|
This
is the archive file of blog posts that I'm not ready to toss.
(I'm kinda anal retentive.) ~ ~ ~ >click< back to this blog >click< to my WDS Weblog >click< to Blog Hawaii >click< to WDS E-Zine Blog >click< Website index page I'm
not a fan of the bureaucracy, especially the political
bureaucracy. I've coined the term, Bureaucratic
Meltdown which suggests that social organizations usually
have a half-life that can be plotted by a bell-shaped curve. After a
short time, the bureaucratic structure begins to break down, eventually
leading to total failure.
This is opposed to the endeavors of an individually-run business, which has the potential of becoming stronger as long as the primary individual remains the prime mover. When individual control is turned over to a corporate structure, it's in danger of taking on the half-life characteristics of a bureaucracy . Examples are WorldCom and ENRON. Because of my Bureaucratic
Meltdown concept, I'm very
uncomfortable with ideas such as the New
World Order, The Wolfowitz
Doctrine (renamed The Bush
Doctrine). These doctrines, I believe, are related. The Bush Doctrine is based on several
classified documents written primarily by Paul Wolfowitz and supported
by such luminaries as George H. W. Bush, Donald
Rumsfeld, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Richard Armitage, and John
Bolton.
A group of neo-conservatives have formed The Project for a New American Century. argue for a stronger U.S. global leadership exercised through military strength. They apparently believe in U.S. aggression and occupation of countries that have the potential of developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). As demonstrated in the Iraq war, President Bush believes unilateral action is preferred over worldwide coalitions, although lately he seems to be backing off from that position. The Bush/Wolfowitz Doctrine accepts the idea that U.S. led democratization of countries will destroy safe harbors for terrorists. Time will tell if that is an accurate judgment. Here
are some examples of news stories scooped by bloggers. The fear that
this trend will continue has major media folks yelping
with pain.
There
was Trent Lott who lost his
position as a Senate leader after making racist comments. This story
was first released by a blogger.
Remember the Dan Rather episode? He used phony records to run a negative story about President Bush's service in the Air National Guard. A blogger nailed it in a heartbeat. Then there was CNNs Eason Jordan who resigned under criticism for alleging that U.S. soldiers had deliberately shot at journalists overseas. And of course there's Jeff Gannon, aka James Guckert. This guy was given coveted access to the White House so he could toss softballs to President Bush. This is a wonderful example of grass roots folks taking control away from a manipulated press. I love it! :-) "We
witnessed genocide last week,'' said California Representative Barbara
Lee. "It
was a human catastrophe that I have never witnessed before in my life.''
Some 1.5 million people have been driven from their homes in western Sudan and thousands have been butchered. Apparently the Khartourm government is responsible for this death and suffering. Why isn't the US--allegedly passionate about human rights--doing more to stop this type of slaughter? Is this going to be another Rwanda? Below is a symptom of the problem that's building within both parities, but it's more pronounced by NeoConservatives, as defined by the Bush Administration. The last truly Conservative president was Dwight D. Eisenhower. As he left office, he made one of the most powerful statements of the 20th century. Here's an Eisenhower quote from his 1961 speech: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." Here's one symptom showing that we have not heeded the Eisenhower warning: Just a few years back, the ratio between the CEO salary and the average salary of employees was thirty to one. Just in the past decade it has increased to six-hundred to one. Eisenhower would have turned over in his grave to know that the Bush/Cheney campaign was heavily funded by ENRON, the most corrupt US corporation in history. It's been said that if we don't learn from our mistakes, we're doomed to repeat them. Lieutenant
General James Mattis of the US Marines Corps made the following
comments during a panel discussion:
"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." The general went on to say, "Actually it's quite fun to fight 'em, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up front with you, I like brawling," I have no problem with these statements. He's talking about war and warriors. War is brutal, often cruel, and fought by soldiers that must have an attitude similar to General Mattis. The battlefield is no place for shrinking violets. It's silly to expect combat-trained warriors to talk like love-sonnet poets. Because of this, however, I do have a problem with war. State-of-the-art technology offers many alternatives to war. When wars do erupt, I blame short-sighted politicians that see war as a viable alternative. Think of the technology that could have been developed from the huge resources expended in Afghanistan and Iraq. Taking Saddam Hussein prisoner (for example) could have been done using uniquely trained special forces with access to 21st century technology. Much of the death and injury on both sides was (and continues to be) unnecessary. Does anyone sincerely believe that the brain-numbing experience of combat, coupled with the training, can simply be switched off when it's time to go home? Should the warrior mentality, once regarded as heroic, suddenly be treated as criminal when it extends into civilian life? Of course, there's a need for warriors, such as General Mattis, but (IMO) only as career soldiers in special forces units. Training regular citizens as short-term warriors is a horrible idea. Most of us gush about how much we honor our soldiers; but if we refuse to acknowledge the warrior mentality, we will continue to set up thousands for ruined lives... those we once regarded as heroes. ...the
neo-conservatives
are claiming a major
victory. I agree that it is a significant victory. It could showcase
