way of knowing. I have no way of knowing really what country they are from.
I do have a first impression of this person: They are not very polite. I would not call him ignorant. I have no way of knowing whether he has the knowledge base to be able to qualify him to not be ignorant, but I am not going to call ignorant, because I don’t know. However, I do know that being rude is not one of the tenets of Islam.
That is one of the problems we have in the world: People making assumptions. Assumptions, more often than not, turn out to be wrong.
A second problem is that we tend to make things personal. Rather than point out where I have erred, rather than take the time to show me why this person’s perception of the world is more accurate than mine, the person merely tells me I am ignorant. Wrong answer.
Now, I have pointed out many times in my posts that I happen to believe that people are not monolithic. That just because a person is (A), then all people are (A). That I think would be a very silly position to take.
I do think that most people do share a desire to survive and live a more comfortable life, if possible. I also believe most people would rather do it with less effort rather than more. Note that I said “most people”. When you are dealing with people, all are unique individuals (except maybe identical twins, but even then their life experiences are different and unique), and therefore you are not dealing with absolutes.
Now, I agree that probably the majority of those who profess to be Muslims are basically like most other people in their desires and don’t really give a rat’s behind about what other people think or believe. It doesn’t affect them.
However, there seems to be a substantial subset that does not have a willingness to be tolerant of the peculiarities of others who may happen to believe differently than they do. We see this when we see riots across the Muslim world when some obscure Christian minister of a small church in Florida announces he plans to burn the Quran as part of his worship service. Now, that was not limited to the Arabian peninsula or North Africa or even just South Asia.
Then there was the riots set off by the publication in a Danish periodical of caricatures of Mohammad, the Islamic prophet who plays the same role for Muslims as Jesus plays for Christians. Those weren’t just limited to Saudi Arabia or some Arab country.
The Muslim author Salmun Rushdie faces a death sentence because he wrote a book that was a satire about some of the parts of the Islamic religion.
We see this when Muslims all over the place react violently when some soldiers disposing of paper materials on an Afghan base burn some Qurans.
I can not visit Mecca or Medina, but Muslims can visit Jerusalem or Rome or London or just about any city in the U.S.
And now the Saudi government seems intent on making insulting the faith a criminal offense.
These things distress me, not because ALL Muslims believe that way, but with more than a billion adherents, even if it is just .01 percent who believe absolutely that infidels should die, then that would make up a very large body of people.
Granted, the Christian church has its extremists as well, and I believe these “cults” should be denounced and treated with disdain, but that does not excuse the need for Islam to come to an accommodation that lets it adherents accept without malice those who believe in a different view of God.
Enough rambling. Via Con Dios and Enshallah..
You are very ignorant--why don't you go to a mosque near you---it is Ramadan and you might get a free dinner---as well as be able to talk to actual Muslims---and see how the
I am not offended by such a posting. In fact, it actually gives me what I call a “teaching moment.”
This person calls me “ignorant” and they have every right to do so. I will not deny them that right. I would disagree, and here are my reasons:
A. The person assumes that I have a very limited knowledge of Islam. I would contend that assumption is incorrect. I have, for instance, read much of the Quran, the Islamic faith’s equivalent of the Christian Bible. I also have read many other writings on the history of Islam, the history of the Arabian Peninsula, the history of South Asia. All this has given me part of my perspective on the religion, which I hold is not necessarily “evil” or “bad”, no more than any other religion is. It does, however, have some what I call “disturbing” tenets which call for violence against non-believers.
B. The person seems to be laboring under the impression that I have never sat down with some of the Islamic religion and had a discussion about the differences from the Judeo-Christian background I was raised in (my grandfather that I knew and lived with and gave me my first Bible was a Congregationalist minister and missionary). Again, an incorrect assumption. I had the pleasure of having lengthy discussions with a man my parents were assisting in his studies at a private college in California. This gentleman, and he truly was a gentle man, was – according to his story – the minister of secondary education in Afghanistan and a tutor to the king’s son at that time. He taught me a little about his language and about Arabic, the language of Islam, as well as about Afghanistan and sparked my interest later to spend a considerable time studying the history of South Asia in college. But fast forward almost 30 years; I was in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for more than half a year in 1990-1991. Granted, I was in the service of the United States Army, but I was not off on some isolated desert base. No, I was living and working among Muslims, representing many different countries. They will tell I was a curious American. I was always asking them if they could find me a good English version of the Quran (none did, although I finally was able to download one off the Internet) and I would take every opportunity to engage them in conversations that involved their religion, their customs and culture. I spent many hours in conversation with the Saudi Bedouin prayer leader at a business I visited weekly for three months while I waited for projects I was overseeing to be completed. I also shared green tea and conversation with the Lebanese businessman who owned the printing press where the newspaper I was editor of for the US Army was printed. I learned a lot from these encounters. Then, while I was in Kuwait for two weeks, I again had many encounters with local people with whom I had interesting discussions.
