|
|
| The Role of Journalism |
| Sunday, October 29, 2006 |
Since I'm no journalist myself and my little soap box is plenty big enough, please allow me to opine.
Journalism is one of the most significant field in the world. Many of our oldest historical documents and documents that provide us with the only printed explanations of past conditions and events are its products. The tradition is old and its role has always in since been defined by the practitioner of the craft himself. That system of standards has in many ways created our view of history. In our "modern" world, with all of George Bush's "Internets," which were created by Al Gore, there is more information than ever fora any of us to reasonably go through or even scan. On a daily basis there is more written and documented on the Internet than could be written and documented over a period of years in the entire world. If you doubt this, consider the volume of code that is now created and recorded by machines to process a simple online transaction. Understandably this is not journalism and I will discontinue that aside by simply stating this, we are swimming (or possibly) drowning in information.
Journalism is an activity that bridges many forms of media, it can be digital, printed, handwritten, spoken, video - or in any other medium that is used for communcation. It can also be reliable or unreliable, rich or lean. Journalism and news entertainment, however, represent to very different crafts. It is not the purpose of journalism to be entertaining, although it is possible for it to be so. As new networks seek to improve profits by providing entertainment to draw viewer and increase advertising revenue the information content and journalistic excellence declines.
What is the role of journalism?
I have no absolute answer on this question. To a degree, each of us has to determine what it is that we expect from our journalists and then drill down to the places where these journalists can be found. Journalists are not required to reveal their sources, so articles and stories always have to viewed with a certain level of skepticism. One characteristic that I recommend that people seek out is absence of bias.
The Preamble from the Society of Professional Journalists States:
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice. This is a very high standard, not the type of standard found in the Daily Star, or the Enquirer or most of the magazines that are on the shelf today. It's a standard that, when followed, can be remarkably unprofitable, because there is no money coming in from those who want their special interest placed in a positive light. It is amazing the number of articles that I read today in newspapers that read more like press release and party builders than actual nuts an bolt new articles.
Journalism requires an ability to be objective to provide at a minimum the answers to the basic six questions and significant contextual information. Material presented without context is no more than data, it is neither enlightening or education. Enlightenment is dependent on the successful completion of a process that first lead to a clear understanding of the factors as opposed to the product of randomly jumping from one conclusion to another. Enlightenment is an ideal that is, perhaps, a residual of unachievable goal that is the carrot we chase in order to become at a minimum sensible.
Why do journalistic standards matter?
Journalistic standards matter, because bad information can get you fired, injured, or killed. Bad information can break up families, destroy business, and result in the misallocation of resource. Bad information results in bad economies and al types of carnage. Journalistic standards are designed to create a body of reporters that respect the trust that is placed in them. And, because journalists may not necesarily tell us what to think, they, as a prominent body of voices, tell us what to think about, which is almost, if not more important.
Consider this, most of us would not know that a hurricane was coming, if journalists did not tell us. Most people would have no idea that an advancing army was nearing them if the journalists did not tell us. To a degree, we depend on our governmet to practice a certain level of journalistic integrity and to provide the public as a public good, paid for with tax dollars, objective reports. The government should be required to publish the same kinds of notes and warnings as corporation a required to report in annual reports and prospectuses. And the need to be accountability when they fail to do so. This however represents an aside and shifts the focus away from the journalistic role itself.
Okay, a little more aside...
A lot of people seem to feel that blogs are the solution and that the blogosphere will do what journalist have not and improve standards in journalism. I disagree.
I am an avid blog reader. I read blogs of all "persuasions" and note that most blogs seem to have an agenda that focuses more on opinions than facts. The water is not getting less muddy, it is getting more muddy. This is not necessarily bad because a great deal of information is shared about topics that the maistrean media channels have not seen as profitable enough to exploit, but the side effect is there is a ot more information for all of us to parse. Blogs will effectively lower journalism standards (unless a standards body arise to create some form of accreditation), while at the same time providing a wealth of information that will serve to level the playing field when choices are presented to us.
Blogs represent the greatest threat our modern established media outlets have ever seen and they will have to find a means of coexisting. Will the establishment media work to become more informative or will they do what they appear to be doing and morph into bloggers.
Look at some of big names in network news broadcasting: Rush Limbaugh, Ed Shultz, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Rielly, Brit Hume and Randi Rhodes. All of them put on as though they are outside the mainstream media and criticize the mainstream media for this and that - when they are in fact the mainstream media. Each and every one of them is a member of the institution that the so frequently criticize and decry and none of them seem to make any effort to raise the bar in terms of journalistic excellence. They are the mainstream answer. They are the attempt to be more incendiary, be more outspoken, dwell on isolated nuggets of information and tout an agenda - while at the same time dedicating little if any of there resources to causing change for the better by operating inside the system. From now until the end of time they will simply harangue, even if this were a perfect world they would harangue. The make their off the divisions that exist among people and the fears that people hold. As a group, they are participant sin a fear-mongering machinery. As much as they claim to be solution providers, they are not, they are firestarters. They are bloggers on the airwaves and cable networks and the service they provide is that of entertainment for the masses and news for the illiterate. Generally, you can research the points that any of these and find that their reasoning is flawed or that key pieces of information have been withheld, either by neglect or by intention.
It is quite apparent that there are many people who have managed to clear distinguish between fact pieces and opinion pieces in fact clothing. Some news brokers will sell you anything because the make their money on the sales volume and they realize that there is a higher cost for developing accurate and complete news stories. This represents a threat to the masses, while it represents almost no direct threat to the individual, the effect of the lack of journalistic integrity will work on the public like an incendiary parasite. And continue to help us put the wrong people, int he wrong places, to make sure we do the wrong thing.
I make no criticism of any of them for their business decision, only a criticism of the unsatisfactory nature of the programming. I would be the first to admit that each of these individuals is very intellegent and for the most part are excellent public speakers and dividers of public opinion. They are all soap box artist doing what most blogger wish they could, if they had the talent and the tenacity.
Now, that was a little harangue on my part.
Here are some journalism links:
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
http://www.jideas.org/journalism_standards/index.html
http://www.colorado.edu/journalism/bylines/spring98/gaines.htm
http://www.ap.org/pages/about/whatsnew/wn_112905.html
http://about.reuters.com/aboutus/editorial/ |
posted by Domesticated Dog @ 8:15 AM   |
|
|
|
| How Does A Bill Become a Law |
| Thursday, October 26, 2006 |
It is Goverment 101 to know how a bill becomes a law and I needed a refresher, so I looked it up and have dposited some info here and some links to resources you can use to learn more about how the legislature works and where you can get information about current and past legislation.
The Point of Origination:
Essentially, legislation begins as an idea which is converted into a written construct. Our government has established that only a member of congress can propose new legislation and the constitution establishes the making of laws as the primary function of Congress. The values, principles, committments, biases, and creativity of the congressional members in the Senate and the House of Representatives that results in the laws we live or die by. So, if you install a crooked congressman you get crooked laws - the laws look like the legislators.
Introduction of Legislation:
Depending on whether the legislation is introduced in the House of Representatives or the Senate there is process is intitiated in different manners. I have been unable to find link to material describing the origins of the introduction processes.