Iraq as a model to encourage other middle eastern countries to
over-throw their dictatorships in favor of a democratic form of
government. It could also vindicate the US occupation of Iraq. The
questions I have are as follows:
#1) Did this election victory justify the huge disability and loss of life? Along with that, was it worth the major expense of money and military resources? (Personally, I don't think it was, but whata I know.) #2) Will the election trigger murders (beheadings) committed by the Sunni insurgency? I've been upset by this (and previous) administration's apparent insensitivity when reacting to such cruelty. (I certainly hope this won't be the case, but we'll soon know about that.) #3) Rather than a democracy, will this election trigger a bloody civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites? The US (and the election) supported the Shiites. Will this support turn out to be well founded? See: A Little Iraqi History. Remember, the US once supported Saddam Hussein. Genocide is the mass killing of people justified by such things as ethnicity, religious beliefs, or race. The word was coined in 1944 as a reaction to The Holocaust. Even though it had already happened several times during the first third of the 20th century, it was believed it could never happen again. It's a horrible fact that genocide continues today. We are the only species capable of thinking our way into the practice of genocide, and then justifying the results. Here are some types of thinking used to justify genocide: "They brought it on themselves. Violence (war) is the only way to gain respect. Violence is the only language they understand; They started it. We're good, they're evil. It's not genocide if done by the good. We're peaceful, they're brutal. It's okay for heroes to kill cowards." Here's some genocidal events following The Holocaust. - Cambodia (the killing fields ) 1975 - Guatemala 1982 - Rwanda (800,000 hacked to death in 1994) - Bosnia 1995 Dr.
Moria Gunn (TechNation) interviewed Harvard's Barbara Kellerman
regarding her book Bad
Leadership:
What
It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters. As soon as it's converted to an MP3
file, you'll be able to listen to this important interview at the TechNation link (above).
Kellerman discussed President Bill Clinton's treatment of the worst atrocity since the Nazi Holocaust, e.g., the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. It's ironic, that in most people's minds, Clinton's primary sin was lying under oath. Click the link above and decide which is worse: lying about oral sex or turning a blind eye as 800,000 men, women, and children are hacked to death. As long as I'm trashing much-loved leaders, I might as well suggest you watch this online film: Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & The Selling of American Empire. Wow! This post will offend everyone but Ralph Nader supporters... Oh well... I
just heard, during a Dick Cavett interview, that Johnny Carson did his
university thesis on Jack
Benny -- maybe Cavett meant "dissertation."
Anyway, I found this
bit of insight very interesting. If you read the post below, you'll see
the link to my interest. Please make a comment.
CW
Of
folks I've never met, there
are a few deaths that have left me this sad. I wish
I had a chance to say "thanks" to Johnny Carson. Johnny, of course,
didn't need my thanks, he had the accolades of
millions, but I believe it's good to express one's appreciation to
those that made life a bit more meaningful than it would have been
otherwise.
Johnny gave me many hours of amusement and an occasional belly laugh. He was also a great teacher. In the early 1970s, I studied his monolog style to see if it fit within the triad cognition structure. Carson pulled off the difficult task of making audiences roar with delight using material just a few hours old. Most stand-up comedians have the luxury of breaking in their acts by trying it out with small nightclub audiences. Only after repeated polishing would they risk performing a monolog in "prime time." As a grad student, I transcribed a Carson monolog. I was surprised that the punch lines didn't fit the laughter they evoked. As I watched the Tonight Show and studied additional transcripts, I discovered the audience reaction was based on rhythm and timing more than syntax and semantics. Many skilled comedians structure their monologs in a triad presentation. Carson's genius was his instincts knowing when to break the rhythm to keep the audience off balance. You'll find an abstract of this 1972 paper. Scroll down to Chapter Six: >click< By the way, Johnny Carson, Jack Paar, and Dick Cavett all gave Jack Benny much credit for their style of humor. Here's my short list of famous folks I'm wishing were still around: Jack Benny (1974), Merle Travis (1983), Anita Carter (1999), Chet Atkins (2001), and now Johnny Carson (January 23, 2005). A year ago, the oil link to the war in Iraq was over-discussed. Still, I need to remind myself that Halaburtin (et al.) has been frustrated by the inability to commandeer Iraqi oil. Do you remember when the administration told us that Iraqi oil would cover much of the cost of the war? Keep in mind that Persian Gulf countries represents one quarter of U.S. oil imports. With Saudi Arabia, the total increases to almost 40 percent. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the second largest source of oil in the Middle East at 600,000 daily barrels. It's certainly less now, which may account for the rising gas prices. I don't believe Americans (and others) are fighting and dying in Iraq because President Bush and VP Cheney love Iraqi Muslims. Do you believe the war was a way to provide Iraqis a better life? Has the Iraqi occupation made the US more secure? Is there less terrorism (or fewer terrorists) in the world as a result of the war? Will President Bush convince the world that he is fighting for the freedom of the oppressed? >email<
Comments Perils of computer matching January 20, 2005 Notice
I didn't headline this as "Perils of computer dating." Online
dating is a great use of the cyber world, but it does have its limitations.
