Though brutal, I like this guy's style. The basic premise is excellent. Source
Thoughts On The Firestorm Over Iraq
It's artificial.
By this I mean there was no seismic change in the circumstance in Iraq. Incrementally most say it has gotten worse, but worse in a specific way: sectarian violence has increased. There has been an increase in US combat deaths, but such rises and declines in combat intensity has been largely cyclical; there may be some reason to fear that it will only get worse from here, but there is also good reason -- the whole history of the war -- to suspect it will abate. And then, later, increase in intensity again.
The sudden determination -- now the Conventional Wisdom, according to the media -- that everything has gone to hell and that we must get out immediately if not sooner is almost entirely a creation of the Democratic victory in November, and the media's consequent emboldment to say clearly and forcefully the things they've been thinking since, oh, before the war began, and since the one-day "quagmire" in the actual invasion when our troops had to stop moving due to sandstorms.
It's not real. There was no genuine "Iraqi Tet," and even to the extent there was something of an Iraqi Tet, we know something about Tet offensives: they're designed not to achieve military victories, but public opinion victories in America.
The Sunnis cannot win this war. They are greatly outnumbered. The best they can hope for is... well, to be slaughtered en masse and ethnically clensed from all Kurdish or Shi'ite strongholds. And make no mistake: That is the inevitable consequence of an American withdrawal. The odd truth of this war is that Sunnis are fighting their greatest protector, the American military, which will not permit slaughter on a mass scale, even against the Sunnis, who pretty much deserve it by this point.
With the American forces departed, the restraints come off the Shi'ites entirely. What, precisely, will all those militias do when they no longer have American patrols to dodge, or American soldiers to snipe at?
Of course the full force and fury of decades of hatred and desire for vengeance will be visited upon Sunni men, women, and children. What we are seeing as far as "sectarian violence" now is nothing compared to what will transpire when the moderating force of American troops is removed from the equation.
If you want to talk to realism -- let's talk realism. Cold-blooded, heartless, amoral utilitarian realism. Rule by men with guns is not a "lawless" situation. It's in fact the oldest, and most primitive, sort of "law" there is -- law by superior numbers and superior military might. The Sunnis cannot win this war; their plan, to the extent they have one, is to make the country so unstable that some outside force such as -- if you can believe this pipe-dream -- America itself will come to see them as the only group capable of ruling the fractured, fratricidal country of Iraq and reinstall them as masters of the country.
That, of course, will not happen. The Sunnis will never control Iraq again; the best they can hope for is the success of the American plan to create a stable, peaceful, power-sharing and federalist Iraq in which they have, yes, a disproportionate amount of power, but not the total control they once had.
That's their best option. The other option -- the one they may finally have brought to fruition -- is to have no power at all, and to be driven out of the cities into the barren (and oil-free) wastelands of the western deserts, to live out their lives in misery and privation, and to occasionally have these sad lives cut short by Shi'ite gangs raiding villages and killing them by the dozens.
It's time to use that fact to our advantage. It's time to get "realistic." And the realistic way to settle this is to announce -- couched in diplomatic language that makes it seem less vicious than it actually is -- that unless the Sunnis disarm immediately, and before the Shi'ite militas do, the US can no longer justify the cost in lives to protect the Sunnis from Shi'ite militas. Compliant Sunni areas that give up or drive out their Al Qaeda or Ba'athists terrorists will have US/coaltion garrisons to defend them, and vigorous patrolling to protect them from murder.
Areas which do not comply will be left to the tender mercies of the law of superior firepower.
That will remain, hopefully, a threat and a threat only, and we can hold out some optimism the Sunnis will come to their senses and accept the best possible outcome of this war -- a life in which they have some substantial power in the country, a good chunk of the oil revenues, and peace for themselves and their children.
But if they do not accept the terms of their defeat -- then we ought to stop attempting to disarm the Shi'ite militias, and let them do as the please.
Except for those Shi'ite militiamen who attack US forces, of course. Those should be wiped out mercilessly.
The warplan should be the opposite of that suggested by Baker. Baker claims we must stop making fighting Al Qaeda the priority, and instead seek peace. That's quite wrong. We should refocus on killing Al Qaeda and Shi'ite militiamen who attack US troops, and let peace seek itself, through the brutal methods by which peace is usually ultimately had.
The word "pacify" has a nice connotation, suggesting coddling a baby by giving it warm milk to suckle on. In historical reality, populations are "pacified" through extremely brutal, dirty, and nasty means, killed, raped, butchered, and driven out of their homelands until they ultimately lose all hope of military victory and all desire to fight.
So let the Sunnis be pacified. As the Shi'ites and Kurds may wish. The US will change its mission to hunting Al Qaeda and the like, and offer protection only for those populations willing to support it, where US troops can patrol in almost total safety from attacks by the locals.
In any area where the US is not so welcome by the locals, then they have chosen the manner by which their dispute shall be settled, and such disputes are never settled happily. One side is simply killled and brutalized so badly they're no longer capable of fighting at all.
Let that be the victory in Iraq.
That's "realism." And that's the sort of "realism" I would have greeted from the Baker report.
Kill those who attack Americans or the Iraqi government forces. But if Shi'ite militas want some payback against the Sunnis who have been murdering them for decades now -- well, sure, we'd like to see less murder and mayhem, but we're past the point of caring very much about that.
It was perfectly inevitable that the Shi'ites would ultimately start visiting their own rough justice on the Sunnis -- what did the Sunnis imagine would happen after the hundredth bombing and thousandth murder? That's how wars go. Yes, there is a cycle of violence -- until that cycle is broken. Not by treaties or diplomacy; those are incidental, formalities observed after the cycle ends.
The cycle of violence ends when so much violence is inflicted on one oppponent or both that one or both sues for peace. War ends when one or both sides can no longer stomach seeing their children killed.
That's realism.
Instead we have a lot of happy talk about getting Syria and Iran to reverse their clearly-expressed policy goals and overriding national interests in order to "help" us in Iraq.
And since we're talking about Baker's destroy-Iraq-get-Israel-free fire-sale -- we should note the incredible forebearance Israel has shown in not simply attacking the Palestinians according to the same rules of war the Palestinians show them, i.e., none. Reduce three or four large Palestinian cities to the ground, killing thousands and dispacing a hundred thousand, and you'd find "peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict" could be reached in fairly short order.
If there is a civil war, then let there be a civil war, with the US only stepping in to fight terrorists of global reach and those who specifically target Americans. If there must be a bloodbath, then let there be a bloodbath, and let the US take a more active role in rebuilding the country when enough people have been killed that those who survive are actually interested in rebuilding, and peace.
But enough of this media-confabulated rush to the exits. The American people voted the Republicans out in November, but they are not clearly in favor of losing this war. Republicans lost because they were perceived as not winning the war. If the country wanted defeat and surrender that badly, it could just as easily kept the old Republican guard in place. They were doing a fair job at it.
posted by Ace at 06:00 PM
12/07/2006
11/18/2006
A very well-thought out piece on the Iraq War
I think this guy has some valid points. You just need to ignore his fairly standard Bush-bashing comments and get to the meat of the arguments.
Source
After being thoroughly thumped by the voters, and struggling to keep his poll numbers above 30%, George Bush heads to Vietnam, a country whose war he avoided (checked the "no" box when asked if he would volunteer for overseas duty), and, more tragically, whose lessons he did not learn. The idea that a Vietnam-era no-show would even utter the word "quit" and use that war to cheerlead continued loss of US life, limbs and treasure without being excoriated by the press is intolerable.
Daddy may have kept him from Vietnam, rescued him from his failed company while his co-investors lost, enrolled him at Yale and then Harvard Business School, provided the basis for his participation with the Texas Rangers, but even Daddy's friends, it seems, cannot teach George anything worthwhile about history.
The parallels between Vietnam and Iraq have been addressed. Several key points deserve comment.
Proponents of the Iraq War try to distinguish Vietnam by asserting that, in that war, our losing would not have increased the danger of attacks inside the United States whereas with Iraq, they assert, such an exigency is likely if we withdraw. This is John McCain's major argument for raising troop levels. How quickly they forget. At the time of Vietnam, the official line was that we were threatened by the "red menace", and that we needed to fight them in Saigon to keep us from having to fight them in San Francisco. Sound familiar?
One of the arguments made by Vietnam War opponents was that our military action actually accomplished precisely the opposite of what supporters asserted was the major rationale for the war. Vietnam, supporters said, was a client state for China (that we called "Red China") and the Soviet Union, and so the war was a major theater in the struggle against Communism. Ho Chi Minh was, indeed, a communist. But, he was first and foremost a nationalist, who fought the French, the Japanese, the French again and then the United States. In fact, Vietnam had an historical enmity to China, an observation confirmed by the border war with China that started shortly after the United States exited Vietnam. During the war, we drove Ho Chi Minh into the arms of China, accomplishing precisely the opposite of what we claimed were our key aims. We also succeeded in destabilizing Cambodia, leading to the ascension of the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge, and then the conquest by Vietnam, turning the "domino theory" into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Similarly, fighting in Iraq is somehow to reduce the worldwide terrorist threat. Like the Vietnam strategy, however,the Iraq War is accomplishing precisely the opposite. Not only is Iraq the major recruiter for more terrorists, with another grievance against western boots on muslim soil and the feeling of humiliation arising from powerlessness, but its course can hardly be convincing to neighboring states to move toward democracy. [Where the idea that creating a democracy in the middle east would set off regional democratization came from is puzzling. Turkey became a western style democracy in the 1920s, and Lebanon was a democracy of sorts prior to the civil war: neither had any impact on the other countries in their vicinity.]