In the House of Represenatatives, the proposed legislation is hand delivered to the House Clerk or placed in the hopper (a box on House Clerk's desk where members deposit bills and resolutions to introduce them). If a bill originates in the House of Representatives that bill is assigned a number with the H.R. prefix (e.g, H.R.205.IH) and labeled with the sponsors name.
In the Senate, a Senator must be recognized by the presiding officer to announce the introduction of a bill during what is called the "morning hour," a 90 minute period on Mondays and Tuesdays in the House of Representatives that is reserved for five minute speeches by Senate members who have reserved time before their fellows. If any senator objects, the introduction of the bill is postponed until the next day. If a bill originates in the House of Representatives that bill is assigned a number with the S. prefix (e.g., S.195.IS) and labeled with the sponsors name (or in certain cases, the joint sponsors of the bill).
In both cases, at this point the bill is then forwarded to the Government Printing Office (GPO) and printed for distribution.
Committee Action:
Committee Action - More than one committee may refer a bill and the bill can be divided so different parts of are submitted to different committees. The Speaker of the House or the presiding officer in the Senate make the deterimination as to the correct committee for the bill. This is a judgement call and part of the powers of the particular offices, which is part of the reason that these positions are coveted as they can aler how a bill is reviewed and indeed place bills before groups that are for or against that bill. Bills are sheduled with the commeittees and the is a deadline for action. Failure to take action on a bill and vote it up or down essentially kills it unless there is a discharge petition signed by a House majority of 218 members.
The committe has performs a number of operation with the bill as it works it way through congresss. Govenerment agencies and experts are called in to review the merits of the bill, subcommittes may be assigned, and other machinations occur. Eventually, the committe must vote on the bill to determine whether or not it will advance.
While the bill is beig reviewed the text of the bill may be ammended or altered. If the changes to the Bill are determined significant enough or, if the majority voter see it to be advntageous, a decision can be made to introduce a "clean bill" under a new title and new number.
The Floor and the Vote:
If a bill survive the above processes it then moves to the floor for consideration and debate. The Senate and the House of Representatives have different rules for how this debate proceeds. When the debate has been concluded, there will be vote on the the bill. Both houses of congress must apporve the bill in the same form. This is part of the bi-cameral process.
The Executive Branch:
The bill is then forwarded to the president to determine if the bill will be interoduced into law. The President can introduce a bill into law throuhg action or inaciton. If the president fails to sign or veto a bill, then after ten days it becomes law by default, unless Congress adjourns. If congress adjourns before the ten days and the bill has not been signed then what is known as a "pocket veto" occurs. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 5:30 PM |
|
|
|
| Social Security- Opening Thoughts |
| Wednesday, October 25, 2006 |
The Democrats and the Republicans, particularly those that agree with President Bush's recommendation that optional personal savings accounts be made available to taxpayers as an alternative to paying into the existing Social Security system, are presenting different opinions of the roles of taxes and benefits. It can be difficult to hard to find fair analysis of the existing program in regards to the actual costs and benefits, because social security clearly effects different economic classes of people in dramatically different ways.
Social Security represents the largest defined benefit pension plan in the United States and, although it is not always framed that way, Social Security is, in large part, a Defined Benefit pension plan. There are many individuals who benefit from social security prior to retirement age, such as injured or disabled veterans and persons suffering from chronic and disabling medical disorders, but most of the focus is on the retirement benefit.
A quick visit to the Social Security Administration (SSA) website reveals that the organization takes it for granted that you and everyone else knows and understands what Social Security is and does as there is, otherwise there would be a more prominent link titled something to the effect of: "What is Social Security?" or "Social Security Defined?" So, I guess the intent of the website designer and the organization is for you to cobble together an understanding of the program, if you can ever achieve one.
If you take a look at the Social Security and Medicare Tax Rates, you will notice the rate of growth in the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) tax rate and Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI).
- For Employees: From 1937-1949, at the beginning of the social security program the combined tax rate was 1.0% (note there was not Medicare Hospital Insurance).
- For Employees: From 1990 going forward the rate for an employee is 6.2% OASDI and 1.45% HI for a combined total of 7.65%
Interestingly, the combined rate for the self-employed from 1937-1950 was 0.0% and there was no Medicare Hospitial Insurance (HI) tax on the self-employed until 1966.
- For Self-Employed: From 1990 forward, the tax rates - if you are self employed and elect to pay these taxes - are doubled with a 12.4% tax rate for OASDI and 2.9% tax rate to cover HI benefits.
A brief overview of the data implies that, without hindsight 20/20 and other excuses being used, it should have been immediately apparent that program and the plan was inherently flawed and the funding flaw was aparent as can be noted from the early increases in the tax rates to fund the obligation. Just like a pyramid (network marketing) schemes for get rich quick business, the benefits go to those that get in early and the costs will be paid by those who get in later. That is essentially what the programs resemble - pyramids schemes and as such it has many of the flaws and less of upside. On dollar in dollar out basis, the most powerfully impacted beneficiaries of Social Security are Social Security Administrators and SSA employees - who are the only group that is paid by the system at a rate greater than the rate at which they pay in, while living without disability. They get their salary off everyone else's contribution to the program and since their company does not have to be (and isn't) profitable, they have little of no incentive to make it so. A rather special arrangement. This is not a condemnation, it is only an observation.
Working people and employers pay for Social Security and depend on getting a benefit out of the program and the politicians on both sides of the aisle know there is a problem with the funding. This is unfortunate considering that nine out of ten people over age 65 receive Social Security benefits. At least, 60% of Social Security beneficiaries are women and two-thirds of elderly women depend on Social Security to avoid living in poverty.
The benefit serves a purpose.The National Partnership for Women and Families presents a rather rosy look of social security in their Social Security At A Glance. An excerpt form the document states:
- You can’t outlive your Social Security retirement benefit. Unlike pensions and other retirement savings that can be depleted, Social Security benefits are guaranteed for the rest of your life.
- Unlike unpredictable investments such as stocks, your Social Security benefit does not lose its value because your monthly income is protected from inflation. You can plan your retirement because Social Security provides predictable retirement benefits.
- Social Security has a progressive benefit formula that provides a higher percentage of income for low- and moderate-wage earners, preventing millions seniors from falling into poverty.
- Social Security provides 90 percent or more of the total income for 44 percent of all nonmarried (widowed, divorced, and never married) women.
- Social Security is the only guaranteed retirement portion of your retirement and works in tandem with private pensions, savings, and other assets to provide economic support during retirement years. In fact, Social Security is the largest source of retirement income for both men (34 percent) and women (48 percent)
If you are rich or independently financially secure, then Social Security is almost a non-issue to you, becuase you will pay more into the system than you will ever withdraw, particularly if, you are an employer contributing to the system on behalf of your employees. Basically, if you are an employer and are required to contribute to Social Security on behalf of your employers you are experiencing a involuntary tax that few living Americans are old enough to have voted for initially. Everytime you increase your employees salary, you increase the tax that you pay on that employess and the immediate benefit you can feasibly transfer to that employee is diminished. And, it would seem that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow. You know, the old "bird in the bush" vs. "bird in hand" maxim. Additionally, employers are paying for a public goods that they themselves will not benefit from to the degree that the have contributed to, which, in turn makes investments in employess that carry these extra-charges less attractive and makes it an imperative for the employers to identify locations and strategies to reduce the burden of this taxation, (i.e., foreign outsourcing, purchase of components for production from overseas).