Several computer dating services use a sales pitch that promises a "perfect" relationship because of their "comprehensive on-line testing." I believe on-line compatibility testing or screening has the potential of doing more harm than good. Here's why: Here is the inherent problem with programs offered by several heavily advertised computer matching organizations. Customers are led to believe that they can avoid relationship problems by relying on information provided by the program's psychological testing. It's hinted that this screening is more reliable than individual insight and intuition. This leaves one or both individuals in danger of developing a strong fantasy fed by the program's selected information. Clinical psychologists never rely on psychological testing as an end-all for important life decisions. The problem is this fantasy will probably not hold up to the reality that may have been glossed over within pre-packaged testing results. As the fantasy builds, any negatives that are projected on-line may be ignored or denied by the receiving person. If this is the case, when the reality finally hits home after the couple start their in-person relationship, the shock leading to a broken-heart will be more painful than from a relationship formed by a traditional courtship. I suggest rather than forming a premature emotional attachment, rely on computer matching services primarily as an initial screening resource. Depend more on the telephone or instant messenger programs (with voice and webcam systems) as a way to learn about someone that seems interesting. Pay only superficial attention to on-line profiles. Remember, such testing can easily be (and often is) manipulated. In all cases, be very cautious about providing identifying information, and before you meet in person, check the person out thoroughly. For that first "date" choose a location away from your place of residence, such as a coffee shop. For more information along these lines, read this article: >scroll down< >email<
Comments To
the physicist, the word polarity
refers to the flow direction of something like a magnetic field or
electrical current. It may be written as + or - or as north
or
south... in one of two directions. I cockroached the term to use in the
fields of psychology or sociology.
You can do a good job of analyzing something if you use tools such as these. For example, you can often find the truth of something by figuring out which direction (polarity) it's moving. Is it following the upward direction of the bell curve, near the peak, or moving in the downward direction. There are always mini-cycles within a major cycle. Mini-cycles are usually impossible to predict -- not so with major cycles. Here are two specific examples of polarity. The last two innovative movements in the field of law are arbitration and collaboration. Both systems move away from courtrooms, judges, and lawyers. To read a little more about arbitration remember November 29 and then go to my other blog: >click< The second example is with the field of nutrition. Over the past couple of decades, each new Department of Health declaration (which is peer reviewed) places more stress on the complex carbohydrates of fruits and vegetables. In the first example, it's a good guess that the justice system is ripe for reconstruction; in the second, it suggests the best nutritional balance for good health. Yikes! Google is taking over the world January 12, 2005 If
you missed last week's CBS 60-Minutes show profiling Google, here's the link for
the transcript: >click<
It's truly a refreshing story especially in light of the nitwitery
going on with our lovely political bureaucrats.
The difference between the Google power structure and (for example) the US congress and administration is this: Google is made up of extremely bright people in which creative thinking is demanded. The Google organization has no interest in spinning or covering up bad ideas. I doubt if the idea of personal agendas leading to a legacy enters the mind of the three top people at Google. Microsoft's Bill Gates said, "Google kicked our butts!" That's quite an admission considering the brilliance of the Microsoft crew. At first glance the Google homepage appears to be a basic search engine. But there's much more than meets the eye. Beyond the standard search, you can search for news stories, images, products. I have a Google link to search my own website. I also have some links in which Google will notify me when specified news stories arrive anywhere on the internet. The Google team will continue to offer innovative services on a regular basis. I've
found many people feel more comfortable using their own e-mail form to
make comments. If you wish, I will paste your comments to this
location. Be sure to include your blog's URL so I can return your visit.
The internet's personality January 5, 2005 Try this: First find a list of weblogs under the category general. I find it better to copy the blog's URL to NotePad and then re-copy each one to the browser. I try to avoid spending a lot of time reading each blog. I tend to first look at superficial style, i.e., the level of effort put into the design (if not a template). I look for things such as appropriateness and excess vanity. I then look for readability and check out the owner's choice of linked blogs and websites. By looking at my simple design, you could guess that I take off points for a too-fancy presentation, especially when it causes slow loading or navigation problems. I judge readability by how long the writing sticks in my walnut-size brain. Here's a link that will offer a huge list of of general blogs: >click< I've
found many people feel more comfortable using their own e-mail form to
make comments. If you wish, I will paste your comments to this
location. Be sure to include your blog's URL so I can return your visit.
Happy NewYear!