Like Vietnam, the Iraq war weakens the United States and emboldens its enemies. Daddy kept George Bush from experiencing the Vietnam quagmire. Daddy's minions will not rescue us from the Iraqi quicksand into which he, stupidly, arrogantly, led us. Now he dares deceive us again by lying about the lessons of Vietnam.
There are some exaggerations, but his arguments are some of the most reasonable I've seen. I DESPISE rabid Bush-haters and super-liberal conspiracy theorists. This author is a good example of how we should address politics, with civility and intelligence, not hysteria, paranoia and hatred.
Source
After being thoroughly thumped by the voters, and struggling to keep his poll numbers above 30%, George Bush heads to Vietnam, a country whose war he avoided (checked the "no" box when asked if he would volunteer for overseas duty), and, more tragically, whose lessons he did not learn. The idea that a Vietnam-era no-show would even utter the word "quit" and use that war to cheerlead continued loss of US life, limbs and treasure without being excoriated by the press is intolerable.
Daddy may have kept him from Vietnam, rescued him from his failed company while his co-investors lost, enrolled him at Yale and then Harvard Business School, provided the basis for his participation with the Texas Rangers, but even Daddy's friends, it seems, cannot teach George anything worthwhile about history.
The parallels between Vietnam and Iraq have been addressed. Several key points deserve comment.
Proponents of the Iraq War try to distinguish Vietnam by asserting that, in that war, our losing would not have increased the danger of attacks inside the United States whereas with Iraq, they assert, such an exigency is likely if we withdraw. This is John McCain's major argument for raising troop levels. How quickly they forget. At the time of Vietnam, the official line was that we were threatened by the "red menace", and that we needed to fight them in Saigon to keep us from having to fight them in San Francisco. Sound familiar?
One of the arguments made by Vietnam War opponents was that our military action actually accomplished precisely the opposite of what supporters asserted was the major rationale for the war. Vietnam, supporters said, was a client state for China (that we called "Red China") and the Soviet Union, and so the war was a major theater in the struggle against Communism. Ho Chi Minh was, indeed, a communist. But, he was first and foremost a nationalist, who fought the French, the Japanese, the French again and then the United States. In fact, Vietnam had an historical enmity to China, an observation confirmed by the border war with China that started shortly after the United States exited Vietnam. During the war, we drove Ho Chi Minh into the arms of China, accomplishing precisely the opposite of what we claimed were our key aims. We also succeeded in destabilizing Cambodia, leading to the ascension of the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge, and then the conquest by Vietnam, turning the "domino theory" into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Similarly, fighting in Iraq is somehow to reduce the worldwide terrorist threat. Like the Vietnam strategy, however,the Iraq War is accomplishing precisely the opposite. Not only is Iraq the major recruiter for more terrorists, with another grievance against western boots on muslim soil and the feeling of humiliation arising from powerlessness, but its course can hardly be convincing to neighboring states to move toward democracy. [Where the idea that creating a democracy in the middle east would set off regional democratization came from is puzzling. Turkey became a western style democracy in the 1920s, and Lebanon was a democracy of sorts prior to the civil war: neither had any impact on the other countries in their vicinity.]
Like Vietnam, the Iraq war weakens the United States and emboldens its enemies. Daddy kept George Bush from experiencing the Vietnam quagmire. Daddy's minions will not rescue us from the Iraqi quicksand into which he, stupidly, arrogantly, led us. Now he dares deceive us again by lying about the lessons of Vietnam.
There are some exaggerations, but his arguments are some of the most reasonable I've seen. I DESPISE rabid Bush-haters and super-liberal conspiracy theorists. This author is a good example of how we should address politics, with civility and intelligence, not hysteria, paranoia and hatred.
11/16/2006
Kid Gets Tased at UCLA
Watch the video first.
Now, read some articles. Like this one, and this one, and this one.
Informed? Good.
Opinions? Post comments, I'm dying to hear what you think.
Here's my take:
Cries of police brutality are absolutely ridiculous. Nothing I see in that video tells me that kid is being at all cooperative. He's on the ground, shouting obscenities and being a belligerent ass, refusing to stand up and leave. The rules are quite clear and simple: don't have an ID? You need to leave. So this kid is either brain-dead or a jackass. He is shouting randomly about the Patriot Act and taunting the police. So he is either brain-dead or a jackass.
What is so hard to understand? Honestly. Get the shit out. You've been tased already, don't push your luck. What's worse is that the whole fucking library must've stood up and gathered 'round to watch the spectacle. What good does that do? Nothing. All it does is add more stress to the situation, which is exactly what the officers DON'T need, and gives the stupid kid an audience, which is exactly what he WANTS.
I've read in various places about how this is a great example of civil disobedience... what kind of idiot "civilly disobeys" a request to leave a private building because he doesn't have the proper identification? A big one. Anyone who says that needs to get a brain. We aren't fighting segregation or unequal rights. He breaks a rule, and refuses to act in the proper manner. His resistance is pointless and stupid and proves NO POINT. Civil disobedience my ass.
Added Content:
A main blog I visit, americablog.com, is covering this story intently. Read up a bit. Anyway, I responded in a comment to the irrational comparison of the retard kid to Rosa Parks. This is what I said:
"Yeah, having to have an ID is SO DISCRIMINATORY. I mean, Rosa would be so proud of this insolent young college student! He was fighting against the oppression of being identifiable as a member of a private institution, and we should all praise him. Screw authority!"
Then he replied in another comment:
"NOTE FROM JOHN: You ignorant fuck. So Miranda rights are no longer necessary because Miranda was a Mexican and an idiot. And all those others I mentioned in the story, whose court cases form the basis of your civil rights today - what about them? They're all a LOT worse than this student, and a lot worse than Rosa Parks. So using your Soviet-style police-state logic all of those civil rights should be thrown out because the people we owe those rights too are scum. Congratulations on being one big ignorant fuck, and a sad excuse for an American."
Now, I was quite astonished to find this awaiting me. Ignorant fuck? ME? So I thought about it for a second... the only possible explanation must be that he missed the sarcasm. I still can't really figure it out. His language and tone left much to be desired too.
Anyway, my reply:
"Wow John, that was an incredibly intelligent and well thought out response. /sarcasm
I don't know whether you missed the sarcasm or are completely off your rocker with paranoia, but the tasing of a stupid belligerent college kid disobeying a lawful order is perfectly reasonable. That Miranda garbage you're spouting is totally unrelated.
Rosa Parks resisted an unjust law. Mr. Smartass was resisting a simple rule. There is a massive difference. COMPARING the two is an insult to civil rights.
You should really learn to be civil."
I can support civil disobedience, in the proper situation. This stupid fuck was resisting a completely reasonable rule, for ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD REASON. The rule wasn't discriminatory, or racist, or unjust. Show your ID or leave. HOW IS THAT SO HARD TO COMPREHEND? He refused to obey. That's illegal. Fucker deserved to be tased just for being an idiot.
Now, read some articles. Like this one, and this one, and this one.
Informed? Good.
Opinions? Post comments, I'm dying to hear what you think.
Here's my take:
Cries of police brutality are absolutely ridiculous. Nothing I see in that video tells me that kid is being at all cooperative. He's on the ground, shouting obscenities and being a belligerent ass, refusing to stand up and leave. The rules are quite clear and simple: don't have an ID? You need to leave. So this kid is either brain-dead or a jackass. He is shouting randomly about the Patriot Act and taunting the police. So he is either brain-dead or a jackass.
What is so hard to understand? Honestly. Get the shit out. You've been tased already, don't push your luck. What's worse is that the whole fucking library must've stood up and gathered 'round to watch the spectacle. What good does that do? Nothing. All it does is add more stress to the situation, which is exactly what the officers DON'T need, and gives the stupid kid an audience, which is exactly what he WANTS.
I've read in various places about how this is a great example of civil disobedience... what kind of idiot "civilly disobeys" a request to leave a private building because he doesn't have the proper identification? A big one. Anyone who says that needs to get a brain. We aren't fighting segregation or unequal rights. He breaks a rule, and refuses to act in the proper manner. His resistance is pointless and stupid and proves NO POINT. Civil disobedience my ass.
Added Content:
A main blog I visit, americablog.com, is covering this story intently. Read up a bit. Anyway, I responded in a comment to the irrational comparison of the retard kid to Rosa Parks. This is what I said:
"Yeah, having to have an ID is SO DISCRIMINATORY. I mean, Rosa would be so proud of this insolent young college student! He was fighting against the oppression of being identifiable as a member of a private institution, and we should all praise him. Screw authority!"
Then he replied in another comment:
"NOTE FROM JOHN: You ignorant fuck. So Miranda rights are no longer necessary because Miranda was a Mexican and an idiot. And all those others I mentioned in the story, whose court cases form the basis of your civil rights today - what about them? They're all a LOT worse than this student, and a lot worse than Rosa Parks. So using your Soviet-style police-state logic all of those civil rights should be thrown out because the people we owe those rights too are scum. Congratulations on being one big ignorant fuck, and a sad excuse for an American."
Now, I was quite astonished to find this awaiting me. Ignorant fuck? ME? So I thought about it for a second... the only possible explanation must be that he missed the sarcasm. I still can't really figure it out. His language and tone left much to be desired too.
Anyway, my reply:
"Wow John, that was an incredibly intelligent and well thought out response. /sarcasm
I don't know whether you missed the sarcasm or are completely off your rocker with paranoia, but the tasing of a stupid belligerent college kid disobeying a lawful order is perfectly reasonable. That Miranda garbage you're spouting is totally unrelated.
Rosa Parks resisted an unjust law. Mr. Smartass was resisting a simple rule. There is a massive difference. COMPARING the two is an insult to civil rights.