Employers should be seeking to to eliminate social security and Medicare for the purpose of survival. As employers seek shelter from the burdens of taxation, a portion of their financial resource join the rest of the capital flight out of the country. And this has additional far reaching consequences. The United States has a well-documented trade deficit and it continues to to grow, in large part because US companies find that it is impossible to remain conpetitve while using high cost american labor to complete tasks that can be done by less expensive workers overseas or continental borders. This is not indicating a weakness in American business it is a demonstration of the strength of American businesses to adapt and exploit opportnities. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 10:03 PM |
|
|
|
| Military Commissions Act of 2006: Signed |
| Wednesday, October 18, 2006 |
I have yet to read the full text of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, but I've found some websites with commentary about it. I need to get some background on the matter to form an opinion and I know this one is important enough to read. The effect of legislation have a tendency to reach beyond the contemporary time and space in which they are drafted. That being said, legislation can come back to bite you. Although it would seem unreasonable for terrorism legislation to be used against law abiding US citizens - any change in the rules is important to watch because it changes the rules that you have to live by and, depending on the authority, the degree to which your life may be altered without sanction.
- Human Rights Watch - Q & A: Military Commissions Act of 2006
- Turning Bad Policy Into Bad Law
- Library of Congress - As Passed by Senate
- PDF Text of Military Commissions Act of 2006
- Kieth Olbermann - MSNBC - Beginning of the End of America
From what I've read and heard about the act, it would seem that the authors of the legislation have deemed it appropriate that we definitely sacrifice rights in order to possibly stop criminal activity. So it be, eh? Bush says this legislaion is very important for the war against terror. There are a lot of people that I meet who are concerned about future despotism and the institution of Executive Order to bring about Marshall law and the loss of freedom and, forasmuch as I have disagreed with them on many issues, it seems that every few days there is more and more to be concerned about. We certainly place a great deal of trust in our government to manage its power in our interest.
This is definitely a piece of legislation worth looking into. Of course, if it is half as dreadful as described by some, we won't need to know what it says because we wil eventualy be informed through personal or vicarious experience. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 11:29 PM |
|
|
|
| I Never Knew Clinton Was Disbarred |
|
Here are couple links to a factoid about Bill Clinton - apparently he is no longer permitted to practice law before the Supreme Court and Arkansas Supreme Court. The following links carry the story:
Prior to Disbarment
Clinton Disbarred From Supreme Court
Clinton Disbarred From Supreme Court -Fox News
Irish Examiner - Clinton Disbarred
It is rather insignificant, because what is the likelihood that he ever would? The disbarrment results from the lies told or "untruthinesses" told in a prior deposition and perhaps other issues. Even so, Bill Clinton is perhaps the best representative the Democrats have and remains among its top celebrities. This man is no flash in the pan, he is knowledgeable, articulate, and charismatic. Additionally, he is a fine verbal tactition and strategic organizer. He remains an asset to the Democratic party eight years after leaving office and could probably win the nomination were he to enter the primaries. There is no more recognized Democrat and despite all the negatives that occured during his terms, he maintained a high public approval rating.
Shoot! I'd vote for the guy. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 10:25 PM |
|
|
|
| Don't Vote 'Til You Know - AARP Slogan |
|
I just saw a commercial sponsored by the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) using the slogan, "Don't Vote!" This is the strangest slogan I have ever seen in an election period, when the general objective of most groups is to encourage potential voters to cast their ballots - it seemed kind of negative. However, the other part of the slogan is - "...until you know where the candidates stand on the issues." That's the kind of statement that gets the mind working and makes you wonder, "Well, how much do I know?"
I have to say this, the advertisement worked. My curiosity about what they could be saying led me directly to their website and I immediately started looking at their data and perusing their web pages to learn more about what the organization has to say about itself. The AARP has a nice "Race Display" feature that allows you to examine how candidates stated positions line up with the AARP positions. I encourage you to visit this page to get a summary of the candidates positions and to see what the candidates are saying on specific issues in their own words.
Visit the website at www.dontvote.com.
I found the result of the AARP survey interview with the candidates to be interesting. Although, I did not have the opportunity to read about all of the elections nationally, the experience was edifying. This is the best site I have visited thus far on the the subject of state elections. For this reason, I am adding the AARP to my blog link list.
The AARP is attempting to create a more educated voting class. This is great for seniors and great for the country - because given the demographic shift - we will need educated seniors making decisions at the polls otherwise the children will have no education and the marketplace will colllapse. Assuming that the seniors act in a manner that is economically rational, the effects of their ballots could in ways reduce some of the funding available for projects specifically designed to help young people, the aforementioned could perhaps be negatively influence by the behavior of this voting block. For that reason there may be occasions when it is important for young people to vote to see that seniors do not get their way. However, this segment of the population will be the prime asset holding segement and the segment that will have a high rate of turnout for local and national elections. All in all, it is better to have more education among all voting populations.
Given that the AARP represents the fastest growing age brackets and considering that most of will one day be of age to be affected by senior issues, the work of the AARP is relevant to all of us. At present, I have not been able to understand why the AARP would support the previous Medicare revisions, however, I find that there is great merit in a number of the the positions that the AARP takes. Perhaps, the AARP is taking a multi-stage approach to the issue by first supporting introduction of legislation that will provide segway for its desire to reduce medical cost and make access to and medical care and medical information as simple as possible for seniors in need.
This is a large organization with significant capital resources and strong penetration by their lobbyists. With 35 million members their organization is one that cannot be ignored by any incumbent or candidate aspiring to become an incumbent. And, unlike many other organizations, such as the labor unions, religious groups, and trade organizations - those who are members of the AARP (or members of the voting block that the AARP represents) are members for the rest of their natural lives, because age cannot be reversed.
Let's lok at the AARP.
The AARP is a 501(c)(4) not-for-profit and tax exempt coporation. It's particular IRS status allows the AARP to participate in political activities such as lobbying, however, to preserve it tax exempt status the AARP must refrain from making contributions to the political candidates.
The AARP Annual Report (AARP Consolidated Financial Statements: December 31, 2005 and 2004) indicates the following:
- Cash on Hand 2005: $352,961,000. That's a lot of cash.
- Cash Held as Collateral 2005: $50,748,000. This as Note 4 of the report indicates is cash held as colleteral from loans and investment banking activities of the not-for-profit organization.
- Total Assets: $1,775,736,000.
- Total Liabilities: $1,436,601,000
- Total Net Assets: $339,135,000. This is in effect what the organization would own in the event that all assets were liquidated to settle all debts and liabities in full.
This organization is too large to ignore - it says about when candidate that did not find it critical to respond the questions posed by the AARP. Keep in mind, a significant portion of the assets above are dedicated to activities designed to, or capable of, influencing opinions. Although the organization is non-profit/non-partisan and cannot make direct contributions to campaigns - the organization can endorse legislation and provide its "Seal of Approval" on legislation and products according to the perogatives of its management.