Normally,
I prefer to keep the content in my two weblogs separate, but here's a January 1, 2005
post from my WDS
Weblog you might find useful. Look for Backing-Up
Your Computer. You'll
find a free website building course. >click<
A
necessary part of relationship counseling is pointing out some negative
realities. A disenchanted partner might feel better following this
illustration:
I would put a palm-down hand a few inches above eye level and say "This is the fantasy you probably had about relationships." And then I would drop my hand palm-up to collar level and say "but usually a relationship will settle in at about this level." I would then tell the patient that the space between the top hand and the collar level hand is the image gap. Of course, a wide image gap is more problematic than a narrow image gap. Image Gaps not only bring disappointment, they can cause anger and emotional pain. Image gaps, in fact, can cause relationships to fail unnecessarily. When folks are introduced to the probability of an image gap, it can have sort of an inoculation effect. When things don't measure up to a preconceived fantasy, rather than feeling disappointed and angry, the thought might be "Oh no, here's the ol' image gap." It follows the principle that forewarned is forearmed. I used the word fantasy when referring to romantic relationships, but expectation fits all kinds of situations and goals. Another illustration of an image gap is found within Murphy's Law. This suggests that It's going to be more difficult, take longer, and things will break at the worst possible moment. Of course sometimes things exceed expectations. It's wonderful when that happens! >email<
Comments On
December 26, 2004, an underwater
earthquake, located off the coast of Sumatra and measuring 9 on the
Richter Scale, triggered a tsunami that crashed into the coasts of
Thailand, India, and Sri Lanka. The number of dead (as of January 2005)
has exceeded 150,000. You
should be involved with computers if you want to move within the 21st
century. If you are and this hasn't happened yet, it eventually
will. I'm speaking of a computer failure -- the dreaded computer crash.
Last week, there arrived noises I thought came from a failing hard drive. There were, in fact, hard drive problems, but the sound was a failing CPU fan. This caused over-heating and multiple shutdowns. I suffered through a couple of days of "computer withdrawal" as my hard drive and CPU fan were replaced, but I now have hard drive space up from 30 to 80 gigs -- most of which I'll never use. But darn, during the down-time, I missed several good ranting & raving opportunities. One story I would have written about is the abuse from pharmaceudital companies in collusion with government agencies. This is a collusion in which drugs with dangerous side effects are sold to an unsuspecting public. Even physicians were taken in. Another story was the administration's insensitivity of wartime death and injury. This was reflected by Rumsfeld's arrogant statements about the lack of armor, and then the revelation that he posted phony signatures on letters to the bereaved. It's worth noting that much of that Rumsfeld's stated 200,000 million net worth came from a major pharmaceutical company ( Searle & Co.). It seems to tie together. There
are many reasons that the US should never pull away from regulations of the Geneva
Convention, as is being done by the Bush Administration.
I would hate to see Alberto Gonzales confirmed as the US Attorney General. He wrote in a 2002 memo to President Bush that parts of the Geneva Convention are "obsolete" and "quaint." Over the objections of Colin Powell, Gonzales suggested the US need not adhere to the Geneva Convention. If the US feels it is not regulated by the Geneva Convention in the treatment of Iraqi insurgents and suspected al-Qaeda terrorists, if follows that captured US and allied prisoners will be treated much worse. By lifting the only rules of (so called) wartime humanity, suffering and cruelty will escalate on both sides. Another reason: Some Sunni insurgents might give up without a "fight to the death" if they believed there was humane prisoner treatment. Please keep in mind that the Geneva Convention was designed to protect all combat personal. I
just heard a news brief. Senator John McCain, it said, had no
confidence in Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Here is an excerpt: Senator John McCain, appearing on Fox News Sunday, indicated that he wished Don Rumsfeld's term as Secretary of Defense had not been extended. The Fox reporter noted that "that doesn't seem like a vote of confidence." McCain replied, "Sadly, no." As a loyal Republican, McCain backed Bush during the election, but clearly he had serious reservations. Since the election, McCain has made a number of critical comments regarding the Bush administration. Even during the campaign, it was clear that McCain had little faith in Bush, but (if I had to guess) it was an issue of political survival. McCain represents Barry Goldwater's state. That makes two great senators produced by Arizona. I've
found many people feel more comfortable using their own e-mail form to
make comments. If you wish, I will paste your comments to this
location. Be sure to include your blog's URL so I can return your visit.
I
just heard that the number of injured soldiers in Iraq has passed
10,000. This is a ten-to-one/wound-to-death ratio. Because of
protective devices, rapid transport, and advanced surgical techniques,
there are fewer
deaths in ratio to wounds than in any other war, including Vietnam. Is this
a good thing or a bad thing?
Looking at this ten-to-one/wound-to-death ratio, it's clear that this war is far more violent than we have been led to believe. To make matters worse, most of these injuries have a disabling and, many times, a life-threatening outcome. It's horrible for a family to have a son, daughter, husband, or wife to return in a body bag, but it's almost as horrible to have a loved-one come home with arms or legs blown off. And I'm not even mentioning the thousands of combat-induced mental scars from which pain will radiate for decades. We won't see much of this type of disability until after Bush, Rumsfeld, et al. are enjoying an opulent retirement If you can rationalize all of this, how about the huge (and long-term) medical cost of taking care of thousands of disabled veterans? When Rumsfeld is confronted with the human cost of war, he comes up with excuses such as, "War is a messy business." When confronted with the lack of armor plating on vehicles leading to many injuries, he said "We go to war with the army we have, not the one we wish we had." Are you satisfied with Secretary Rumsfeld's slogans? ...they don't work for me. I wish politicians would support 21st century alternatives to protect all innocent people from terrorism. For some, fighting a war must seem like a spectator sport. Otherwise, why would they ignore technology that could offer better (and cheaper) solutions? ...as opposed to dropping bombs and putting young people in a guerilla warfare environment. Holysmokes!