So, I don’t consider myself fluent in all the facets of Islam, I am conversant enough to hold what I feel are valid opinions on the subject. I also would point out that the Saudis, as the custodians of The Two Holy Mosques, do play a major role in Islam.
Now, the teaching moment: It is not wise to assume when you don’t know. This person, who did not identify their self, leaves me wondering whether or not they are a Muslim? I have no way of knowing. I have no way of knowing really what country they are from.
I do have a first impression of this person: They are not very polite. I would not call him ignorant. I have no way of knowing whether he has the knowledge base to be able to qualify him to not be ignorant, but I am not going to call ignorant, because I don’t know. However, I do know that being rude is not one of the tenets of Islam.
That is one of the problems we have in the world: People making assumptions. Assumptions, more often than not, turn out to be wrong.
A second problem is that we tend to make things personal. Rather than point out where I have erred, rather than take the time to show me why this person’s perception of the world is more accurate than mine, the person merely tells me I am ignorant. Wrong answer.
Now, I have pointed out many times in my posts that I happen to believe that people are not monolithic. That just because a person is (A), then all people are (A). That I think would be a very silly position to take.
I do think that most people do share a desire to survive and live a more comfortable life, if possible. I also believe most people would rather do it with less effort rather than more. Note that I said “most people”. When you are dealing with people, all are unique individuals (except maybe identical twins, but even then their life experiences are different and unique), and therefore you are not dealing with absolutes.
Now, I agree that probably the majority of those who profess to be Muslims are basically like most other people in their desires and don’t really give a rat’s behind about what other people think or believe. It doesn’t affect them.
However, there seems to be a substantial subset that does not have a willingness to be tolerant of the peculiarities of others who may happen to believe differently than they do. We see this when we see riots across the Muslim world when some obscure Christian minister of a small church in Florida announces he plans to burn the Quran as part of his worship service. Now, that was not limited to the Arabian peninsula or North Africa or even just South Asia.
Then there was the riots set off by the publication in a Danish periodical of caricatures of Mohammad, the Islamic prophet who plays the same role for Muslims as Jesus plays for Christians. Those weren’t just limited to Saudi Arabia or some Arab country.
The Muslim author Salmun Rushdie faces a death sentence because he wrote a book that was a satire about some of the parts of the Islamic religion.
We see this when Muslims all over the place react violently when some soldiers disposing of paper materials on an Afghan base burn some Qurans.
I can not visit Mecca or Medina, but Muslims can visit Jerusalem or Rome or London or just about any city in the U.S.
And now the Saudi government seems intent on making insulting the faith a criminal offense.
These things distress me, not because ALL Muslims believe that way, but with more than a billion adherents, even if it is just .01 percent who believe absolutely that infidels should die, then that would make up a very large body of people.
Granted, the Christian church has its extremists as well, and I believe these “cults” should be denounced and treated with disdain, but that does not excuse the need for Islam to come to an accommodation that lets it adherents accept without malice those who believe in a different view of God.
Enough rambling. Via Con Dios and Enshallah..
The world is not perfect
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/mitt-romney-taxes-tough-sell-hairball_n_1681636.html
Oh Joy, Oh Joy! Some of the Republican illuminati are not all the enthused by the presumed party nominee Mitt Romney. Obviously this portends that his campaign to unseat President Barack Obama will fail and the progressives will have four more years to change America into their vision of what it should be.
Let there be dancing in the streets. The GOP is not this monolith monster that is going to steam roll over all the “progressive” achievements of the last century and return everyone to slavery.