You should really learn to be civil."
I can support civil disobedience, in the proper situation. This stupid fuck was resisting a completely reasonable rule, for ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD REASON. The rule wasn't discriminatory, or racist, or unjust. Show your ID or leave. HOW IS THAT SO HARD TO COMPREHEND? He refused to obey. That's illegal. Fucker deserved to be tased just for being an idiot.
11/12/2006
General Agreement with my Compatriot, and a State of Affairs
I return to blogland after a long hiatus. The reason for the hiatus was partly due to lack of time I chose to devote to things of this nature, but mostly due to the weakness in my arguments. In my mind I constantly have an argument brewing to defend the things that I believe it, but recent developments have undermined my arguments and made glaring holes in them. I often choose to avoid arguing when it is hard to discern a right and a wrong course of action. As is the case with the biggest political issue in the United States today, the War in Iraq.
Now I believe the War in Iraq was right when it started, and I do believe that it is still right and that we need to stay the course. But the blaring hole that anyone, including myself, can rip apart is the fact that our main focus for going into Iraq was WMDs, and while I really could care less if they were there or not. It is the fact that the other two countries that President Bush named in one of his famous post-9/11 speechs, Iran and North Korea, are ignored despite the fact one is confirmed to have developed a nuclear weapon, and the other is blatantly trying to get them. This paradox puts my argument in severe jeopardy. How can one argue for something based on a cause, than can be used for two other, and more dangerous countries?
Another thing is the blatant idiocy of our political system. The common people all the time pull out random quotes from people like Martin Luther King, Ghandi, or Confucius, that say powerful messages. It's quotes like these that people use to strengthen their arguments, but there are always quotes on the other side of the spectrum that say the exact opposite, and yet, are ignored. Are they less valid, just because they don't agree with the majority of people? That's the way it seems to be. I'll bring up a certain quote, by one of our "Greatest Presidents" according to polling of the American Public.... Jorge Washingtino.... or George Washington. I knew that George Washington said this, but he says it in a way that is much more supporting of my argument than I thought.
In relation to partisan politics:
"It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
People use George Washington quotes for a variety of arguments, but this is one that attacks exactly what we have become, so it is pushed to the backburner. I am disgusted at how the American government has become a mass of two bickering parties that result in nothing productive getting done. Anyone who says American's are "united" should really think if that's true. Andrew brings up a good point:
"The magical Democrats have won based on one thing: they're not Republicans. They're not special, they're less bad."
In presidential elections, it is a shocker if a candidate gets above 50% of the popular vote. 50% of 300 million people? Half of our country agrees on one thing, and the other half agrees on something that is distinctly different. And it is very likely that a large portion of each 50% doesn't even agree with their party, they just like Andrew said, are less bad than the other. And with the latest general elections, it is clear that we have taken a turn for the worse. Democrats have triumped on the fact that they are not republicans, and even more specifically, that they are not George Bush. The opinions of the masses are contradictory to each other. George Washington advised against a multi-party system for the sake of the country. For a country to be successful and prosperous, they need to be united under a common belief or cause. Oh and just another fun fact, George Washington believed in the use of morality and RELIGION in government. People take a reference to religion in any political statement as a violation of the constitution. Washington didn't see it this way, and more than likely the founding fathers didn't either.
Andrew mentions that there will never be a draft again, and I agree unless someone takes hostile actions against us, i.e. someone gets nuked. There will not be a draft for a US-induced war. It will be a defensive war is their is a draft.
Everyone's beliefs are different, I for one believe in a powerful, and strong central government, I would not rule out warrantless arrests, unless done in an unacceptable manner. If done right, I belive it could be the right choice, but there is always that chance that it gets out of hand. There is a delicate balance between security and oppression, and that is another argument I will avoid, because it is one of those arguments where someone else's opinion I don't necessarily view as wrong, I view it as different. I could argue against myself with ease, because it is a thing that is a matter of sheer opinion. In closing, that guy is an idiot.
Now I believe the War in Iraq was right when it started, and I do believe that it is still right and that we need to stay the course. But the blaring hole that anyone, including myself, can rip apart is the fact that our main focus for going into Iraq was WMDs, and while I really could care less if they were there or not. It is the fact that the other two countries that President Bush named in one of his famous post-9/11 speechs, Iran and North Korea, are ignored despite the fact one is confirmed to have developed a nuclear weapon, and the other is blatantly trying to get them. This paradox puts my argument in severe jeopardy. How can one argue for something based on a cause, than can be used for two other, and more dangerous countries?
Another thing is the blatant idiocy of our political system. The common people all the time pull out random quotes from people like Martin Luther King, Ghandi, or Confucius, that say powerful messages. It's quotes like these that people use to strengthen their arguments, but there are always quotes on the other side of the spectrum that say the exact opposite, and yet, are ignored. Are they less valid, just because they don't agree with the majority of people? That's the way it seems to be. I'll bring up a certain quote, by one of our "Greatest Presidents" according to polling of the American Public.... Jorge Washingtino.... or George Washington. I knew that George Washington said this, but he says it in a way that is much more supporting of my argument than I thought.
In relation to partisan politics:
"It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
People use George Washington quotes for a variety of arguments, but this is one that attacks exactly what we have become, so it is pushed to the backburner. I am disgusted at how the American government has become a mass of two bickering parties that result in nothing productive getting done. Anyone who says American's are "united" should really think if that's true. Andrew brings up a good point:
"The magical Democrats have won based on one thing: they're not Republicans. They're not special, they're less bad."
In presidential elections, it is a shocker if a candidate gets above 50% of the popular vote. 50% of 300 million people? Half of our country agrees on one thing, and the other half agrees on something that is distinctly different. And it is very likely that a large portion of each 50% doesn't even agree with their party, they just like Andrew said, are less bad than the other. And with the latest general elections, it is clear that we have taken a turn for the worse. Democrats have triumped on the fact that they are not republicans, and even more specifically, that they are not George Bush. The opinions of the masses are contradictory to each other. George Washington advised against a multi-party system for the sake of the country. For a country to be successful and prosperous, they need to be united under a common belief or cause. Oh and just another fun fact, George Washington believed in the use of morality and RELIGION in government. People take a reference to religion in any political statement as a violation of the constitution. Washington didn't see it this way, and more than likely the founding fathers didn't either.
Andrew mentions that there will never be a draft again, and I agree unless someone takes hostile actions against us, i.e. someone gets nuked. There will not be a draft for a US-induced war. It will be a defensive war is their is a draft.
Everyone's beliefs are different, I for one believe in a powerful, and strong central government, I would not rule out warrantless arrests, unless done in an unacceptable manner. If done right, I belive it could be the right choice, but there is always that chance that it gets out of hand. There is a delicate balance between security and oppression, and that is another argument I will avoid, because it is one of those arguments where someone else's opinion I don't necessarily view as wrong, I view it as different. I could argue against myself with ease, because it is a thing that is a matter of sheer opinion. In closing, that guy is an idiot.
Even in victory, the American people can be so clueless: Fearmongering Idiocy
Source Link
Even in victory, the American people can be so clueless
by John in DC - 11/11/2006 09:25:00 PM
More from that Newsweek poll that Joe mentioned earlier:
While a bare majority of 51 percent called the Democrats' victory "a good thing," even more said they were concerned about some of the actions a Democratic Congress might take, including 78 percent who were somewhat or very concerned that it would seek too hasty a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Another 69 percent said they were concerned that the new Congress would keep the administration "from doing what is necessary to combat terrorism," and two-thirds said they were concerned it would spend too much time investigating the administration and Republican scandals.
At some the American people need to grow up. If they aren't ready for us to leave Iraq, then fine: stay in Iraq. More American soldiers will die for no reason, the civil war will get worse, we will be directly responsible for breeding even more terrorists, and we'll probably have a draft sometime over the next two years. But if that's what it will take for the American people to learn that history is not without consequences, then so be it. I see no reason that Democrats should fall on their swords so that the American people and the Republicans can avoid taking responsibility for their actions.
Oh yeah, and we'll also give police the right to take Americans away in the middle of the night without a warrant, and waterboard their husbands, wives and children - in the name of public safety, of course. Then after 20,000 or 30,000 Americans are missing, and probably dead (in Argentina, they used to drug political prisoners and drop them from helicopters into the sea - you see, the authorities simply had to keep the country safe), the American people can ask themselves what went wrong.
We are paying for our citizens' ignorance of history. Perhaps they need to learn the hard way, by giving them what they want and letting them suffer the consequences. At some point, it may be the only way to fix the problem. Otherwise, we fall on our sword for them, and they vote us out in two years and continue the carnage in Iraq and on our civil liberties.
"We are paying for out citizens' ignorance of history." Yep, he called us stupid. Just wanted to get that out of the way.
Ok buddy, there is absolutely no way any of that would happen. Ever. We aren't in the fucking jungle, we aren't in drug-cartel land. There will NEVER be a draft. All those things he listed are the last step in the slippery slope argument that Iraq will ruin everything.
This guy seems to think the best way to settle our affairs is to say "Oops, we messed up, time to go." What he needs to realize, which the "ignorant masses" has already figured out, is that an immediate withdrawal would be incredibly harmful to the Iraqis. Yes, the presence of soldiers creates tension and causes fighting. But as soon as we leave, it's going to get MUCH WORSE. We realize it was a bad idea to go in there, but we're there now, so we should try to fix our mistake, not run away from it. THAT is the action of cowards and retards.