Christmas? One of the things I hate about blogging is it really brings
home how fast time flies by... for example, I got involved with other
things, and now I see that a looooong week has passed without a post. I
think I did a little better at my other blog.
And while I'm in a whining mode ... it's easy to see why cyber-folks become paranoid. I do some ebay marketing and yesterday I got a an ebay hoax that was disturbing. It said my ebay account was canceled, hinted I was unethical, etc. The source code confirmed a hoax, but still, it gave me a couple of bad moments. According to the ebay people, I got a hoax that was sent out in mass. Those that do this kind of mischief are nothing more than cyber-brats. Maybe they're not children, but they certainly have the dark side of a 12 year-old mentality with too much free time. Maybe I'll get the Christmas spirit by the next post. A
nice thing about living in Hawaii. You don't need to spend money for a
pet. All you need to do is buy some cheap cat food and when you see a
stray, put out some food and water. It's particularly helpful when a
cat enjoys pooping near your door. Unlike humans, cats won't poop where
they eat so they will then poop near your neighbor's door. Soon your
sponsored cat will start looking healthy and happy... they might even
learn to like you.
>email<
CommentsI named my cat Shitforbrains, which I understand is latin for "cat." I hope you had
a great Thanksgiving.
I'm
finishing a re-write of my Australopithecine
Diet eBook. Part of the
motivation was the recent cover of the journal Nature with the "new discovery" that ancient
hominid survival had a lot to do with running.
See my take on this issue by going to my other weblog: >click< Once there, scroll down to the November 18 post. The
people of Iraq are 70% Arabs, with Kurds (25%) living in the north.
There are over 23,000,000 that claim Islam (Muslim) as their religion. Of the Muslims, the majority are Shi'is
(Shiite)
with Sunnis in the minority.
The Shi'is, however, constitute an even greater majority in the south. There is a growing power struggle between Sunnis and Shiite. Ironically, the Sunnis were in power under Saddam Hussein, but the US occupation has destabilized their power base. If there is an election, because of their greater numbers, the Shi'is will gain control. This has Sunni insurgents fighting for their very lives. With this in mind, it's easy to understand why the Sunni's hate the American (and allied) troops. It appears to me that neither of these two groups is much interested in a democracy. If this is correct, the war in Iraq can never be won. Many of those that understand the cultural struggles in Iraq believe that when US troops pull out there will be a bloody civil war dominated by the Shiites. If this happens, the Sunni and Kurdish people could fall victim to a horrible genocide. Reference: http://i-cias.com/e.o/iraq_4.htm In
my last post (Views
With Substance) I
offered a link to the views of a well-respected Liberal. This time (for
balance) I'm offering an over-the-top Conservative.
This
author has impressive credentials but his stuff is too conspiratorial for me.
Still, it makes great reading because of the quantity of seemingly
factual information -- his conclusions, however, are a bit of a
stretch. Here is Joel Kousen's website. http://www.joelskousen.com
I
really enjoy listening to the talk-radio guys, both Conservative and
Liberal. But if you form a political philosophy with the help of
someone controlled by demographics and commercial sponsorship, I
suggest you're in danger of being misled.
Rush Limbaugh, for example, by illegally using drugs, mortgaged his freedom with the US Justice Department. He faces the possibility of a mandatory five-year sentence that can be overturned only by a presidential pardon. Do you think this influences his political views? Al Franken (Air America) will succeed depending on the number of stations that pick up his show. This, in turn, depends on sponsors that like the format and the demographics. He must pander to the Liberal cause no matter what. I don't believe we can any longer learn much by listening to politicians, especially those in office. They must pander to their constituency and their official agenda with views clouded by the 30-second sound byte and related spin. Since the passing of Goldwater and Reagan, older Conservatives (as opposed to NeoConservatives) have few feet to sit at. Robert Ringer opted out of the political arena suggested by his book title: How You Can Find Happiness During the Collapse of Western Civilization. (available at Amazon.com). I guess my favorite of the older Conservatives is Walter E. Williams. LIberals are fortunate. They have wonderful spokes-people such as Sister Joan Chittister. Sister Joan is a social psychologist and communications theorist with a doctorate from Penn State University. She is a best selling author and a regular columnist for the National Catholic Reporter. When
political philosophies are the issue, I think it's important to think
deductively (from data to belief). Inductive thinking (from belief to
selected data) is required with issues such as religion, morals, and
family, but political ideologies, can change drastically depending on
the people in power. To be fully informed (rather than manipulated) you
must constantly analyze new data.