There was an oddity that I notice while perusing the survey results... On a conspicious number of occasions the Republican candidates failed to check boxes concerning whether they supported or opposed the AARP position on a particular issue. This occured far more frequently with Republican than with any other party. (CHECK FOR YOURSELF!) This seemed odd, because the Republican were supposed to be about clear communication of values. But, that must only apply to side issues, morality plays (i.e., gay marriage and partial birth abortion - both of which I oppose on legal and other grounds) and subjects that have been pre-scripted in the party talking points. It seems odd that they would submit reply to the questions without checking the "Yes" or "No" box - it's a survey and the process is was simple enough for opposing candidates to complete the forms. How can you vote for someone someone who can't fill out a form? How do they file their taxes and how can they be held accountable. The method of response is best described as slippery. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 1:55 PM |
|
|
|
| Waco Documentaries |
| Monday, October 16, 2006 |
There is no event that occurs within a vacuum - and one must wonder whether or not true vacuums exist. The degree to which we live in a police state is a reflection of the degree to which we submit as a society.
Law and order is essential, and, in the absence of law and order, we are animals - little more than beasts in the field. We have established and drawn moralities from our religions and the mandates of governments to allow order to progress and allow men to rise above the beasts. We need systems of rules and an order to protect us from anarchy and that is proven in every society when the order of law breaks down. It is a constant battle to strike the right balance.
Ignorance is the greatest vice of all and there is no law against it and - for many reasons - public or congregational ignorance are the catalyst of power for tyrannies. Take a look at North Korea or Germany in the 1930s and 1940s to see the power of ignorance and the products of its adherence. Those who are wilfully ignorant practice a dangerous religion.
There are conspiracy theories of all sorts placing all sorts of parties in the mix of the power structure and for each conspiracy there is a contingent that rejects it and society moves on. The fact is this: There are conspiracies. People conspire everyday to earn more money from their labor, acquire more property for their families, gain control of their children, and tend their gardens. Government itself, by its nature and by definition, is a conspiracy to create or effect law and order. Conspiriacies are not inherently evil nor are people who conspire. The product of the conspiracies can be described as good or evil, but that wil be a reflection of each individual's moral and ethical code. This is a somewhat relativistic way to look at the matter - but it is the way most reasonable people need to look at the world.
The only way to get to the truth is to look at an event from all available view points. Here are some links to videos on the web regarding the events at Waco and the death of 89 Branch Davidians. My most immediate concerns about the events are related to proper use of force, intervention by agencies with proper jurisdiction, and civil rights. Please view the videos below and be considerate of the presentations without immediately subscribing to any desire to subvert your government.
- Waco: The Big Lie This video contains footage from the standoff at the Branch Davidian compound and the destruction of the facility. There is commentary during the video showing possible sources of misinformation. This is a very interesting documentary.
- Waco Rules of Engagement - Part 1/2
This video includes footage from the congressional hearings and material to consider, as the title would imply, the Rules of Engagement. This video is produced in a very balanced fashion - allowing the viewer to form their own opinion. There are recordings of the negotiations between Jim Cavanaugh (FBI Negotiator) seems to attempt to lie to David Koresh about the officers being armed on the helicopters and firing on the compound. Cavanaugh changes his position a minimum of three times in the conversation and appears to be telling falsehoods in the negotiation process. Some of the commentators seem to have obvious biases for and against Koresh, however, many statements are made without supporting documentation. Definitely worth watching for the footage from hearings and commentary by authors, witnesses, and Branch Davidians.
- Waco Rules of Engagement - Part 2/2
It is interesting to note that the hearings and stances of the congressional officers assigned to investigate and the matter seem to fall along strict party lines. This demonstrates a terrifying lack of indepenence in the evaluation and raises questions about the official reports. The two party structure does little for my sense of liberty and diminishes my confidence that these officials are, first, acting in the publics interest and then, second, in their own. That said, it does appear that certain members of the investigative committe asked excellent questions and exposed seroius flaws in the story presented to them.
There are a lot of really wierd things that you learn in these videos and footage of public comments to the press that are disingenuous and effectively worked to develop a chain of disinformation. All 11 of the Branch Davidian defendants were found to be not guilty subsequent to the end of the standoff, tanks ran over the cars and personal property of the Branch Davidian without any dirent need, the attack begins before any warrant is served, there are no ambulances on site at the time of the raid or immediately subsequent to the beginning of armed conflict, there is no communications network established that links to ermergency response units (i.e., ambulances), the FBI was informed that there was a limited, if any, ability to control fire should it occur in the compound, and mental destabilization tactics were used on the men, women, and children in the compound.
The use of CS gas (powder) and Methylene Chloride cause some concern as to the ability or intent to perform safe extraction. OSHA classifies Methylene Chloride as a workplace carcinogen and, incidentally, methylene chloride is used a paintstripper and is extremely flammable.
Upon cursory review of some published facts on the matter - I have to say that I don't want to know what Koresh knew or had that was the justification for this action. And, if I did think I knew, It would be best for me to keep it to myself. Based upon the outcomes for those who thought they knew. But, it must have been something, because the ATF does not raid premises over child abuse allegations that have been previously investigated.
Understandably, this event took place 10 years ago. Yet, it is still relevant as the outcomes, methods, and sentiments surrounding this event have established precedents in the American community - and many lives were either affected or ended as a direct consequence. Even so, it is the right assumed and established of right of every governement to act without sanction within its own borders, the jurisdiction of which is determined by the power it possesses and uses to assert this authority. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 2:38 PM |
|
|
|
| John's Hopkins Iraq Mortality Study: 655,000 Deaths Due To US-Led Invasion? |
| Thursday, October 12, 2006 |
An MIT/Johns Hopkins University study has been completed and published in the British medical journal, The Lancet that estimates that many as 654,965 more Iraqis may have died since hostilities began in Iraq in March 2003 and, thus implies that the deaths are related to the explosion of violence that followed the US-led invasion. This figure seems to be very high, is far in excess of any other estimate that I have seen published before. The conlcusions of the report are clearly presented in the key findings. The data may or may not be correct as the conclusions are drawn using a a survey and extrapolation method, yet, to date this is the most comprehensive study of the matter that I have seen anywhere and merits consideration.
Review of the Text:
The researchers summary of the study found on page 1 of the study, The Human Cost of War: A Mortality Study, 2002-2006. This is the origin of the big headlines that reads "655,000 more deaths" caused by the Iraq invasion. That is a tremendous amount of carnage and far more than 60,000 to 100,000 figures that I have found elsewehere. Yet, the page 1 summary of the report clearly states:
A new household survey of Iraq has found that approximately 600,000 people have been killed in the violence of the war that began with the U.S. invasion in March 2003. And page 7 of the same report states, and I quote:"...we estimate that through July 2006, there have been 654,965 excess deaths in Iraq as a consequence of the war from all causes..."
"Excess deaths can be further divided into those from violent and from non-violent causes. The vast majority of excess deaths were from violent causes. The excess deaths from violent causes were 7.2/1000. Applying this to the population we estimate that 601,027 were due to violent causes." Therefore, the report asserts that since the 2003 invasion approximately 654,965 more deaths from all causes have occured - that works out to: 196,686.2 excess deaths from all causes per year over a 3.33 year period (March 2003 to July 2006 - 40 months). The deaths are in addition to the base rate of deaths for the prior to the invasion was identified by the researchers to be 143,000 per year base upon survey data conducted for the 17 months prior to the invasion. The study found that upwards of 90% of the deaths were from violent causes. The researchers say that in nearly 92% of the individual cases, family members produced death certificates to support their answers.