Now, I don't mean that stay the course crap. We need a new strategy under new leadership. That's why the Democrats carried the elections; we want the problem FIXED, not run away from. The Republican government wasn't doing the job, so they got ousted. If the Democrats do a garbage job, I don't know what's gonna happen. The problem needs to be looked at with new eyes, and addressed in a new way. The American people will not be happy with anything else.
But once again, everyone has to realize that this stuff TAKES TIME. The whole process needs to be organized, and a strategy needs to be developed. That doesn't happen instantly, especially since I haven't seen ANY Democrats coming up with ANY strategies yet. The magical Democrats have won based on one thing: they're not Republicans. They're not special, they're less bad.
That's right Democrats, we don't actually like you, we're just pissed with Republicans. We'll like you if you make the situation better. Otherwise, you're in DEEP trouble.
by John in DC - 11/11/2006 09:25:00 PM
More from that Newsweek poll that Joe mentioned earlier:
While a bare majority of 51 percent called the Democrats' victory "a good thing," even more said they were concerned about some of the actions a Democratic Congress might take, including 78 percent who were somewhat or very concerned that it would seek too hasty a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Another 69 percent said they were concerned that the new Congress would keep the administration "from doing what is necessary to combat terrorism," and two-thirds said they were concerned it would spend too much time investigating the administration and Republican scandals.
At some the American people need to grow up. If they aren't ready for us to leave Iraq, then fine: stay in Iraq. More American soldiers will die for no reason, the civil war will get worse, we will be directly responsible for breeding even more terrorists, and we'll probably have a draft sometime over the next two years. But if that's what it will take for the American people to learn that history is not without consequences, then so be it. I see no reason that Democrats should fall on their swords so that the American people and the Republicans can avoid taking responsibility for their actions.
Oh yeah, and we'll also give police the right to take Americans away in the middle of the night without a warrant, and waterboard their husbands, wives and children - in the name of public safety, of course. Then after 20,000 or 30,000 Americans are missing, and probably dead (in Argentina, they used to drug political prisoners and drop them from helicopters into the sea - you see, the authorities simply had to keep the country safe), the American people can ask themselves what went wrong.
We are paying for our citizens' ignorance of history. Perhaps they need to learn the hard way, by giving them what they want and letting them suffer the consequences. At some point, it may be the only way to fix the problem. Otherwise, we fall on our sword for them, and they vote us out in two years and continue the carnage in Iraq and on our civil liberties.
"We are paying for out citizens' ignorance of history." Yep, he called us stupid. Just wanted to get that out of the way.
Ok buddy, there is absolutely no way any of that would happen. Ever. We aren't in the fucking jungle, we aren't in drug-cartel land. There will NEVER be a draft. All those things he listed are the last step in the slippery slope argument that Iraq will ruin everything.
This guy seems to think the best way to settle our affairs is to say "Oops, we messed up, time to go." What he needs to realize, which the "ignorant masses" has already figured out, is that an immediate withdrawal would be incredibly harmful to the Iraqis. Yes, the presence of soldiers creates tension and causes fighting. But as soon as we leave, it's going to get MUCH WORSE. We realize it was a bad idea to go in there, but we're there now, so we should try to fix our mistake, not run away from it. THAT is the action of cowards and retards.
Now, I don't mean that stay the course crap. We need a new strategy under new leadership. That's why the Democrats carried the elections; we want the problem FIXED, not run away from. The Republican government wasn't doing the job, so they got ousted. If the Democrats do a garbage job, I don't know what's gonna happen. The problem needs to be looked at with new eyes, and addressed in a new way. The American people will not be happy with anything else.
But once again, everyone has to realize that this stuff TAKES TIME. The whole process needs to be organized, and a strategy needs to be developed. That doesn't happen instantly, especially since I haven't seen ANY Democrats coming up with ANY strategies yet. The magical Democrats have won based on one thing: they're not Republicans. They're not special, they're less bad.
That's right Democrats, we don't actually like you, we're just pissed with Republicans. We'll like you if you make the situation better. Otherwise, you're in DEEP trouble.
10/25/2006
Stem Cell Research
Due to the coming elections, some campaigns are making this a huge issue. Mostly, it's the Democrats making a big deal over the fact that their Republican opponents usually vote against federally funded stem cell research.
Stepping back, one must first wonder... why are people pushing so hard to federally fund stem cell research? Yes, it's massively useful... but so are drugs! Last time I checked, drug companies didn't recieve federal funding for developing drugs.
My thoughts? Stem cell research shouldn't recieve federal funding, for one main reason: it costs a shitload of money. A shitload of our money is already being spent on dubious causes. Let's curb that spending first, and bring some more immediate issues to light, like EDUCATION.
However, this DEFINITELY doesn't mean I'm against stem cell research. I think it should be 100% allowed. As it is, some types are NOT allowed, which is 100% BULLSHIT. Most objections are the same objections for abortion, that life begins at conception blah blah. I don't know about you, but when I look in the mirror, I don't see an eight cell blastocyst, but that's just me. Then there are the crazy whackos who are against human cloning. Human cloning? Whoooa! FREAK OUT MODE HOLY SHIT! THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO COPY ME?!?!!??!?!?!?!?
Right.
So here's the deal: Stem cell research is not an election issue. Stem cell research should not be banned. Stem cell research should not be funded. I hope someone is catching my drift here... the government should stay out of the issue.
Stepping back, one must first wonder... why are people pushing so hard to federally fund stem cell research? Yes, it's massively useful... but so are drugs! Last time I checked, drug companies didn't recieve federal funding for developing drugs.
My thoughts? Stem cell research shouldn't recieve federal funding, for one main reason: it costs a shitload of money. A shitload of our money is already being spent on dubious causes. Let's curb that spending first, and bring some more immediate issues to light, like EDUCATION.
However, this DEFINITELY doesn't mean I'm against stem cell research. I think it should be 100% allowed. As it is, some types are NOT allowed, which is 100% BULLSHIT. Most objections are the same objections for abortion, that life begins at conception blah blah. I don't know about you, but when I look in the mirror, I don't see an eight cell blastocyst, but that's just me. Then there are the crazy whackos who are against human cloning. Human cloning? Whoooa! FREAK OUT MODE HOLY SHIT! THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO COPY ME?!?!!??!?!?!?!?
Right.
So here's the deal: Stem cell research is not an election issue. Stem cell research should not be banned. Stem cell research should not be funded. I hope someone is catching my drift here... the government should stay out of the issue.
10/13/2006
2006 Nobel Peace Prize
Link to Story
Yeah, so I love this year's award winner. Read the story.
This is the perfect example of how we CAN make a difference, but we need to address the CAUSES, not the symptoms. This guy addressed the cause that poor people don't have money because they have a hard time making money, or fall on hard times. His bank helps solve that problem, instead of addressing symptoms, like seeing that poor people are hungry and then feeding them.
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day...
It's also an excellent kick in the teeth for other corporate beings (like banks) who are so concerned about making money that they throw the people to the wayside: "I'm rich, fuck everyone else."
This guy turned a profit while helping thousands of people. Just awesome.
Yeah, so I love this year's award winner. Read the story.
This is the perfect example of how we CAN make a difference, but we need to address the CAUSES, not the symptoms. This guy addressed the cause that poor people don't have money because they have a hard time making money, or fall on hard times. His bank helps solve that problem, instead of addressing symptoms, like seeing that poor people are hungry and then feeding them.
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day...
It's also an excellent kick in the teeth for other corporate beings (like banks) who are so concerned about making money that they throw the people to the wayside: "I'm rich, fuck everyone else."
This guy turned a profit while helping thousands of people. Just awesome.
7/10/2006
The Rock That is the Constitution
What a 220-year-old piece of paper knows, and why it is our best friend.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form…”
To understand the Constitution, we need to understand why it was written. The Founding Fathers were not dumb. In fact, they were, by far, some of the most intelligent men of their time—they knew that change was not only a necessity, but also an inevitability. The Declaration of Independence says that we have certain rights. These rights are not privileges; they are guarantees. Everyone has them, and if they don’t, that is a big problem. But what exactly are these rights? And when they are infringed upon, what must be done, and by whom? These questions—and their answers—are the central tenets that our country rests on.
The Constitution is the law of the land, a set of rules by which the government and the people must follow. The Constitution is also the list of rights that the Declaration makes mention to. In fact, the original document entails amendments one through ten, known as the Bill of Rights.
Every state in the Union must ratify the Constitution, meaning they must agree to the proposals it makes. Each state must recognize the rights that are guaranteed to every American citizen under the document, and must do everything within its power to protect those rights.
What is the purpose of our government? To guarantee that our rights as American citizens are not infringed upon by any party at any time for any reason. That is the duty that each state swears to when they join the Union, and that is the duty of the federal government.
Now that we understand it a little better, let us look at the issues raised by my esteemed colleague, and I will quote them and address them an order that I see fit.
“When it does what you want, it's swell. When it doesn't people conjure up "Baaah, what does a 220-odd year old piece of paper know." Frankly, I am tired of the constitution.”
What is so vital to survival that would necessitate a violation of another person’s rights? Quite frankly, I hold my rights very dearly, and I would be very upset if they were deemed inconsequential and then promptly overstepped.
“The constitution was written by a man who expected that the image of America would be a bunch of small farms spread over a bunch of land for hundreds of years, and would prosper as a peaceful nation.”
The Constitution was written to enumerate the rights that the people expected to be protected by the law. The three branches of government are the mechanism of that defense, your rake, so to speak. The document itself is like the blueprint of the rake, and directions on where/how to use it. It tells us which end to use, that we shouldn’t rake the ceiling, and how to care for it. That was the image the Founding Fathers had, a functional and flexible government, ready and willing to morph as the people grew. They were fully aware of the rapidity of change over time. Furthermore, the mere existence of the elastic clause is solid proof that they understood the flow of time and advancement, and the 17 additional amendments display vividly that it is a feasible option to modify the document as needed.