My Conservative model was defined by Barry Goldwater, and his book, The Conscious of a Conservative. I added to my conservative views after reading Robert Ringer's book, Restoring the American Dream. Ringer's book exemplified the Libertarian view. President Bush is driven by a NeoConservative philosophy espoused by his father in the New World Order concept. This view is at odds with Goldwater Conservatism in at least a couple of respects. The NeoConservative disregards the need for fiscal restraint (as in no deficit). Beyond defense, they see no need for worldwide intervention. This especially includes occupation and nation building. A few years before his death, Goldwater stated his disapproval of the Bush (41) philosophy by stating publicly that he supported President Bill Clinton. Carl Weisbrod >email<
Comments
In
1880, the first year they kept a record, one in thirty people got
cancer. Today it's one out of every two. Of the people that get cancer,
one out of every five will die from it. Cancer is the most feared of
all diseases but not the #1 killer in America; it is #2. Heart Disease
is #1. Of the people who get heart disease, one out of two will die
from it. Iatrogenics
(Doctor and
Hospital-caused death) is #3 (According to JAMA, the Journal of the
American Medical Association,
July 26, 2000). Diabetes is #4. Of the people who get diabetes, one out
of seven will die from it.
Here's the source: >click< The Election is Over November 4, 2004 It
was not fun watching a presidential election that was too much based on
emotions and preset beliefs. I don't think President Bush did a good
job during his first term. The Iraq situation and the Bush fiscal
policy are both disasters.
Carl WeisbrodWhat about John Kerry? Although a superb debater, he seemed unable to manage his own campaign--how well could he do at managing a country? Neither of these men have the qualifications required for life & death cultural decisions and complex economic issues. >email<
Comments
The
two-value focus has trapped our leaders in a problematic inductive
thinking process.
The conservative hawks talk of a scorched earth military action. The liberal doves, on the other hand, resist prosecuting a war under most conditions. With such a dichotomy, what happens? George Bush, in Iraq, took some initial hawkish measures, but then backed off. I don't believe most non-military leaders have the stomach to carry out a military action to its scorched earth conclusion. By default, weak leaders end up with a third alternative, which is to straddle the fence. The end result is they may take thousands of lives by dropping bombs, but shrink back fearing negative public opinion should we lose too many troops. So, as voters, what are are choices? Do we want to pull back within our borders and spend 100% of our resources protecting the interior of our country? Or, for anyone that would do us harm, do we want to quickly crush them where they live? In the next election cycle, If you're a conservative hawk, I suggest placing support behind a military-trained candidate. If you're a liberal dove, you need someone with extensive high-tech knowledge, and well trained in both economics and cultural anthropology. Unfortunately, no matter who is elected tomorrow (Nov. 2), we will end up with neither. A
study published in medical journal, The
Lancet, sheds light on
Iraqi civilian deaths.
After the US invasion of Iraq, the civilian death rate increased by 95%. The major causes of death before the US invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders. After the invasion, the major cause of death was a result of air strikes by coalition forces. The victims were primarily women and children. The total number deaths during this invasion period were estimated in the range of 100,000. Here's the reference: >click< Since
my October
27 post, I've skimmed Rumsfeld's
War. This is a pro-Rumsfeld book discussing infighting
between the Pentagon Generals and administration officials that
apparently operate under the principle that loss of life is not as
important as being in control.
With such a flawed modus operandi, how can we respect the Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz team? I do have limited respect for some of the Pentagon generals and Colin Powell who at least attempted to tell congress and the administration the truth. Without regard to my criticism, it was written that Donald Rumsfeld came into office with a goal to scale the military down into an elite force focusing on professional units such as the Green Berets and SEALs. He wanted a minimum number of superbly trained forces with a heavy reliance on cutting-edge technology. Of course, Rumsfeld's plan would face huge opposition from the Pentagon. Political infighting, and the rush to go to war in Iraq, killed ideas of any such restructuring. So we have instead a hugely expensive, politically motivated war that will probably cause more problems that it will solve. I wonder how a team like Rumsfeld and Powell would handle the presidency. They hate each other, so it's only idle speculation. I
received some information (in the 1970s) directly from (at the time) young men that had been talked into
a Special Forces assignment with a 4 or 6 year commitment.
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/vietnam/90-23/90-231.htmBack then, Special Forces were secret units as established by President Kennedy in about 1961. They were then disbanded by the Pentagon and President Johnson shortly after Kennedy's death in 1962. A 1960s college roommate provided some bits of information after the Army sent him to the Alameda Language School. This friend had an extraordinary IQ, was a quick study, and had an independent nature. He had a talent to learn languages very fast. I understood these were traits sought out for Special Forces candidates. I have another friend that verified this. In the early 1960s, he did his airborne training with special forces units. In the mid-1970s, I had a couple of patients that had been in Kennedy-era Special Forces. Both of these people were very well educated, and in many ways didn't fit the mold of a soldier. I had them in therapy for LSD flashbacks. They claimed this was caused by Army experiments done for the purpose of speed learning and information gathering. The long-term side-effects of LSD and other psychoactive drugs were unknown at the time. I was told that a Special Forces soldier would learn to speak like a native, learn the culture, and then function independently to infiltrate a hot spot. At the time, I took these stories with "a grain of salt." As the story was told to me, the fact that they were expected to function pretty much independently, caused them to be viewed with dislike by the Pentagon Generals. Apparently, this was part of the motivation for the disbandment of these units under President Johnson. Of course, the Hollywood dramatization of special forces agents was Ian Flemming's James Bond series. Doing a brief Google search, I couldn't find much information. Here's one link, if you would like to explore the the early 1960s training of Special Forces Units. I can't help but wonder if this style of military action was reinstated, would we need to sacrifice thousands of innocent victims just to capture a couple of dictators and religious fanatics? Wouldn't it be wonderful if the horrible beheadings could be stopped. At
the beginnings of the war in Afghanistan, there were eight young people
kidnapped and threatened with death. The Bush people did nothing to
rescue them. It was the Northern Alliance that found them and turned
them over to American soldiers. It's no surprise then, that the Bush
leadership is unable to build a special forces unit to root out Osama
bin Laden.