This is admittedly, a statistically significant increase in mortality.
I must give credit to the researchers and respect to them the for the risks that were taken to study the matter. I have heard commentators attempt to dismiss the figure entirely and that is unfair and based on their responses in interviews it is glaringly apparent that they have not conducted any more comprehensive studies to refute the data. At present, the Iraqi government has no means of accurately keeping track of and segragating the death toll. It is indeed disturbing, that no agency or department or body is maintaining a deat toll considering the sheer volume of resource in the regions. It would seem to be critical to know these figures I order to assess the efficacy of the policy and to develop sound metrics for goals and objectives. There is one thing that have alway like about Rumsfeld is his desire to apply metrics and gather statistical data, this is an important are for him to exert his infuence to make the appropriate measurements.
President Bush and a number of right-wing described the results of the study as incredulous, yet even in their challenge to the factuality of the data, yet, without duplicating the study or conducting a series of studies using more rigorous method and larger sample sizes in more regions there is no way to absolutely disprove the results. Considering that the researchers observed death certifiacte for 92% of the dead reported, one might assert that this introduces a 8% margin of error in the results (assuming all thos families that did not have death certificates in their hands or immediately available at the time were lying).
Here is a list of links to articles about the study:
Of the total 655,000 estimated "excess deaths," 601,000 resulted from violence and the rest from disease and other causes, according to the study...
- http://www.foxnews.com (Note: This article is titled "Disputed Study: Over 650,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq War". Yet, no one disputing the study really has a leg to stand on. The emphais here is shifted to the political timing of the articles release.)
- http://abcnews.go.com
- http://www.cbsnews.com (Note: Associated press is the actual source. CBS News is only the recycler of the article.)
- http://news.bbc.co.uk
- http://www.turkishweekly.net (Note: By Patricia Reaney - The article cites London Reuters as the location an source. This article does show slightly different investigative analysis. It does go on to state that the increased death rate is indicate by the study to be 2.5 time the previous estimates.)
- http://www.washingtonpost.com (Note: By DAVID BROWN/The Washington Post. This seems to be one of the most widely distributed articles and particular article has been republished, in part or in full, in many different locations. His work is usually of a very high quality.)
- http://www.cnn.com (Note: This article contains a number of links including a link to a video feed from CNN. This article also contains a link to the full study as well, which should be considered required reading for all those electing to comment on the material.)
- http://www.alertnet.org
- http://www.prospect.org
- http://news.yahoo.com
- http://www.guardian.co.uk
- http://www.boomantribune.com
- http://www.outsidethebeltway.com
- http://www.juancole.com
- http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com
- http://freeinternetpress.com
- http://www.dfw.com
- Democratic National Committee Blog
The Republican National Committee website appears to be curiously silent as to the content of the report. Please leave me a comment if you happen to find a link to a GOP article on the subject. Personally, if I were an advisor for the GOP, I would be concerned that outside of dismissive rhetoric there is seems to be little other significant means of countering this report. Had the report been entirely baseless the GOP would have been able ot have a field day with this.
Some Questions:
An understading of the Iraq invasion and its consequences involve asking a lot of tough questions, among which are:
- How many Iraqi's have died as a social, political, and cultural upheaval that is associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom?
- Is it important to keep accurate statistics on the deaths of civilians and non-uniformed enemy combatants?
- Is it fair to blame the US and coalition forces for the death toll?
Item #1: How Many?
Let's cut to the chase. Apparently, nobody knows. Reporting and press releases regarding the John's Hopkin's study described above can be found by clicking on the following link. This will give you a look at what the researchers key findings and the report itself.
Item #2: Is it Important to Measure?
Yes, it is important to measure, as this statistic is absolutely relevant and indicative of the security situation in Iraq that was important to the Coalition Government and should be important to Iraqi government (or lack of government), and should certainly be important to the members of the UN that debate the subject.
Item #3: Is it fair to blame the US Forces?
Absolutely not. The majority of these deaths are resulting from Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence that broke out when the power vaccuum was createrd by removing the totalitarian leader Saddam Hussein. Having spoken with and edited books for Iraqi citizens, I can affirm that the Hussein regime was brutal and that the extent to which Saddam Husseins power penetrated was at time limited to the Jurisdiction of Bagdhad alone. The Iraqi citizenry has had a history of violent uprisings along sectarian lines and this level of violence is in no way surprising. The ethnic cleavages in Iraq are so deep that this country is years and perhaps several generations from being able to achieve domestic stability, so long as their are weapons in the homes of the people. And, at present, no Iraqi in their right mind would give up there weapons as it is a matter of life and death to be a ble to defend oneself and one's family.
This is the the brutal face of freedom. The absence of law and order the state of nature that in the words of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) is "solitary, poor, nasty, and brutish". The laws that are recognized by the warring parties are, supposedly, Islamic laws which - due to the poetic and ambiguous nature of Islamic or Koranic writing can be interpretted in a number of different ways including make every effort to exterminate and subjugate those parties that are not faithful to your personal view of Islam. This creates a cleavage between tribes and divides the country into war camps.
The link below refers to the 2004 study conducted by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Columbia University School of Nursing and Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad.
Iraq Body Count Figures:
IraqBodyCount.org is an independent database of media-reported civilian deaths. The key term here is "media reported", this is an acknowledged limiter on the completeness on the data. They provide a link to the Iraq Body Count Database. If you have a website where you would and you would like to post there figures you can visit the following page:
A quick visit to the Iraq Body Count shows that there figure is less than 50,000 deaths. Again, be reminded that this represents data based on media reporting and even in the US the media does not report every single death as it occurs. Given the fractured nature of the situation in Iraq there are obviously challenges that could be made to accuracy of the data, yet, it is evidence that efforts are being made to gather these statistics.
Given that the difference between the reported figures is in excess of 550,000 there is reason to have these figures confirmed |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 4:28 PM |
|
|
|
| Climate Mash: Humorous Website |
|
There are some gems out there. Animators are great. While I neither endorse nor reject the content of this cartoon, it is quite amusing. I take no credit for the image below and give all credit to the creators. The image is posted only to encourage you to visit the site of the content developer.
Take a peek:
http://www.climatemash.org/index.html
The oil companies of the world provide to the population valuable resources - and accepting that they are, generally speaking, for-profit-corporations they are fairly easy to demonize and frame as money hungry and exploitive. The green-side of the road seem to have some good ammunition for firing at the oil companies for their contribution to global warming by virtue of greenhouse gases. But, hey, the primary function of a business, and particularly a corporation, is to make shareholders money.
Anyone who has a problem with them always has, as an alternative, the option to stop using the product. Considering there are some many people with legitimate concerns about the effect of using fossil fuels to power vehicles, heat homes, generate electricity, and warm water or oil-based products to paint and insulate homes, package products, replace glasses in high impact environments, shore buildings, create more effecient vessels for the seas, make medical instruments, construct computers, and make doors less sticky there is a tremendous market opportunity for any group that can prove through practice and drive into adoption technologies that work without oils.