The problem with our government is not the principals it was founded upon; it is the government machine itself. The bureaucracy becomes more corrupt and piggish as the citizenry becomes more ignorant and lazy (in regards to civic duty.) Being a politician used to be an honorable occupation; the people looked up to the men who fought for them in the federal government. Now, the best way to gain political prowess is to be a lowly bootlicker. How embarrassing! The strength and backbone of our leaders has all but disappeared. Now they play race politics, begging and stealing votes, and making decisions based on how popular they are, not if they are the right decision. Granted, this is a democracy, so popularity is the name of the game, but I’m sure the people have begun getting tired of the nonsense—I know I am—but lack the courage to make a change. Change is a scary thing.
Wire-tapping.
What’s mine is mine, and my privacy is very important to me. To suggest that it’s OK to invade someone’s privacy is one-step closer to warrant-less searches of home and property. "If you have nothing to hide, then it can't hurt you;” “If you don’t let us search your house, it’ll make you look guilty;” the typical lame copouts. You know who else used them? Witch-hunters. And McCarthy. Next step: Big Brother!
The instant the government has the power to invade a person’s privacy without probable cause is the instant that our system of government and our country becomes a traitor to its own people.
But the issue here is not if people care, for they certainly do; the issue is that the executive branch overstepped their constitutional authority in covertly wiretapping people. There are procedures laid down for a reason, they’re called checks and balances for a reason, and I’m sure we can all appreciate that reason.
Don’t know what it is? It’s to prevent the inevitable breakdown into tyranny. Tyranny is a thing to despise. If one man, or a small group of men, controls the entire government, who’s to stop them from committing any atrocity they please? The purpose of a democracy is to draw from the collective intelligence pool to choose the best courses of action possible, and to keep the interests of the people in mind when making policy. What we have today is a failure of our system of government to uphold the ideals of the people, not a failure of ideals.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form…”
To understand the Constitution, we need to understand why it was written. The Founding Fathers were not dumb. In fact, they were, by far, some of the most intelligent men of their time—they knew that change was not only a necessity, but also an inevitability. The Declaration of Independence says that we have certain rights. These rights are not privileges; they are guarantees. Everyone has them, and if they don’t, that is a big problem. But what exactly are these rights? And when they are infringed upon, what must be done, and by whom? These questions—and their answers—are the central tenets that our country rests on.
The Constitution is the law of the land, a set of rules by which the government and the people must follow. The Constitution is also the list of rights that the Declaration makes mention to. In fact, the original document entails amendments one through ten, known as the Bill of Rights.
Every state in the Union must ratify the Constitution, meaning they must agree to the proposals it makes. Each state must recognize the rights that are guaranteed to every American citizen under the document, and must do everything within its power to protect those rights.
What is the purpose of our government? To guarantee that our rights as American citizens are not infringed upon by any party at any time for any reason. That is the duty that each state swears to when they join the Union, and that is the duty of the federal government.
Now that we understand it a little better, let us look at the issues raised by my esteemed colleague, and I will quote them and address them an order that I see fit.
“When it does what you want, it's swell. When it doesn't people conjure up "Baaah, what does a 220-odd year old piece of paper know." Frankly, I am tired of the constitution.”
What is so vital to survival that would necessitate a violation of another person’s rights? Quite frankly, I hold my rights very dearly, and I would be very upset if they were deemed inconsequential and then promptly overstepped.
“The constitution was written by a man who expected that the image of America would be a bunch of small farms spread over a bunch of land for hundreds of years, and would prosper as a peaceful nation.”
The Constitution was written to enumerate the rights that the people expected to be protected by the law. The three branches of government are the mechanism of that defense, your rake, so to speak. The document itself is like the blueprint of the rake, and directions on where/how to use it. It tells us which end to use, that we shouldn’t rake the ceiling, and how to care for it. That was the image the Founding Fathers had, a functional and flexible government, ready and willing to morph as the people grew. They were fully aware of the rapidity of change over time. Furthermore, the mere existence of the elastic clause is solid proof that they understood the flow of time and advancement, and the 17 additional amendments display vividly that it is a feasible option to modify the document as needed.
The problem with our government is not the principals it was founded upon; it is the government machine itself. The bureaucracy becomes more corrupt and piggish as the citizenry becomes more ignorant and lazy (in regards to civic duty.) Being a politician used to be an honorable occupation; the people looked up to the men who fought for them in the federal government. Now, the best way to gain political prowess is to be a lowly bootlicker. How embarrassing! The strength and backbone of our leaders has all but disappeared. Now they play race politics, begging and stealing votes, and making decisions based on how popular they are, not if they are the right decision. Granted, this is a democracy, so popularity is the name of the game, but I’m sure the people have begun getting tired of the nonsense—I know I am—but lack the courage to make a change. Change is a scary thing.
Wire-tapping.
What’s mine is mine, and my privacy is very important to me. To suggest that it’s OK to invade someone’s privacy is one-step closer to warrant-less searches of home and property. "If you have nothing to hide, then it can't hurt you;” “If you don’t let us search your house, it’ll make you look guilty;” the typical lame copouts. You know who else used them? Witch-hunters. And McCarthy. Next step: Big Brother!
The instant the government has the power to invade a person’s privacy without probable cause is the instant that our system of government and our country becomes a traitor to its own people.
But the issue here is not if people care, for they certainly do; the issue is that the executive branch overstepped their constitutional authority in covertly wiretapping people. There are procedures laid down for a reason, they’re called checks and balances for a reason, and I’m sure we can all appreciate that reason.
Don’t know what it is? It’s to prevent the inevitable breakdown into tyranny. Tyranny is a thing to despise. If one man, or a small group of men, controls the entire government, who’s to stop them from committing any atrocity they please? The purpose of a democracy is to draw from the collective intelligence pool to choose the best courses of action possible, and to keep the interests of the people in mind when making policy. What we have today is a failure of our system of government to uphold the ideals of the people, not a failure of ideals.
7/01/2006
The Fight Against the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Ahhh, everyone's favorite piece of paper. If a teenager were to put one of those "98% of teenagers have _______" and wanted it to be true, then I would suggest putting in "98% of teenagers have no idea what the constitution actually says."
I will be the first to admit that I also have very little idea what the constitution says. I know a few random amendments, and I can be real wise-crack and say "I plead the fifth" all the time, I can regurgitate the basic idea of most of the first 10 amendments, but do we really know what those mean anyway? The constituion is everyone's friend and enemy. When it does what you want, it's swell. When it doesn't people conjure up "Baaah, what does a 220-odd year old piece of paper know." Frankly, I am tired of the constitution. The constituion was written by a man who excpected that the image of America would be a bunch of small farms spread over a bunch of land for hundreds of years, and would prosper as a peaceful nation. Boy, oh boy, the times and circumstances change, but for some reason the constitution does not? My rake broke last year during some intense rakage, and I had a few options to ponder. I proposed the ideas to myself in my head, I could tape the rake with some handy-dandy duct tape, I could use half a rake, or I could go to the store and buy a new rake. While it may be a stretch in context, the basic premise still applies, the constituion is like my rake. America has transformed into a massive world superpower, full of thriving metropolii, and 300 million people (as of this coming fall), America had made it's name not by peaceful diplomacy while still maintaining our farming ways, no we forged our own destiny out of the ashes of World War II. The war ignited the industrial, and technological prowess of the present United States. So clearly the circumstances have changed, so back to the rake, do I just tape up the constituion with some bangin' new amendments!!?? Should we just wing it, if something strange comes up? Or should we go the store (congress, or even the people *shudder*) and whip up a new document that protect the people and deal with all the issues of the day, perhaps enact a new system where a new document is formed every 10-20 years? Make it like the census, get the most educated people to form a new document, and during the next presidential election, have the people vote on it and pass it by a 66% or even 75% majority. Which based on the arguing that went on during the ratification of the present constitution, would be overwhelming.
The process is an entirely different topic in itself which I will not address at this time, but the underlying point remains. The constitution is old, and a new one with more clarification on present day issues be enacted. I realize I am trying to address many issues at once, but it all boils down to, I think the average person is a complete and udder idiot, and only thinks in their own self-interest, and poorly at that. I'll just move into examples.
Warrantless wire-tapping, may or may not violate the fourth amendment, but in my opinion it is necessary. People just can't seem to ever get the "If you have nothing to hide, and it can't hurt you" idea and in only thinking about themselves refuse to think of the benefits. "What, oh my god, the government knows who I called?" Time for the press to abuse the first amendment and shit all over everything. Bottom line, it CANNOT hurt upstanding Americans, it CAN save American lives through the interception of terrorists, or general cronies.
"THE young Iraqi woman was in the wrong place at the wrong time — in an insurgent-riddled town when a group of American soldiers happened to pass by on patrol, noticing her.
Then, says a US official, the soldiers returned to rape her and, in an apparent cover-up attempt, she and three members of her family were killed and her body set on fire." Source
It happened, and I am disgusted by the conduct of our soldiers. We think "How can they do such things" we are knowledgeable, we are informed. An Iraqi citizen wakes up in the morning, reads the same article, the Iraqi citizen is knowledgeable, the iraqi is informed, the iraqi is pissed, not at just 5 soldiers, at 135,000 American soldiers in Iraq, at 80,000 British troops in Iraq, at 300,000,000 people in the United States. The man may get over it, the man may strap himself with explosives and kill 31 people. Ignorance is bliss. Uphold the morals of the United States, a secret military tribunal does the same amount of punishment, but does not risk killing anyone. The same goes for the Haditha "massacre", the work of a few ends up punishing hundreds of thousands of people.How can a document from 1783 be our end-all document? It is asanine that we do not significantly modify on a regular basis. There is no way the circumstances in 1783, can encompass the circumstances in 2006. There were no illegal immigrants, there was extensive technology, they did not possess weapons that could end a million lives in the blink of an eye.