Since when was the GOP a monolith? Since when were conservatives a united force walking in lockstep? Are we talking social conservatives or fiscal conservatives or religious conservatives or the so-called political conservatives? What about the neo-conservatives? Oh, yes, we must believe they are all cut from the same mold.
Aren’t Christian fundamentalists just like business and corporate fundamentalists? I mean they are fundamentalists, right? Aren’t all fundamentalists exactly alike?
Hello, what world are you living on? Is any group a monolith? You have got to be kidding. So, some of the traditional elite in the Republican Party do not have shivers running down their leg that the Mormon Romney indicating that he walks on water and is the messiah. Does that mean they are just going to go home? I don’t think so.
It is almost an illusion to look at each crack that indicates that maybe somebody doesn’t agree with Romney on X issue or Y issue that doesn’t necessarily translate into that somebody either voting for President Obama or not voting. Wishful thinking more likely.
Who people decide to vote for really is a bit more complex, as well as simpler, than how as candidate stands on this or that issue. While most people might say that some issue made them vote for a candidate, what they really mean is that issue is the they are most cognizant of that tipped the balance of their perception of whom to vote for.
Yes, some people will just vote Democrat as much as some people will never vote Democratic, and vice-versa for the Republicans. But they make up only a slice of the electorate and the bigger slice is in the middle, where the voters muddle through a host of perceptions and considerations until they decide how they are going to vote. Some even flip coins.
The point being, I think, never gloat over what you perceive to be your enemies weaknesses and remember oft times your opponents are adherents to the old mantra that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” at least for this go around.
Also remember that leaders often don’t lead, and don’t always (without the direct application of the threat of physical force) make people vote the way they want them too. That is the secret of the secret ballot. People can, once in the polling booth, cast their ballots relatively anonymously. I am not so sanguine to suggest, however, that people around you are not perceptive enough to figure out for whom you voted. But, then you can always lie. That works too.
The problem is, despite what some people seem to want to think, candidates are not perfect. The world is not perfect and is not about to be perfected, even if progressives think it can be. All candidates have faults, depending on their supporters’ (and opponents’) perspective. Candidates are at best a compromise. They try to bridge the various factions within every political grouping to garner sufficient support at the ballot box to actually win an election. In reality, many voters going into vote metaphorically hold their noses while casting their ballot as the best of the worst.
To fail to recognize this is an indication of how people have become intolerant of compromise, the art of the possible and the heart of a democratic republic.
Like Ben Franklin said, we have given birth to a republic and now the question is after it has grown up, can we keep it one?
But then again, the world is not a perfect place nor will it ever be one. So much for this random thought.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Update on Islam and reformation
Ok, sometimes I don’t get things quite right. When I did the bit on Islam needing a reformation, I toyed with also arguing that it also needed to undergo a corresponding period of the Western world’s Enlightenment that followed the Reformation but that would have made it a bit more tedious to understand and explain. I should have taken the plunge and included it.
As it is, another person wrote a much more coherent piece than I did on why Islam needs both a Reformation AND an Enlightenment period (http://www.atlassociety.org/tni/islam-reformation). His article points out that Islam in a sense is already embroiled in its Reformation (about time, can we speed it up and get to the Enlightenment now). I just hope it doesn’t take another three or four centuries of conflict and war for them to get the message on tolerance, acceptance and compromise.
Short memories
Suggested reading:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/16/us/us-drought/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1
http://weather.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/07/16/2012-drought-one-of-the-worst-in-history/
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/48202640/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/us-drought-2012-widest-since-1956_n_1676936.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/midwest-drought-2012-us-worse_n_1676967.html?ref=topbar
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ag-sec-vilsack-wishes-rain-prayer-combat-painful-191255266.html
Ok, every one, the sky IS falling. Run out, run around, jump and shout. The world obviously is coming to an end and it is all the fault of the stupid Americans and their dumb gas-guzzling car lifestyle. I mean if it wasn’t for anthropomorphic-caused climate change, the breadbasket of the America (and as well as for much of the world) wouldn’t be baking in the heat this summer.
Granted, much of the US is suffering under the worst drought in 25 years and probably in the last 56 years (but not in the last 75 years and before that, who the heck really knows).