This said there is much to be done ot protect the environment and stimulate economic growth. I found the a bove link to be quite entertaining. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 2:43 PM |
|
|
|
| Iraq: US Casualties and Some Comparisons |
|
It is a challenge to get a satisfactory picture of what is happening in the nation of Iraq since the US-led invasion (Operation Iraqi Freedom), which began March 20, 2003 and, although an end to major combat operations was declared on May 1, 2003. I am not a Bush-basher and in no way am I part of some purely anti-Bush lobby. I am only attempting to look at the data and to find what conclusions it naturally leads me to accept.
First, here's a link to some data on the US Casualty and Death Toll:
As of October 5, 2006 the number US sevicemen and women dead is nearly 2,800 and the number of wounded is nearly 21,000. That's alot of people, however, we have been there a long time, right? Prior to the declaration of the end of major combat operations (Mission Accomplished - May 1, 2003) the figures were: 138 dead, 542 wounded.
It seems that the Iraqi military organized under the Hussein regime was a relatively easy obstacle to surmount, however, the people are hell to police.
So, I am performing a crude security, safety, and stability test. Let's look at some population data for Iraq for comparitive purposes.
- Population of Iraq: 26,783,383
- Population of Texas: 22,859,968
- Population of U.S.: 298,444,215
This rate of death would be akin to losing the following if the US security situationwas similar to that of Iraq - we would be experienced the following casualty rate a monk our law enforcement officers. And, keep in mind no consideration has been given to the number of Iraqi law enforcement officers and security forces killed or wounded over the same span of time.
Location Iraq (inclusive of casualties associated with establishing presence in the regions):
Dead servicemen performing policing duties, including support activities = 2,800
Wounded servicemen performing policing duties, including support activities = 21,000
Location United States: Nation as a Whole
Dead police officers performing policing duties, including support activities = 31,201
Wounded police officers performing policing duties, including support activities = 234,001
Imagine that. Imagine 34,201 police officers being killed in the US within a 3 and 1/2 year period. And, now imagine that in addition to the dead there are 234,001 wounded police officers. This is a loose way to characterize the level of security in Iraq. The number is staggering - under figures such as those would indicate a total lack of security or possibly ineffective security strategy. There is a great deal of ongoing violence in Iraq. I believe that many would agree that this would be an intolerable rate of attrition among security forces in a secure environment. That said: Iraq is not a secure nation.
It is apparent that the whole Mission Accomplished presentation was one of numerous many possible things. It could have been:
- A presentation misinterpeted by the audience to mean that combat in Iraq was completed.
- A presentation that was made at an immature stage of assessment of actual conditions.
- A presentation that was accurate, becuase the scale of operations conducted in Iraq diminished significantly following the capture of Baghdad.
- A presentation designed to mislead the audience.
- A presentation designed to bolster support.
- A presentation designed to re-create of a march through an arch of triumph.
- A presentation .... It could have been anything... It was a bunch of words, many scripted in advance that were spoken on a boat - the USS Abraham Lincoln - a boat named after the US president that signed the emancipation-proclamation and freed the slaves held within the confederacy - which, is curious since he freed the slaves in, what at that point, technically speaking was someone else's country.
Regardless of what happened then there are still military operations being conducted as the Coalition Forces attempt to secure Iraq and there is still much bloodshed resulting from the fallout - and most of these deaths are not among the Coalition Forces.
It is hard to accpet any notion as valid that asserts that the death and casualty rate among US forces is acceptable for the purpose of securing US interests in the region. Is there any business or group of businesses that would be allowed by OSHA to remain in business if the security personnell of that business was experiencing a loss and injury raqte as high as what is seen in Iraq. I doubt it. And, to go a step further, the manager of any such business or business group would be exposed to an endless amount of litigation.
This rate of attrition has continued and shows all indications of continuing to continue into the near future. There are still other facts that come to mind when considering this rate of attrition. The US forces represent only a portion of a complete security team. There is a substantial contigent of Iraqi security forces and police officers - not to mention civilians whose lives are being consumed by a climate of death.
At this point, let me assert, that I am not a pacifist. War and violence happen and we can choose to participate or abstain. In review of history, it is and will most likely be impossible to abstain from armed conflict as inevitably the need will arise where force is necessary to subdue an enemy or secure resources for the purpose of survival. I am inclined to believe that there is something in Iraq that has deemed of high enough value to offer up life after life to acquire.
I would just like to know what there is in Iraq that I need so desperately that I would usher into office any representative who would represent to the world that I decided that it was important enough to kill someone in order to acquire it. In the absence of a direct threat from the nation of Iraq our mission is complete. We removed Saddam Hussein from power, we have been able to search the nation for WMD, and we have discovered that, in the absence of a totalitarian regime, Iraq is just about impossible to effectively police. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 2:10 PM |
|
|
|
| Plane Strikes Building In Manhattan |
| Wednesday, October 11, 2006 |
A small aircraft has struck Belaire Condominiums, built in 1989 at 524 E. 72nd Street near the East River in New York City. This aircraft was a non-commercial aircraft. NORAD, the North American Air Defense Command, has an unspecified number of fighter jets scrambled over unspecified cities as a precautionary measure.
At present, reports have varied from 1 to 2 deaths. Nonetheless this represents a tragedy and, unfortunatley, tragedy makes for great drama and will be covered by virtually every major media outlet.
Here are some links to sites with coverage. please form your own opinion:
- http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/11/plane.crash/index.html
- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,219921,00.html
- http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2554474
- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/11/national/main2082292.shtml
- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15223650/
- Reuters
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6042306.stm
CAPTION: Smoke billows from the side of a high-rise building where a small aircraft crashed in it in New York October 11, 2006. A small aircraft crashed into a building on Manhattan's Upper East Side on Wednesday, but a U.S. official said there was no evidence it was terrorism-related. (Keith Bedford/Reuters)
Image Downloaded from the ABCNEWS Website.
At present, the information being communicated to the public by the FAA, NORAD, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, and the City of New York have at the time of this post published no information on the websites or online warnings. This is suprising considering how ubiquitous internet communication has become. So, our number one personal defense against the fallout of a terror attack appears to be the press and viral distribution of information. Not the government. The site that surprises me the most is the FAA - This is one of the primary functions of the FAA to provide information about what's happening above the ground. Yet, there is no need to be unduly harsh as this is an emergency event and
The various news networks have already assembled a number of experts in a variety of field to discuss the issues. By in large, it is some of the least informative speculation that one coud desire, yet most the news business is a about entertainment anyway. There is little or no actionable information being provided at this point. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 1:13 PM |
|
|
|
| North Korea: Link and Info |
| Tuesday, October 10, 2006 |
A few days ago, I visited a couple links out of curiosity about energy and fuel production. I guess I was motivated to think about this after watching a CNN coverage regarding circumstances in North Korea, CNN Presents: Undercover in the Secret State (transcript). The world is bigger than my imagination and I do genuinely feel empathy for those living under the regime of Kim Jong Il. It is hard to believe that a nation with the ability to work with such sophistacated technologies would provide such a seemingly abysmal existence for its citizenry. And it seems to be a trend in much of the world, however, North Korea presents itself to me as somewhat of an oddity considering its proximity to trade and its proven ability to manufacture technologies.
I thought to myself: "China, South Korea, and Japan are all neighbors to North Korea, yet the Kim Jong Il has seen it to be more expedient to pursue a political course that limits North Korea ability to join the ranks of the worlds premier producers?" And, after this thought I realized that other than limited information provided by netwrok media, I know little to nothing about North Korea, its people, its economy, and its relationships with foriegn nations in its global region or abroad. Thus, the empathy, that I felt is indeed a shallow form of empathy and the opinions that I hold are nearly baseless.