It's time for a change.
5/12/2006
Control Examined
I recently participated in a thread on my web board titled "Militant atheists: Let me share what us "Bible Beater" types fear," in which I made a partially tangentiated post:
We live in a moral vacuum because nobody beats it into us. When the church had REAL power they could, but now the only things they have are empty threats and priests playing grabass. The only way to control a mass is with fear; you can't keep everyone happy, but you can sure as hell scare the piss out of them all.
I liked that, partially for its shock factor and partially for its truth, though I wish to examine its truth in detail. Just for reference: a mass is the singular of the masses, like a mouse is the singular of the mice. The italics represent thought processes of mine, and will provide important side information, or crucial turns of thought.
A central question here is What controls a mass? If we boil it down to the base ingredients, only a couple things stand out: fear, happiness, and conscience. In my post, I neglected to mention conscience; a mistake with little consequence. Fear, happiness, and conscience: What makes them so important and powerful that they can control a mass?
The three attributes all have something in common, in regards to their place in the human psyche and how they are responded to as stimuli. After careful reconsideration, I realize that there are only two facets that truly affect control of a mass: Happiness level and fear level. These two things are still common for the previously stated reason, and I apoligize for any confusion. I will now continue on, with fear level and happiness level as the two facets of control.
Both happiness level and fear level determine the likeliness of action against the controller, hereby named "The Man." If the mass has a high happiness level, it is unlikely they will take action against The Man, because a central goal of the human race is happiness. However, if the happiness level is below acceptable, the mass will wish to address the cause so that they will once again be happy. Since fault always lies with the leadership, action will most likely be taken against The Man. To avoid this, The Man has two courses of action: Keep the happiness level high or keep the fear level high, to the point where no action would be taken by the mass. If the mass is afraid to act, then they will not. Methods will not be discussed, as they are infinitely variable. In the event of failure, The Man is replaced by another, whom the mass either believes will raise their happiness level or is afraid to deny leadership. Thus, deduction leaves us to believe that, in order to remain The Man, he must be proficient at manipulating one or both facets of control.
Now that we have answered a central question, we must now answer another: Which method of control is stronger and more reliable? (Coming soon.)
3/26/2006
Arabic Woman Psychiatrist totally dominates Islam.
This woman is awesome. I agree with everything she says. The last paragraph is the real champion of it all.
Arab-American Psychiatrist Wafa Sultan: There is No Clash of Civilizations but a Clash between the Mentality of the Middle Ages and That of the 21st Century
Following are excerpts from an interview with Arab-American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan. The interview was aired on Al-Jazeera TV on February 21, 2006
.
Wafa Sultan: The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.
[...]
Host: I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?
Wafa Sultan: Yes, that is what I mean.
[...]
Host: Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilizations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not Bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue, if you don't mind...
Wafa Sultan: The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger." When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to start this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.
My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs. What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names that they did not choose for themselves? Once, he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma, another time he calls them the "People of the Book," and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath." Who told you that they are "People of the Book"? They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking. What gives you the right to call them "those who incur Allah's wrath," or "those who have gone astray," and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?
I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.
Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: Are you a heretic?
Wafa Sultan: You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural...
Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran...
Wafa Sultan: These are personal matters that do not concern you.
[...]
Wafa Sultan: Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me. You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people's beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let people have their beliefs.
[...]
Wafa Sultan: The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.
Arab-American Psychiatrist Wafa Sultan: There is No Clash of Civilizations but a Clash between the Mentality of the Middle Ages and That of the 21st Century
Following are excerpts from an interview with Arab-American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan. The interview was aired on Al-Jazeera TV on February 21, 2006
.
Wafa Sultan: The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.
[...]
Host: I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?
Wafa Sultan: Yes, that is what I mean.
[...]
Host: Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilizations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not Bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue, if you don't mind...
Wafa Sultan: The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger." When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to start this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.
My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs. What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names that they did not choose for themselves? Once, he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma, another time he calls them the "People of the Book," and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath." Who told you that they are "People of the Book"? They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking. What gives you the right to call them "those who incur Allah's wrath," or "those who have gone astray," and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?
I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.
Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: Are you a heretic?
Wafa Sultan: You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural...
Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran...
Wafa Sultan: These are personal matters that do not concern you.
[...]
Wafa Sultan: Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me. You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people's beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let people have their beliefs.
[...]
Wafa Sultan: The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.
3/08/2006
US Ports: The fight over who will secure them.
Since you're all so involved and informed, I figure most of you know what I'm talking about. For the uninformed, the White House, specifically President Bush, has been strongly pushing for the transfer of some US port terminals to an ARAB company to control. President Bush, the man so keen on fighting radical Islam, is pushing EXTREMELY HARD for an Arab company to control AMERICAN ports, AKA the gateways to our country.
DUMB.
Fortunately, the American public has absolutely back-lashed, as has Congress. Virtually the entire legislature is rallying against this asanine notion. There is virtually no case supporting this wickedly retarded move.
At least, I can't come up with any reason why we should pay a foreign country to protect some of our vital lifelines, especially an Arab one. I have nothing against Arabs, mind you, but it's just too easy an opportunity for something to go seriously wrong. Seriously, and terribly wrong.
DUMB.
Fortunately, the American public has absolutely back-lashed, as has Congress. Virtually the entire legislature is rallying against this asanine notion. There is virtually no case supporting this wickedly retarded move.
At least, I can't come up with any reason why we should pay a foreign country to protect some of our vital lifelines, especially an Arab one. I have nothing against Arabs, mind you, but it's just too easy an opportunity for something to go seriously wrong. Seriously, and terribly wrong.
1/28/2006
Bush is letting us down. Educationally.
I'll let you read a bit of one of his Q&A sessions at Kansas State:
Q Hi, I just want to get your comments about education. Recently, $12.7 billion was cut from education, and I was just wondering how that's supposed to help our futures? (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Education budget was cut -- say it again. What was cut?
Q Twelve point seven billion dollars was cut from education, and I was just wondering how is that supposed to help our --
THE PRESIDENT: At the federal level?
Q Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think that -- I don't think we've actually -- for higher education? Student loans?
Q Yes, student loans.
THE PRESIDENT: Actually, I think what we did was reform the student loan program. We're not cutting money out of it. In other words, people aren't going to be cut off the program. We're just making sure it works better. Part of the reconciliation package, I think she's talking about. Yes, it's a reform of the program to make sure it functions better. It is -- in other words, we're not taking people off student loans, we're saving money in the student loan program because it's inefficient. And so I think the thing to look at is whether or not there will be fewer people getting student loans. I don't think so. And, secondly, on Pell grants, we're actually expanding the number of Pell grants through our budget.
But, great question. I think that the key on education is to make sure that we stay focused on how do we stay competitive into the 21st century. And I plan on doing some talking about math and science and engineering programs, so that people who graduate out of college will have the skills necessary to compete in this competitive world.
But I'm -- I think I'm right on this. I'll check when I get back to Washington. But thank you for your question. (Applause.)
"So what [ended up happening] was they cut about $21 billion from student loans, then transferred about $8 billion of that to other student aid programs, leaving a cut of....$12.7 billion."
Source
So Mr. President, thanks for ruining our future, dick head. Education is one of THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS in the world, and that cut just fucked a whole shitload of kids up the ass. So get your head out of YOUR ass.
We're spending more than 12.7 billion dollars a month in Iraq, how the fuck is cutting money, especially out of the pockets of students, the FUTURE of this country, going to defray the costs? When all those jackasses in Congress are drooling all over themselves in their old age, the young will be either uneducated or in debt up to their ears because of this irrational action. If anything, the government should be throwing more and more money into education. I'm getting tired of this shit. Fuck the bureaucracy.
Q Hi, I just want to get your comments about education. Recently, $12.7 billion was cut from education, and I was just wondering how that's supposed to help our futures? (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Education budget was cut -- say it again. What was cut?
Q Twelve point seven billion dollars was cut from education, and I was just wondering how is that supposed to help our --
THE PRESIDENT: At the federal level?
Q Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think that -- I don't think we've actually -- for higher education? Student loans?
Q Yes, student loans.
THE PRESIDENT: Actually, I think what we did was reform the student loan program. We're not cutting money out of it. In other words, people aren't going to be cut off the program. We're just making sure it works better. Part of the reconciliation package, I think she's talking about. Yes, it's a reform of the program to make sure it functions better. It is -- in other words, we're not taking people off student loans, we're saving money in the student loan program because it's inefficient. And so I think the thing to look at is whether or not there will be fewer people getting student loans. I don't think so. And, secondly, on Pell grants, we're actually expanding the number of Pell grants through our budget.
But, great question. I think that the key on education is to make sure that we stay focused on how do we stay competitive into the 21st century. And I plan on doing some talking about math and science and engineering programs, so that people who graduate out of college will have the skills necessary to compete in this competitive world.
But I'm -- I think I'm right on this. I'll check when I get back to Washington. But thank you for your question. (Applause.)
"So what [ended up happening] was they cut about $21 billion from student loans, then transferred about $8 billion of that to other student aid programs, leaving a cut of....$12.7 billion."
Source
So Mr. President, thanks for ruining our future, dick head. Education is one of THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS in the world, and that cut just fucked a whole shitload of kids up the ass. So get your head out of YOUR ass.