But droughts are nothing unheard of. If one chooses, one can look back through several millennia of recorded human existence and droughts seem to be a rather routine occurrence. Some have been worse, others not so worse, but they keep on happening with astonishing frequency regardless of what us humans do or do not do. What do us people want? Do we think we can control the weather? I mean I know we can do a lot of things, but I don’t think we have mastered the climate just yet, nor do we really have all that much influence on it.
The problem, it seems, that – at least in America – we constantly living under what I call “a condition of historical amnesia.” If it didn’t happen yesterday, or if I haven’t seen it on television via CNN/FOX/NBC/ABC./CBS, then it never happened and what is happening today is unlike anything that has gone before.
What a bunch of equine fecal material. I find it sad that history seems to be such a neglected subject in American schools today; because without knowing, and having some understanding, of history, then you have no context with which to evaluate and understand anything that is happening today. You won’t know what terms really mean when people start bandying them around, oftentimes misusing or misrepresenting these terms to the point you almost have to believe the sky IS falling.
Now, I am not trying to be Pollyannaish (probably an obscure reference to anyone under the age of 40), but the sky is NOT falling. The skies, the weather, the climate, the world, people, all are doing what they have done for millennia: They are changing.
The world is not static. It is dynamic and things are always happening AND changing. Often, these things seem to run in cycles and because of the cyclical nature of our planet and its orbit around the sun, there probably is some validity to that.
This does mean that if we know what has gone before, and hopefully gain some understanding of that, then we can do something different than before with hopefully a better outcome.
Panic is not an option. It is a waste of time, energy and usually resources like money, which we have scarce enough as it is.
However, we have to realize that certain things happen when things like droughts happen.
First: the price of food WILL go up. This is so simple it hardly bears mentioning, but you will see a lot of panic stories coming on the rising price of food. Drought=Poorer Crops=Less Food in the Supply Chain. When supply goes down, price goes up – basic law of economics.
Second: The price of other things depending on those crops will go up for the same reason.
Third: Water will be valuable and be in short supply. Its price may also go up.
Fourth: Energy, especially those blended fuels with biomaterial, will be more expensive. It also will be in more demand, so what supplies we have will have to be stretched.
So, if we know a) droughts happen (and will happen, over and over again) and b) that there really isn’t anything we REALLY can do to alter the weather, then anybody proposing drastic solutions to protect the climate really is blowing smoke.
We also know that times are going to be tough and money tight. Plan for it. History tells you it is going to happen, now and again, and again, and again. It is kinda silly not to learn from the past, isn’t it.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Civil Wars
Reference story: IROC declares Syria a civil war
The International Committee of the Red Cross has declared that the conflict in Syria is a “Civil War”, but what does this mean. Wars aren’t civil, they are highly uncivil.
Now that means very little to the Syrians right now, the fighting will go on until the Assad regime is ousted or the rebellion is crushed.
But to the rest of the world it now means that a different set of rules governing warfare can now be applied, probably retroactively. You see, under the international “laws of war” certain things can be done in combat and certain things cannot. Now, what can or cannot be done is governed by the type of conflict. If it is merely a riot or a terrorist attack, a certain set of things are considered the appropriate response. If it is an insurrection, then another set applies. If it is a civil war, a third set applies and if it is a state vs. state declared war yet another set of rules apply. And if it is an undeclared war, or some military action ordered by the UN, then probably another set applies depending who is trying to define the rules.
Basically, the rules are meant to salve the consciences of people who are not in the line of fire, because the people in the line of fire will tell you the rules don’t apply and never have and never will. You do whatever it takes to survive and win and let God and the politicians sort it out afterwards.
Most people don’t understand that. They think that combat can be fought like a joust or a prize fight with the Marquis of Queensbury rules … but that is not reality and in the real world is liable to get a lot of people killed unnecessarily. Still, if you violate the rules in today’s world, at least in certain countries, you can expect to be hauled up on whatever charges those who want to bring them bring and in whatever venue they want to bring it. Note to some of these people: Sorry but the US Constitution really doesn’t apply anywhere but in US territory. I know that is a disappointment, but it is the truth.
For example: One standard applies to the US forces, no matter where they go, and that standard, unfortunately rarely applies to the people they are fighting. If the Americans used IEDs or even mines on civilian roads, something serious disciplinary-wise is going to happen to the soldier(s) responsible if they are caught. Americans are not supposed to fight that way. Not that it isn’t an effective tactic; but it is not the way Americans are supposed to behave.