So, I decided to see what the Internet could provide me in terms of background on this matter at little or no cost. In past years, I would have pedaled ot the library, but today I can click type and click my way to some more information. This post will contains some links to sites you can use to learn a little more about the country.
I started with a Google search.(I am one of Google's late adopters, long languising on AOL and, then, MSN, and, then, Yahoo! I have found that the results that I recieve from Google are far more relevant in most cases.)
Type-Type-Type-Type-Type = North Korea {enter}
A few of the links google provided me are as follows:
- CIA - The World Fact Book - Korea, North. This seems like a pretty good source and I will post some of what is noted there as of the last CIA update to this page.
- North Korea - Wikipedia. Although I can in no way testify to the reliability of the information contained, the source is probably sound enough for some preliminary research.
- Korea, North - Infoplease.com. This is a source that I never visited before. It provided information similar to that in the Wikipedia and is easy to read to get some background information.
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK). This is the official government web-site of North Korea. You can select the English option (unless you read Korean). It is sparse to say the least, however, there is a gift shop where you can by souvenier books and music through secure paypal transactions. For the meantime, I'll hold off on any purchases as a I have a security bias again the state based on the claims of governement-backed conterfeiting and trade in false ID materials and such. The site is sparse but it does provide two other links that readers might find interesting. There are biographies that can be downloaded of Kim Il-Sung (*.PDF file) and Kim Jong-Il (*.PDF file) that can be downloaded at no cost. These biographies may provide some insight as to how these leaders market themselves to their subjects. This si a very interesting source that will allow you to get a look inside Noreth Korea's propaganda machine.
Subsequent to the Russo-Japanese War, Korea was occupied by Japan in 1905 and later annexed into the Japanese Empire. Korea divided into to the North/South after WWII with Soviet Union exerting influence on the North and the United States exerting influence on the South. North Korea was established as a nation May 1, 1948 and is officially known as the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK). The capital in the north was and is Pyonyang and the capital in the south is Seoul. The founding leader, Kim Il-Sung, died in 1994 and was succeeded by his son, Kim Jong Il (photo) the named successor. These are the nations only two leaders, ever. Ideology is a set of ideas and beliefs by which a group understands and makes sense of the world. The North Korean ideology is Juche. It is defined in the biography of Kim Jong-Il (see Foreword) as: The revolutionary cause of Juche - a revlolutionary cause to bring complete independence to the popular masses pioneered and carried on by Comrade Kim Il Sung. This is the revolutionary cause that Kim Jong-Il cites as the cause he purports to represent and the system of beliefs (religion) he claims to practice. Juche is the only government-authorized ideology in North Korea, which restricts the observance of all other religions or the formation of religious congregations. "Juche" translates from Korean to English as "self-reliance" (some refer to "Juche" as "Kimilsungism"). Juche began in the 1950s in North Korea and is an integral part of the educational. Its promoters describe Juche as simply a secular, ethical philosophy as opposed to a religion, where man practices mastery over all things. Here are some Juche links: - Juche - WikipediaA stepping stone to learning more. I encourage everyone to verify "facts" aquired from wiki's.
- Globalsecurity.org - This is a great resource for a number of subjects and the quality of writing is generally quite good. Although the writing often seems to be biased, GlobalSecurity.org does provide facts and links that are a good starting points for further examination and the site is less biased than some others.
- International Institute of the Juche Idea
- Urbandictionary.com
- Provides a brief and adequate definition of the term. - tkdtutor.com - Aplication of Juche in Tae Kwon Do
- Democratic capitalism and juche: common values and challenges - This is the most ineresting article I have read about the subject.
Kim Jong Il's biography of 160 pages reads like the the tale of a demi-god. Undoubtedly any leader would find the references exceptionally flattering. In many ways the book is reminescent of an ancient Assyrian tablet describing the origins and contributions of the kings. As to what is fact or fiction, I am in no way in any position to declare, but it does make for some very interesting background reading. Considering, that although outsiders may accept little or none of this to be true thosewho have been raised in this society and firmly inculcated with this doctrine may have little reason to doubt or challenge its athenticity. It does not require all of the people to support or believe in the concepts, principles, or action of the authority and it does not require a concensus majority to support or believe in the concepts, principles, or action of the authority - it only require a political and economic majority to agree or be complicit for such a tale to persist as factual. Quick conclusions, the US as a modern nation is significantly senior and - despite the countries name, North Korea is far from democratic in terms of its leadership selection - sources agree that North Korea is a dictatorship.
North Korea's 2005 estimated population of nearly 23 million people in a land area of approx. 46,540 sq mi (120,538 sq km). To offer a comparison to the US that would be like having a population the size of California in about one-third of the space. So one could imagine that North Korea is pretty crowded. (Incidentally, Alaska is more than four times larger than California.) From this one may conclude, that North Korea is a comparitively small, densely popluated nation.
This country was the site of a significant amount of military conflict in the 20th century:
- Russo-Japanese War
- Korean Conflict (Korean War)
The history of the nation and region reminds me a great deal of the circumstances and recent history of the Middle East. Particularly, the nations Iran and Iraq. The Russo-Japanese war is similar and subsequent occupation by Japan bears some similarity to the effect of Britain's occupation and control of Middle Easter lands after the Ottoman empire was supplanted. And the Korean War bear some similarity to the conflict beteen Iran and Iraq - particularly when one considers the parties backing the efforts of these nations to destroy one another. And, I wonder if it is reasonble to suggest that this type of outside interference in the development of nations foster the development of ideoligical extremism and xenophobia.
I will be posting a great deal more on this subject after further research and attempt to identify resources that readers can us to keep abreast of the situation and to identify opportunities that may arise as a consequence of existing and developing circumstances. If you have any opinions or can recommend any resources regarding this country please leave a comment containing your general thoughts and link list. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 10:27 AM |
|
|
|
| Is It Rational For A Nation to Set Up a Nuclear Weapons Program? |
| Sunday, October 08, 2006 |
Is there any evidence of the existence of humans in the absence of the existence of weaponry or has the arms race been one of the central activities of human existence since the start. We now have nuclear weapons, rockets, bombs, really big guns, really little guns, and an assortment of knives and cudgels and there seems to be no end in site. Aside from the fact that it appears to be immensely profitable to make these weapons, they seem to be considered quite utilitarian as well.
Now, I am an American and, to me, it would seem rational to place security as one of the highest of objectives of our government and it would also seem that security is worth paying for in the form of taxes and other contributions of time and effort. Yet, even as an American, it is impossible for me to imagine that this is a uniquely American point of view. It seems to be a common human point of view for all those who are not absolute pacifists. Most of the worlds population whether active participants in their government’s military infrastructures do not seem to be pacifists.
So, while I was watching the news yesterday (and indeed on a number of other occasions), the topics of North Korea and Iran came up in segments about the potential for these countries to develop nuclear weapons. When considering the position of the UN and the US that nuclear proliferation needs to be limited for the sake of peace and stability, I can see the point of the argument, but only to a point. In my final analysis it would seem that there are a multitude of reasons why North Korea and Iran should develop these programs and why a number of other countries that do not have these programs would best server there own rational national interest thought the development of devastating arsenals.