We're spending more than 12.7 billion dollars a month in Iraq, how the fuck is cutting money, especially out of the pockets of students, the FUTURE of this country, going to defray the costs? When all those jackasses in Congress are drooling all over themselves in their old age, the young will be either uneducated or in debt up to their ears because of this irrational action. If anything, the government should be throwing more and more money into education. I'm getting tired of this shit. Fuck the bureaucracy.
1/10/2006
Mine Fiasco: Reply to Andrew
I will continue to attest that when normal people—not politicians, lawyers, but everyday people—tell you news, you tend to believe them. When someone comes home in my house and they say something such as, “There was a fire at Dunkin Donuts today,” my typical reaction is to believe them. I’m not going to wait for an official press release, and chances are that whoever told me, wasn’t at or near that Dunkin Donuts. I’m also sure that the foreman overheard, or at least heard it from someone else, but there was no reason to believe it was false. Hope was low, but not lost. This was a situation where if they survived the initial blast, there was hope for a period of time afterwards until they began to dehydrate and die (about 3-4 days). The major factor in speculating there health was an air quality test, which showed dangerous levels of gas.
“The outlook for the men appeared bleak Tuesday morning, when rescuers found deadly levels of carbon monoxide — a byproduct of combustion — in the mine, and got no response when they banged on a steel pipe.”
The miners were not stupid though.
“McCloy and the 11 others were found at the deepest point of the mine, about 2 miles from the entrance, behind a fibrous plastic cloth stretched across an area about 20 feet wide to keep out deadly carbon monoxide gas, Hatfield said. Such curtains, called battices, are used in mines to direct air flow, and miners are trained to use them in an emergency.
Each of the miners in the barricaded area also had a breathing apparatus that purifies the air and had been able to use it, according to mine officials.”
“The sole survivor, Randal McCloy, was in critical condition Wednesday with a collapsed lung and dehydration but no signs of brain damage or carbon monoxide poisoning after being trapped for more than 42 hours, a doctor told The Associated Press. At 27, McCloy was the youngest in the group.”
Unfortunately, it does not say how the rest died, out of respect for the families, but I speculate thirst, in addition to injuries sustained by the blast.
Hope was perfectly reasonable, and the families had no reason to believe that the news they were told, overheard or not, would be wrong. The news shouldn’t of gotten out, but it did. I don’t believe it is anyone’s fault. I assert that they were not lied to, and neither side is at fault.
“"There was no such word from the company itself," he insisted. "We have taken great precautions to be sure that our numbers were right, that our times were right, that the information was correct when we make a statement."”
All my information was taken from here
Sidenote from Andrew:
It looks like we've been arguing different points. I basically agree with everything you've said, that the people weren't entirely foolish to have hope. And it seems to me you agree with my point that to allege the mine had lied to the families is foolish. But god damn we're good at making points.
1/05/2006
Mine Incident: Tyler's reply to The Gallows'
First read my post about the mine accident at The Gallows.
Tyler writes in a comment:
Tyler said...
I wholeheartedly, and brutally disagree.
At least 2 families were contacted by a mine foreman, that 12 miners WERE alive. They were told they WERE alive, not that they might be, that they WERE. I'm not going to wait for hours for an "official report" when a large group of people say people are alive, I'm going to believe them, and they did to.
It is irrational to think that they are all lying. And the fact that one of them DID survive shows that there hopes were not misfounded. There was that mine collapse in Pennsylvania a year or two ago, and all of them survived down there for over a week I believe, granted it was different circumstances, but was it irrational then to hope that any of them survived?
I believe that the "12-alive myth" originated near the very beginning of the fiasco. Probably the 2nd branch of people to hear it. The guy on the cell phone listened to the information, and probably repeated something like, "You found them??" and most often when someone says somethign is found, it is a good thing, and as a result the mind of whoever overheard registered it as good news, and since that person was probably close to the chain of command, when they told other people, they had reason to believe them.
While I disagree with most of what you said, suing for any reason in this case would be pure idiocy.
I'm assuming you read this in an article written by the Associated Press, which is the only souce I could find that mentioned anything about the foreman phonecall.
So let's clear some things up. Two family members were contacted by one foreman, one of these members being the cousin of the foreman. Foremen are not part of rescue teams, for one. And if the foreman had any official capacity to speak for the mine, why didn't he just call everyone? Or drive down to the church and tell everyone? This was a man who overheard a conversation, part of one in all probability, and took it upon himself to play the savior. Who says that foreman was anywhere near the rescue site, was in any way attached to it officially, or otherwise knew what he was talking about? Other sources say that some "unidentified men" ran into the church shouting the good news. That's where the false news came from.
Though you utilize some majorly vague pronoun references in your second paragraph, I'm going to assume you're talking about the families. I take it you're referencing this sentence that I wrote: "And now they're pissed because "they were lied to." Yes, they were lied to. BY THEMSELVES." And I'm assuming you thought I meant that literally. For that, I apologize for not being clear enough. They didn't actually intend to not tell the truth to themselves, they didn't know either way. But they became so grief stricken, then ecstatic, that all reason flew out the window. A better word would be "deluded." I'd like to make it clear that it is impossible to fault the families for letting themselves be misled. However, they can not reasonably claim that they were lied to by the powers that be, because the REAL people in charge never actually said anything until the official report made by Ben Hatfield, the mine chief executive.
You have every right to disagree with me. I'm going to assume--again, since it's not too clear--you meant you disagree with my assertions that in no way, shape, or form did the mine company confirm that the miners were alive. I'll leave you with some quotes:
"The company and state officials did not think it was prudent to issue a statement without confirmation of identity of known survivors or the deceased,' [Ben] Hatfield said. (He's the mine executive officer, the man in charge) 'In the process of being cautious we allowed the jubilation to go on longer than we should have.' Source
Governor Joe Manchin: "...that's when someone said, `They found them, they're alive,'" Manchin recalled. "I looked at our communications people and I looked at my security and said, `Have we had that confirmed, do we know anything about that?' And they said, `No."......"They [families] kept saying `12 are alive, 12 are alive.' I looked at my detachment again and I said, `Have we confirmed that?' And we didn't," Manchin said"......"Within minutes The Associated Press issued an alert, reporting family members as saying the 12 miners were alive. There was no confirmation from International Coal Group, which remained silent for the next three hours. Subsequent reports would attribute the news to family members, most of them unnamed." Source
"Ben Hatfield, ICG's chief executive, said Wednesday that taking the miners to the church was never part of the emergency plan, which called for any survivors to immediately be transported to a hospital. "We had no idea what they were being told," Hatfield said.....Hatfield, the mining company chief executive, told reporters that mine officials held off announcing the men were dead while they tried to make certain that was the case. Source
"Hatfield said the rescue command center told state police to advise clergy at the church to caution against premature news, but for some reason, the word wasn't passed around." Source
As for the Pennsylvania mine accident in 2003, it was 9 miners stuck for 77 hours (3 days, not a week), and they were found relatively quickly, confirmed by the mine company that they were alive, then carefully dug out. That wasn't nearly as bad as this.
In conclusion, nobody can be blamed for the poor exchange of information that led to the intense distraught felt by the family members of the miners, except the jackass foreman and that unknown bastard who ran into the church. This applies to everyone. Grief is no excuse to be an ass. Nothing can be done to bring them back, no matter how hard you push the issue, so stop, and deal with the grief instead of pushing it off to the side to point fingers.
Tyler writes in a comment:
Tyler said...
I wholeheartedly, and brutally disagree.
At least 2 families were contacted by a mine foreman, that 12 miners WERE alive. They were told they WERE alive, not that they might be, that they WERE. I'm not going to wait for hours for an "official report" when a large group of people say people are alive, I'm going to believe them, and they did to.
It is irrational to think that they are all lying. And the fact that one of them DID survive shows that there hopes were not misfounded. There was that mine collapse in Pennsylvania a year or two ago, and all of them survived down there for over a week I believe, granted it was different circumstances, but was it irrational then to hope that any of them survived?
I believe that the "12-alive myth" originated near the very beginning of the fiasco. Probably the 2nd branch of people to hear it. The guy on the cell phone listened to the information, and probably repeated something like, "You found them??" and most often when someone says somethign is found, it is a good thing, and as a result the mind of whoever overheard registered it as good news, and since that person was probably close to the chain of command, when they told other people, they had reason to believe them.
While I disagree with most of what you said, suing for any reason in this case would be pure idiocy.
I'm assuming you read this in an article written by the Associated Press, which is the only souce I could find that mentioned anything about the foreman phonecall.
So let's clear some things up. Two family members were contacted by one foreman, one of these members being the cousin of the foreman. Foremen are not part of rescue teams, for one. And if the foreman had any official capacity to speak for the mine, why didn't he just call everyone? Or drive down to the church and tell everyone? This was a man who overheard a conversation, part of one in all probability, and took it upon himself to play the savior. Who says that foreman was anywhere near the rescue site, was in any way attached to it officially, or otherwise knew what he was talking about? Other sources say that some "unidentified men" ran into the church shouting the good news. That's where the false news came from.
Though you utilize some majorly vague pronoun references in your second paragraph, I'm going to assume you're talking about the families. I take it you're referencing this sentence that I wrote: "And now they're pissed because "they were lied to." Yes, they were lied to. BY THEMSELVES." And I'm assuming you thought I meant that literally. For that, I apologize for not being clear enough. They didn't actually intend to not tell the truth to themselves, they didn't know either way. But they became so grief stricken, then ecstatic, that all reason flew out the window. A better word would be "deluded." I'd like to make it clear that it is impossible to fault the families for letting themselves be misled. However, they can not reasonably claim that they were lied to by the powers that be, because the REAL people in charge never actually said anything until the official report made by Ben Hatfield, the mine chief executive.