Now if the “bad guys” do summary executions or other punishments on civilians, use IEDs or suicide bombers who the flip cares. If the Americans do it, well here comes the mob to hang them. I am not saying that the Americans shouldn’t be disciplined, but for heaven’s sake that is more for discipline and control than it is because it is against some arbitrary rule. However, it gets more press over here than the multitude of sins committed by our asymmetrical enemies, who rarely, if ever seem to publicly punish their troops for shooting villagers, blowing up civilians and destroying people and property.
So, as far as Syria goes now, the wise folk in Europe sitting back in their ivy-covered halls of the International Criminal Court can feel good about doing really nothing to stop the obscenity that is what is going on in Syria.
Nope, no matter who wins, there will be some bureaucrats, jurists and lawyers in The Hague lining up to prosecute whomever they don’t like for possible war crimes.
Well, I have a message for these people: War is a crime.
No, war is not a crime, nor is it moral. It IS amoral. Moral and immoral things can be done during wars, but by and large war is simply amoral. In reality, it simply is the slaughter of large numbers of people, combatants, non-combatants, civilians and illegal combatants on a large scale, usually on a mass industrial scale using some pretty horrific ways to die.
While wars will have to be fought, at least by those who wish to be free of oppression, the most moral thing that can be done in war is to use, as Pappy told me about getting into a fight, any and all means necessary to bring it to an end. That is the important thing; to get it over as quickly as possible and hopefully with as little blood split (on your side) as possible.
And in war, one must remember that the battle isn’t over until some poor slug of an infantryman is standing over the enemy with his bayonet-tipped rifle pointed at the enemy and saying in no uncertain terms: The battle is over now, you understand.
Unfortunately, Mister Rumsfeld, Mister Cheney and Mister Bush didn’t listen to people like General Shinseki when they told them that and hence here we are still in Afghanistan and spent eight years in Iraq.
Negative campaigning
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/15/democrats-to-romney-stop-whining-over-felony-remark/
This is an election year in America, and that means politicians of every stripe are out there campaigning along with all their supporters. You do know what that means? All hail negative (attacks on your opponents and everything he or she ever did or thought, however irrelevant) campaign tactics.
Presidential campaigns are no different, although this year we seem to be off to a faster start than usual. I guess that is a product of the demise of the smoke-filled rooms of yesteryear. Normally, we wouldn’t know who the candidates would be (other than probably the incumbent) before the party conventions in August.
Still, as marketing gurus and political consultants will tell you going back probably to the dawn of man that saying negative things about your opponent is always effective. In fact, to borrow part of the old cliché, it is American as apple pie.
Actually, a student of American history, particularly its elections and politics, will tell you that things today are relatively calm compared to some of the efforts of days gone by. Still, it doesn’t make it any better or the candidates any better and in fact it still makes candidates look rather ugly. (As my dear wife points out: It makes them look like children on a playground, rather than mature adults).
The sad thing is that you can imply something that obviously isn’t true and get away with it. Especially if your supporters get on the bandwagon and keep hammering away at it.
For example, I don’t care if President Obama’s birth certificate is a fake or not. It doesn’t matter. What matters is whether his policies and plans advance my liberty.
It doesn’t matter whether or not Mr. Romney was the titular head of a venture capital firm out to make a profit 12 years ago or not. What matters is whether his policies and plans protect my rights to life and the pursuit of happiness.
That is what matters on Nov. 6, 2012.
Still, there are those who jump on issues like those and flog them like a dead horse.
I suspect that someone far smarter and better educated than I am could tell you why, but I have my own explanation. We, humans, just like to tear down people, especially people who have the opportunity to wield considerable authority. We could do better, we say with our puffed up chests. Maybe we could, but we aren’t so maybe we should go back in the teapot as Pappy used to say.
The founders were right that the people who cast their votes should be something more than followers. They should be thinkers too. But thinking is work … and we all know our attitude about work or anything that takes any effort: EEEEEEK!!!! Get that away from me, I don’t want to do it.