This might seem odd, but countries and their leaders (unless they are puppet leaders) generally do not like to be pushed around and need the ability to defend state sovereignty against all exterior and exterior threats. The threat of being invaded by a more powerful force is real as has been demonstrated time and time again.
If anyone out there happens to read this post and has links to resources that might show the relationship between nuclear capability and trade agreements, I would be quite interest to review the material.
These are the nations I know of the possess nuclear arsenals: - United States of America
- Russia (f/k/a Soviet Union)
- United Kingdom (a/k/a Great Britain or England)
- France
- India
- People's Republic of China
- Pakistan
- Israel (undeclared - but everybody seems to know)
- North Korea (declared, yet unconfirmed)
These countries seem to do pretty much what they want all over the world and also seem to have a lot of leverage over other countries of the world. They can resist more pressure to act or refrain from acting. This would seem to be quite valuable in negotiating "fair trade agreements" and "resolving disputes" peaceably.
There are also some other thoughts that come to mind when considering this surface of this issues: Nations with nuclear programs and advanced weapons programs are constantly producing some of the things that nations of the future will need to remain and become more economically competitive. These nations produce and retain scientists, engineers, statisticians, and knowledge workers. They retain people with transferable skill sets and high-level knowledge. The have people in their societies capable of design and program management. In other words, these nations, despite what some portions of the media may insist are comprised solely of mad, keystone cops, but are commanded and advanced by a thoughtful, methodical leadership that has demonstrated an ability to complete major tasks and reach significant goals, while overcoming a myriad of challenges.
These programs are incredibly important to the development of a nation. Additionally, the ability to enrich uranium and detonate a nuclear weapon indicates that the nation also has the ability to harness that energy for fuel for industry and its society in general. There is substantial value in this. Even an oil rich nation would have incentive to utilize nuclear fuel domestically and to sell the carbon based fuels abroad. There is little reason to doubt that this would be financially feasible and beneficial. Nuclear energy is a great form of energy that we should use more of domestically simply because of the low cost per kilowatt. Nuclear energy allows nations to be more profitable. And the wastes can always be preserved for future weaponization and deterrent. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 10:38 AM |
|
|
|
| A Rambling to Somewhere |
| Saturday, October 07, 2006 |
Whether it comes from food, oil, electricity, or the some solar burst - every day billions of people around the world and in virtually every community exchange a portion or all of yesterday’s gains to have the real energy to make it through another day. In short, real energy is the real energy of an economy. The business of trade or exchange in energy products has a bright future all the way around. The risks are taken in the financing and the prospecting for the goods and the management of the costs for production, however, there is no risk in terms of demand for the base product. There is also the addition risk that energy company face in the form of selecting which type of energy to provide to the market as different applications require (or have been designed to require) a specific type of energy input (e.g. most automobiles = gas, oil furnace = oil, electric light bulb = electricity, etc…) that can cause the business models to fail, but the industry is always booming and demand is always there. The degree to which this is true is obvious when one realizes the food is a source of energy. Considering this energy and agricultural companies, energy and agricultural producers, and energy and agricultural suppliers are the great powerhouses of the economy. And, the decisions made by the corporate entities, which dominate these markets determine the fitness of virtually every member of the modern world. Imagine this corporations – contrived entities are now capable of laying siege on entire civilizations if it is determined that service to a market is inconsistent with its corporate objectives. This is far from a call for corporate social responsibility or a needs based request for corporation to do more to serve the public, but it is a minor reminder that populations of most cities would fail to survive a month in the absence of voluntary or involuntary delivery of service by the corporation that controls the resources that are needed fulfill some of our basic needs. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 12:12 PM |
|
|
|
| Responding To Ambush Questions: Get Tough Dems |
|
One question that may be asked is: How can Democratic candidates and incumbents use all media outlets, particularly live television interviews, to demonstrate strength and mental fortitude? By utilizing a consistent strategy in responding to ambush questions. Hostile interviewers can then be approached with a certain level of delight.
The primary weapon of an interviewer is the question itself. The key for candidates is to capture and own the questions and, in doing so, control the flow of the subsequent rhetoric. Similar to effective sales strategy, it is a matter of obtaining and maintaining control during the process of exchange and subtly directing the final outcome of that exchange. Democratic candidates and incumbents can benefit from savvy approaches to rhetoric and constant training in strategies of verbal and written exchange.
Here is one recipe for responding to an attack or ambush question. With adequate preparation ambush questions are opportunities to convey message and to reorder the facts without becoming defensive. A defensive response is a weak response, when ambushed it is important to attack, particularly, if verifiable evidence is in the favor of the ambushed individual. When an interviewer presents and ambush question, lick your chops because they are lobbing you a home run ball all you have to do is hit it. Remember an ambush question is a tactic and tactics of the opposition can be neutralized and converted into assets.
Consider the following method or response to a hostile questioner:
Accept (as opposed to deflect) the question(s). Deflection is the defensive tactic and critical viewers may view it as a weasel-like.
Control the question and, therefore, interviewer. Ask the interviewer: "Are you certain you want me to answer this question? or "Is this the question you want me to answer?" Elicit a "Yes" or "No" response. The interviewer must respond "yes" to affirm its desire to have the question answered and now is partially disarmed. If response is "No", eagerly request another question and return to the default neutral position. If the response is "Yes", own the question.
Own the question. (This is the stage where control and containment occurs.) Repeat the question verbatim. Answer the question willingly and get excited. There is no reason to appear dead from the neck up, emotions are viable and valuable tools of human expression. You might as well appear convicted and committed to the response, because once a response is made your statements will be the tools by which you are convicted and committed or condemned. If the interviewer interrupts, verify with them: "Did you want me to answer your question?"
Finish answering the question and comment on how "clever", "shrewd", or "sharp" the interviewer is. Be certain that your delivery has a degree of sarcasm with a touch of contempt; however, remain composed, as this is still part of the control phase. Basically, try to avoid calling the interviewer a "punk", unless you see a direct short-and long-term advantage in close quarters mudslinging. This rarely exists.
If the interviewer becomes hostile, remain amiable.
Additionally, when answering hostile questions, proceed in an orderly manner. Present, the response in the same way one would read a bulleted list. Numbered bullets imply even more strength and control of the facts at hand.
If someone is going to go out there and represent me, it is important to know that they have enough heat inside them to strike back when struck by a backhand blow. Because it is hard for me to see how someone can defend me against a serious threat, if they are incapable of defending themselves against a question. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 11:15 AM |
|
|
|
| Post No. 1 |
|
It seems like everyday and almost everywhere people are talking about how disenfranchised and powerless they are against some force. This seems to be the case about everywhere I go and I for one have decided to take a pro-active approach to this world and to accept responsibility and accountability for the shape and development of the world that I live.
Through your encounters with my blog imagine me as a fictional character. A Quixote or Dagney Taggart - a figment of an imagination. That's the best way to think about me. Never take me too seriously and simply consider the relevance that any of these digital statements may have for you.
As of late, my time has been spent examining two websites and two organization that are engaged in a naked struggle for power. The websites are:
www.gop.org
www.democrats.org
The naked struggle. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 10:36 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