Another case in point: Remember the teenage female soldier that was rescued only with the help of an Iraqi citizen? I don't think the US would have found Saddam Hussein had it not been for a huge bounty that was placed on his head. I blame Bush for not training elite special forces to handle such capture and rescue jobs. Don't tell me it's not possible. Now, for godsakes, we have the most cruel acts imaginable: televised beheadings! It appears an innocent 60 year old women is next in line... and all the while, Tony Blair wrings his hands, and for Bush and Kerry, it doesn't seem worth a mention. Could it be that neither Bush nor Kerry care about these atrocities? Perhaps they believe such cruel acts add to their support base. If the British or US can't stop televised beheadings, how can anyone expect them to orchestrate a victory within an entire country? None of this, in my opinion, is the fault of the military. The blame ends at the very top. Geeeez!
Someone picking up on my Iraq anti-war position called me a coward.
Maybe he's right, but how would I know if I'm brave or not without
being placed (as politicians put it) in "harms way" ...I just hate
euphemisms.
It seems about half of the voting population is in favor of the war in Iraq. The argument is that it's better to fight on Iraqi soil than fight terrorism over here. I guess that means those in favor of the war would rather have young soldiers dying in Iraq rather than be at risk of dying themselves on US soil. Is that a definition of bravery? Would you like to fantasize a paradigm shift? Imagine the "rethinking" that would go on if the kids under 30 were brought home and replaced with the pro-war crowd over 30. It's easy to be brave watching the war on television. I'm sure (knowing it would never happen) a lot of them would say, "I'd go in a minute!" Yeah, right. :) Keep in mind, our president used his daddy's influence to be assigned to an old airplane that would never be deployed to Vietnam. And the guy that wants to replace him, after only four months under fire, searched his body for scratches or scrapes so he could get the hell out of Vietnam. If it was a requirement for the job, would either of these candidates, be willing to spend a year "in harms way?" I think not! But it's fun to think about. Yes, I believe there is at least one universal law. I believe without reservation that there is no justification for cruelty in any form. Those that are cruel do not deserve to share space with the rest of us. What if someone murders your child? I believe if you catch someone in the act of murder or rape, you have every right to shoot them dead. That's not cruel, but justifiable defense. I would hope if you are ever required to do such a thing, you wouldn't find the process enjoyable, but done only as an act of protecting potential victims from murder or rape. A borderline issue is the death penalty. I don't like the idea of giving a flawed bureaucracy a license to kill, especially in the orchestrated manner in which it is done. I believe however that most death row inmates should be forever isolated from potential victims. With the present system, this is not always accomplished. We have seen flaws in the justice system on both sides of this issue -- innocent people are sometimes put to death and the guilty often escape punishment. I have no objections to a police officer shooting someone in the commission of a crime. I believe citizens have every right to be armed until they abuse that right. A more logical method of dealing with cruel people is banishment. Modern technology has progressed to the point that secure and low-cost isolation -- logically on an island -- is possible using some kind of implanted devise. There would be no necessity of expensive infrastructure or guard personnel with such a system. The only purpose for banishment would be the protection of potential victims from those that have the potential for significant cruelty. With present technology, rehabilitation of ingrained cruel behavior is unlikely, and punishment has little social value -- the evidence is pretty clear on these two points. When I discuss politics, I'm not reacting to liberal vs conservative, but rather a significant amount of unacceptable and cruel behavior that is condoned by both sides. I also object to the blatant manipulation of voters. This manipulation is so transparent that one would expect it to be accepted only by the dull-witted. Obviously this is not the case. Voters seem conditioned to view elections almost as sports events, rather than applying the serious attention it deserves -- it's the good guys vs the bad guys. This is reflected in the low turnout of voters. So I'm going on record with the following predictions: If Bush is again elected, the Iraq war will drag on and there will be more thousands of innocent victims. On the domestic scene, we will see little semblance of fiscal responsibility. If Kerry is elected the Iraq war will drag on and there will be more thousands of innocent victims. On the domestic scene, we will see little semblance of fiscal responsibility. Carl Weisbrod >email<
Comments
I
heard an interview with the
producer of Fahrenhype 9/11. I think he considered
his film an answer to Michael Moore's Fahrenheit
9/11.