Of course, not thinking doesn’t do much good for the individual and their liberty, but then we will trade that for the security of knowing someone else is at the wheel, the throttle and the brake. It’s not our fault then. We can always blame someone else when the train wrecks.
But this train wreck will be our fault. People can stop negative campaigning by telling those who do it that they just lost their vote. Enough people do that, and I bet that those who try not to indulge in personal attacks (rather than attacks on issues that really matter) will benefit. That would be nice, and then those people might be more amenable to compromise, which is the life blood of politics and the art of the possible. We can’t have that. Only those pure of heart, or is ideology, need apply.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Islam needs a reformation
http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-arabia-considers-law-against-insulting-islam-153013387.html
The Saudi Arabians are supposedly considering a law against insulting Islam. I have no doubt it will pass.
Is it a good thing? Ask an American if they should pass a law against insulting any religion and most of them will hop up on their soapbox and rattle off something about the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. So, understand, that we Americans come from a tradition that the state doesn’t formally recognize any particular religion or sect and forbids its lawmakers respecting, or favoring, any singular denomination, sect or faith. It has worked pretty good for us so far.
Now, there are those in the US who would like to outlaw various and sundry “fundamentalist” groups, or evangelical groups, or obnoxious groups that go door-to-door seeking to convert you to their particular religion. Others find various sects views to be obnoxious and seek to denigrate them … and probably would issue a “shoot on sight” order if it was left up to them. Such is the case with the religion of Islam.
This, unfortunately, is because many Americans do not understand Islam but sometimes I don’t think a lot of Muslims understand their own religion … but that is ok because a whole lot of Christians don’t understand their own sect/denomination church doctrine.
Still, I have long contended that Islam, like Christianity, definitely needs to undergo a “reformation.” You see, about 500 years ago, the Western version of the Christian Church represented by the Roman Catholic Church, which already had undergone its Shi’a/Sunni split with the Greek Orthodox Church and the Coptic Church even earlier, had a crisis.
It seems this Catholic Priest in Germany by the name of Martin Luther didn’t understand why the Roman Church was doing a lot of the things that it was doing. He listed his questions in the form of 95 statements and nailed them to a church door. Being the clever guy that he was, he also sent them to a local printer and had the document mailed throughout Europe. (That is the quick and easy version of a much more involved story). Anyway, Luther’s challenge to the Holy See in Rome didn’t go over very well and thus started what became known as “The Reformation.”
The Reformation basically was the reexamining of church doctrines but various and sundry literate people who thought deeply about faith, and religion, and theology came up with their own ideas and agendas. As a result, a whole host of protesters of the Roman Catholic way of doing things arose. These people became known generically as “Protestants” although few followed the same dogma.
As a result of the Reformation, the church changed, its relation to the state changed and, surprising enough (after several centuries of warfare) the relation between the various denominations changed to the current relative tolerance of differing views. Heck, modern Christians at least won’t kill you or burn you at the stake if you don’t profess to believe in their particular sect.
The religion of Islam needs to undergo a similar transformation. As it stands now, basically, if you are Sunni, if is off with the heads of Shi’a. If you are Shi’a, its off with the heads of Sunni. If you anybody else, it is off with your head unless you convert … or at least admit you are second class and submit to Islamic rules … your rules be damned. Now, I admit that is a bit extreme in the portrayal of Islam. It does have its softer side, but mostly that only extends to friends of the family and other believers.
Throughout the last 1300 years, Muslims basically have normally given non-Moslems a simple choice: Convert or die. Not always the best way to influence people and win friends, but it does the job rather effectively.
Unfortunately, we are still seeing that dynamic at work with the Jihadis who really don’t like Jews, Christians or anything to do with the semi-secular West that, to them, is the epitome of what immorality looks like.
Now, if we could somehow engineer a “reformation” among the Muslims, without of course the three or four centuries of warfare, and have them arrive at some new vision of Islam that would allow for the other religions of the world to exist without threatening to chop off everybody else’s head, the world would be a much more peaceful place.
But then I remember the Protestants and the Catholics in North Ireland haven’t really reconciled totally yet and my progressive friend out West says he just wants to shoot all the fundamentalist, evangelical, conservative, Bible-inerrancy believing Christians on sight (He gets rabid on the topic in his facebook posts).
Please tell there still is hope somewhere in the world. I so do want to believe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)