You have every right to disagree with me. I'm going to assume--again, since it's not too clear--you meant you disagree with my assertions that in no way, shape, or form did the mine company confirm that the miners were alive. I'll leave you with some quotes:
"The company and state officials did not think it was prudent to issue a statement without confirmation of identity of known survivors or the deceased,' [Ben] Hatfield said. (He's the mine executive officer, the man in charge) 'In the process of being cautious we allowed the jubilation to go on longer than we should have.' Source
Governor Joe Manchin: "...that's when someone said, `They found them, they're alive,'" Manchin recalled. "I looked at our communications people and I looked at my security and said, `Have we had that confirmed, do we know anything about that?' And they said, `No."......"They [families] kept saying `12 are alive, 12 are alive.' I looked at my detachment again and I said, `Have we confirmed that?' And we didn't," Manchin said"......"Within minutes The Associated Press issued an alert, reporting family members as saying the 12 miners were alive. There was no confirmation from International Coal Group, which remained silent for the next three hours. Subsequent reports would attribute the news to family members, most of them unnamed." Source
"Ben Hatfield, ICG's chief executive, said Wednesday that taking the miners to the church was never part of the emergency plan, which called for any survivors to immediately be transported to a hospital. "We had no idea what they were being told," Hatfield said.....Hatfield, the mining company chief executive, told reporters that mine officials held off announcing the men were dead while they tried to make certain that was the case. Source
"Hatfield said the rescue command center told state police to advise clergy at the church to caution against premature news, but for some reason, the word wasn't passed around." Source
As for the Pennsylvania mine accident in 2003, it was 9 miners stuck for 77 hours (3 days, not a week), and they were found relatively quickly, confirmed by the mine company that they were alive, then carefully dug out. That wasn't nearly as bad as this.
In conclusion, nobody can be blamed for the poor exchange of information that led to the intense distraught felt by the family members of the miners, except the jackass foreman and that unknown bastard who ran into the church. This applies to everyone. Grief is no excuse to be an ass. Nothing can be done to bring them back, no matter how hard you push the issue, so stop, and deal with the grief instead of pushing it off to the side to point fingers.
1/02/2006
Team Cohesion, key to success?
I just came back from my favorite fast food restaurant, Taco Bell, and noticed a signifcant jump in overall quality in the restaurant. The food was good, as well as the service, I was impressed.
I began to think of many other fast food experiences that I have endured recently, and all but this one were lackluster at best. Most recently was last night. Me and Andrew ventured to KMart to pick up some bitchin' sleds for some deathsledding that would take place earlier, but afterwards we went to go buy some food at McDonalds. I had high hopes walking into the restaurant because the cashier looked intelligent, at least intelligent enough to competently work the cash register, or deal with any problems that could occur while operating it. Alas, he was not. I wanted 1 10-piece chicken nugget, instead after a full minute of searching for the right key, I got charged for a 10-piece chicken nugget and a XL Raspberry Iced Tea. 1-minute doesn't sound like a long time, but if you think about standing at a register for a full minute, you realize how much time it really is. If each customer took 1 minute, the lunch rush they typically receive would not get reconciled for over 2 hours. So after the first minute, and after I explained to him that he made a mistake he spent another minute trying to figure out how to undo it. I had tolerance and was curious to see how he would handle it. What he should have done is asked one of the 3 people within 5 feet of him how to fix it, so for one he would know for next time, and two, he wouldn't hold me up further. Yet he just tried to fix it himself, wasting another full minute. Finally he asked the guy next to him, who fixed it in less than 5 seconds. Now we were back to square one. I just told him to give me 1 20-piece instead, since Andrew was going to get the same thing. To make an unneccesarily long story shorter he eventually got it up to 3 10-piece chicken nuggets, then finally back down to 2 10-pieces which was charged for a 20. He then proceeded to give me 1 10-piece chicken nugget on a tray, when I had specifically answered his question earlier that I wanted my order to go. We stared at each other for a good 15 seconds until he told me I was all set. I told him he gave me only 10 when I ordered a 20. He took the 10 back and went to go look for a 20, which clearly was not there. I just told him to give me two 10-pieces, and we were on our way.
A miserable, yet slightly hilarious experience. I'd like to say this is an isolated incident, but alas, it is not. Though not to this severity, this is a typical occurence. Most often fast food teams are a loosely-knit, multi-langual, multi-cultural grab bag of suck. This isn't saying that different ethnicities can't work hard or well though. The key to 'team cohesion' is fun. At Sandwich Construction (where I work) we break up the monotony of making sammiches and cleaning up the store at the end of the day, with intermittent breaks, often only 30 seconds, that yield a laugh from the majority of the staff. Whether it be a well-planned ambush on a fellow employee driving in, drag racing the es-tangs (ford escort station wagons) or just throwing tomatoes at the cure for childrens cancer clothing dumpster, it has a positive effect. I'm sure some study somewhere says that laughter increases a workers productivity 'x' amount, but I'm saying from personal experience that when I'm having a good time, I work harder, as long as it doesn't get out of hand.
Now at Taco Bell today, they had a competent cashier, who spoke English well, knew what he was doing, and was quick and efficent. I heard the staff laughing a bit and seemingly having a good time. The lady who yelled out the orders was loud and clear. And unlike many times before at this particular location, my crunchy tacos were sufficently filled, and delicious.
Though often one non-conformist of them team can bring down the whole thing. i.e. a girl 'Nena' that I worked with on Fridays and Saturdays over the course of about 3-weeks. She was a complete waste of space, had no intention of improving her work ethic, and was just bad all around. It took her an hour and fifteen minutes to do a 20 minute job, then she would waste time and just walk around the store straightening out napkins and the like. Seeing this annoys everyone and slows them down. Eventually she was.... disposed of, and the morale of the team greatly improved from a disgrunteled worker level to one where optimal work efficeny was reobtained and happiness was palpable.
In conclusion, having a few people that can work hard, is a lot different than having a team that does work hard.
I began to think of many other fast food experiences that I have endured recently, and all but this one were lackluster at best. Most recently was last night. Me and Andrew ventured to KMart to pick up some bitchin' sleds for some deathsledding that would take place earlier, but afterwards we went to go buy some food at McDonalds. I had high hopes walking into the restaurant because the cashier looked intelligent, at least intelligent enough to competently work the cash register, or deal with any problems that could occur while operating it. Alas, he was not. I wanted 1 10-piece chicken nugget, instead after a full minute of searching for the right key, I got charged for a 10-piece chicken nugget and a XL Raspberry Iced Tea. 1-minute doesn't sound like a long time, but if you think about standing at a register for a full minute, you realize how much time it really is. If each customer took 1 minute, the lunch rush they typically receive would not get reconciled for over 2 hours. So after the first minute, and after I explained to him that he made a mistake he spent another minute trying to figure out how to undo it. I had tolerance and was curious to see how he would handle it. What he should have done is asked one of the 3 people within 5 feet of him how to fix it, so for one he would know for next time, and two, he wouldn't hold me up further. Yet he just tried to fix it himself, wasting another full minute. Finally he asked the guy next to him, who fixed it in less than 5 seconds. Now we were back to square one. I just told him to give me 1 20-piece instead, since Andrew was going to get the same thing. To make an unneccesarily long story shorter he eventually got it up to 3 10-piece chicken nuggets, then finally back down to 2 10-pieces which was charged for a 20. He then proceeded to give me 1 10-piece chicken nugget on a tray, when I had specifically answered his question earlier that I wanted my order to go. We stared at each other for a good 15 seconds until he told me I was all set. I told him he gave me only 10 when I ordered a 20. He took the 10 back and went to go look for a 20, which clearly was not there. I just told him to give me two 10-pieces, and we were on our way.
A miserable, yet slightly hilarious experience. I'd like to say this is an isolated incident, but alas, it is not. Though not to this severity, this is a typical occurence. Most often fast food teams are a loosely-knit, multi-langual, multi-cultural grab bag of suck. This isn't saying that different ethnicities can't work hard or well though. The key to 'team cohesion' is fun. At Sandwich Construction (where I work) we break up the monotony of making sammiches and cleaning up the store at the end of the day, with intermittent breaks, often only 30 seconds, that yield a laugh from the majority of the staff. Whether it be a well-planned ambush on a fellow employee driving in, drag racing the es-tangs (ford escort station wagons) or just throwing tomatoes at the cure for childrens cancer clothing dumpster, it has a positive effect. I'm sure some study somewhere says that laughter increases a workers productivity 'x' amount, but I'm saying from personal experience that when I'm having a good time, I work harder, as long as it doesn't get out of hand.
Now at Taco Bell today, they had a competent cashier, who spoke English well, knew what he was doing, and was quick and efficent. I heard the staff laughing a bit and seemingly having a good time. The lady who yelled out the orders was loud and clear. And unlike many times before at this particular location, my crunchy tacos were sufficently filled, and delicious.
Though often one non-conformist of them team can bring down the whole thing. i.e. a girl 'Nena' that I worked with on Fridays and Saturdays over the course of about 3-weeks. She was a complete waste of space, had no intention of improving her work ethic, and was just bad all around. It took her an hour and fifteen minutes to do a 20 minute job, then she would waste time and just walk around the store straightening out napkins and the like. Seeing this annoys everyone and slows them down. Eventually she was.... disposed of, and the morale of the team greatly improved from a disgrunteled worker level to one where optimal work efficeny was reobtained and happiness was palpable.
In conclusion, having a few people that can work hard, is a lot different than having a team that does work hard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)