From the interview, I got the idea that Fahrenhype 9/11 was based on President Bush's deep spiritual belief. Along with George Bush's "born-again" assertion, I picked up on a religious focus from his early description of an Iraq occupation as a crusade. I did some research. I found a Bush interest in Old Testament Prophecy (The Book of Isaiah) as interpreted by Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. On the other side, it's certainly a fact that the enemy has a religious base driving their aggression and cruelty. Fahrenhype 9/11's film maker seemed to be a spiritually orientated person, although he claimed his film was secular. In the interview, he suggested Moore was a self-serving and non spiritual person, while George Bush was a deeply religious man who found guidance though prayer. I don't consider myself a shrinking violet, and yet I can't imagine ordering young people to endure the horrible dangers of a desert war. How could anyone order bombs dropped knowing that innocent people would be killed? I can't find justification for innocent people being beheaded using the excuse: "The US doesn't negotiate with terrorists." Reference. I think many people feel it's better to fight terrorism in the terrorist's own country before we must fight it within our borders. I would agree with that only if it didn't result in thousands of innocent deaths. I believe there is no justification for cruelty. Carl Weisbrod >email<
Comments
What was
learned? I believe the debates verified what we knew or should have
known. That is, both candidates are selected, not by qualifications,
but by special interests and as standard barriers for their respective
party. From a historical perspective, I don't feel we have been well
served by either the Republican or Democratic party.
So, we voters are getting what we've paid for--two attractive males that will follow party lines and the dictates of their special interest supporters. The thing that bothered me the most was the sameness of their arguments, and the obvious memorization of scripted positions. It's clear that neither of these two guys have original ideas. That's not too surprising. Albert Einstein said something like Those that caused the problem are not good choices to solve the problem. The one original idea that surfaced over the past four years was George Bush's belief that it was preordained for him to wage war on Iraq. I think the Cheney influence was motivated by oil, but Bush, I think, thought of the Iraq war as a religious imperative. No matter which of these two men become president, I think the Iraq war will be extremely difficult to exit. Note that neither candidate articulated a clear exit strategy. I think that's because there isn't one. And the end result will be a continued loss of life and resources. I think the LIbertarian guy has it right when he said (paraphrased by me) the best policy is to get the hell out of Iraq ASAP. >email<
Comments
Both
Bush and Kerry have become
superb debaters. This was displayed at the Oct. 8th debate. I admired
the talent and command of a huge amount of information of both
President Bush and Senator Kerry.
Carl WeisbrodBut, in one respect, this is part of the problem. We, as voters, are making decisions for the most important job on earth based on little more than debating talent. I think it's a serious problem when, like sheep, we are stampeded into making a decision on two pre-selected people. I think two-value systems are seldom efficient. Here's a symptom. Two possible third choices, the Green and Libertarian party candidates showed up at the debate and were promptly arrested.. Check out this link. >click< >email<
Comments
Have you noticed that following any major
political event, such as the recent debates, the network talking heads grudgingly mention the
consensus of the blogs.
I used the term grudgingly, because TV news has utter contempt for the rise of grassroots blogging networks. They fear that the weblog will soon replace network news--with its 30-second sound bytes--from which voters have depended to make political decisions. The blog is a place you can read an anti or pro Bush opinion, and a minute later, read an anti or pro Kerry opinion. This was pretty much impossible before the blog. Click the August 20th article in which I discussed the power of the political blog. Here's the >fastscroll< link. I'm not sure the following blog links are balanced between Bush and Kerry ...I haven't had a chance to review them thoroughly. I'm relying on the Forbs editors. But at least it's a place to start. Forbes.com rated the following political Blogs (as the top-five) based on the following criteria: Presentation, Quality, Relevance, and Reputation. Here's the results. ElectraBlog http://www.electablog.com Wonkette! www.wonkette.com Decembrist www.markschmitt.typepad.com CitizenSmash www.lt-smash.us PoliBlog www.poliblogger.com An addition. As I suspected, the above blogs are slanted either to the left, or motivated by Goldwater Conservatives (like me) that are disappointed by the Bush/Cheney administration's non-interest in fiscal restraint, coupled with an intense interest in nation building, i.e., The New World Order. My position is that favoring Bush or Kerry is like deciding on "Historical Nice Guy of the Year" when the choices are Attila the Hun and Svengali. We have a spoiled brat that has a history of screwing up everything that has been handed to him, and an opportunist that exploited a four-month combat record, and took advantage of the wealth belonging to the women he married. Without regard to that, to balance things out, here's the link for the official George W. Bush blog. www.georgewbush.com/blog >email<
Comments
Here's some
very significant news that has been (I believe) covered up.
Army Says Reservists Failed to Report on Time By Robert Burns, AP "Army officials said Friday that 622 people, about one-third of the 1,765 Individual Ready Reserve members who were supposed to report for duty by Sept. 28, failed to show up. Some requested more time. Others wanted to be excused entirely. Some have not responded at all." What does this mean? The Army soft-pedaled this news, but it certainly seems serious to me. If the already shrinking soldier pool will be decreasing exponentially due to large numbers that will refuse to serve, what will be the end result? Here's the link to that article. >click< >email<
Comments
|