|
|
| A Little Chomsky Please |
| Saturday, November 18, 2006 |
My last post was filed with anti-Democratic (not anti-democracy venom) and I make no apology for that. It is fair to place high demands on people who are granted great power and are entrusted with the future of a nation. You will find me equally as boisterous in my anti-GOP pieces. The issue to me is not the parties. I abhor partisanship and feel that is an enemy of the interest of the people. The ideal congress for me would have only Independents who hold office not because of the party to which they belong, but because of the values that they practice in public life and communicate in public life. I don't give a crap what they do in private as long as their actions in the public arena merit the status awarded to them by the people.
For that reason, I am not opposed to reading the work of Noam Chomsky. The man is more than a linguist, he is one of the better minds in this nation and has a gift with words that is present in very few in this world. I was reading his article: The Non-Election in 2004 and found this paragraph that I feel is worth quoting (below).
As usual, the electoral campaigns were run by the PR industry, which in its regular vocation sells toothpaste, life-style drugs, automobiles, and other commodities. Its guiding principle is deceit. Its task is to undermine the “free markets” we are taught to revere: mythical entities in which informed consumers make rational choices.In such scarcely imaginable systems, businesses would provide information about their products: cheap, easy, simple. But it is hardly a secret that they do nothing of the sort. Rather, they seek to delude consumers to choose their product over some virtually identical one.
Does anyone else agree with this assessment? As distasteful as some of Noam Chonsky's opinions may be, those opinions are well though and do express a form of morality. I don not believe it would be fair to frame him as a Democrat or anti-American, or a communist, unless he declares himself to be one. Chomsky's review of the state of the world reflects the actual state of the world. Although he is derided in conservative circle his views actually support much of what should be the conservative agenda, particularly when the conservatives speak of freedom.
The problem is the uneducated, misinformed, and disinformed public. Consider the 200 election Bush v. Gore - there was almost no difference between the candidates and, the speeches presented by either candidate during the campaigns were so devoid of information it was easy to come to the conclusion that both men were made out of card board. Bush one via his recognition of the the Lord Savior Jesus Christ. It was enough to overlook some of his foibles. And, this was deemed to be acceptable. It was a minor difference between the candidates. Chomsky points out below that the public may have become even less well-informed.
In 2000, “issue awareness”—knowledge of the stands of the candidate-producing organizations on issues—reached an all-time low. Currently available evidence suggests it may have been even lower in 2004. About 10 percent of voters said their choice would be based on the candidate’s “agendas/ideas/platforms/goals”: 6 percent for Bush voters, 13 percent for Kerry voters (Gallup). The rest would vote for what the industry calls “qualities” or “values,” which are the political counterpart to toothpaste ads. The most careful studies (PIPA) found that voters had little idea of the stand of the candidates on matters that concerned them. Bush voters tended to believe that he shared their beliefs, even though the Republican Party rejected them, often explicitly. Investigating the sources used in the studies, we find that the same was largely true of Kerry voters, unless we give highly sympathetic interpretations to vague statements that most voters had probably never heard.
Now that the Democrats are in the Senate and House, they are cutting each others throats and divisions between them are resurfacing rapidly. the pretend to agree for a couple days, get elected base on that deceit and then return to business as usual. What are the actionable plans that they have that will produce what solution?
Take the issue at the border -- there has been plenty of opportunity (uh, say 120 years) to seal the border and a lot of ways to do it. How many Democrats in the Congress picked up a hammer, shovel, and some boards to start building a fence? None ... That's how important it really is to them. You can gauge the importance by the actions taken. In terms of interrogating terrorists - while I am not a fan of torture, if someone threatens or even may threaten the well-being of my family and is found engaging in an illegal act at the time - take them apart and get some answers - don't bother me with the details. I'm sure that Noam would frown on that statement, but I respect his free though, so I hope he respects mine.
Chonsky also makes this statement which I would expand to include Democrats as well, because if it were politically expedient the democrats would jump on board. Who signs a resolution for war as a bluff. Everybody who says they were tricked into the declaration needs to get jumped out and those who said they didn't have information to know different should expand their statement to more fully reflect the fact that they voted without knowing the facts. (This would explain some of the meat in the bills.)
It is easy to demonstrate that for Bush planners, the threat of terror is a low priority. The invasion of Iraq is only one of many illustrations. Even their own intelligence agencies agreed with the consensus among other agencies, and independent specialists, that the invasion was likely to increase the threat of terror, as it did; probably nuclear proliferation as well, as also predicted.
The war in Iraq had much more far reaching political and economical destinations. It keeps the US dollar as the Iraqi reserve currency for at least a few more years, puts an army in Iran's lap, allows the US to sustain one of its chief resource advantages over the rest of the world (except perhaps Russia) and gives another are troops some exercise before conflict with more heavily armed and better disciplined enemies. There's just a lot of pork in this war and the myth of being welcomed with open arms has sadly been exposed to the light of day. Saddam could have been taken out of power without any ground invasion - remember we have bombers Iraq couldn't see. The ground troops were moved to complete other objectives - and one of them didn't include fighting in a civil war - and maybe that's why we are letting the Iraqi's kill each other. I really don't know. |
posted by Domesticated Dog @ 10:18 PM   |
|
|
|
| Moral Direction |
|
I must also admit that I am an expert in nothing really, I just do my best to understand the world around me and to develop an actionable sense of context. It seems like this goes hand in hand with surviving. I watch the news, read some of the newspaper, and try to get into conversations that are stimulate me to evaluate any given set of circumstances more thoroughly. Last month I was reading a blog I enjoy, Political Friends and Andy D. was reviewing a book title, Bankrupt, by David Limbaugh.
Now let me state, I have not read the book yet and will not comment on any of the particulars until I read it myself. Nonetheless, I enjoyed both parts of Andy's review. Andy, is openly critical of the Democratic Party and I am as well -- I am equally, if not more, critical of Republicans. That is because I am rational and consider what is put on the plate before I eat. Every time I go to McDonald's for some of their tasty and undoubtedly healthy food I look at it first even though the package is supposed to tell me what I am getting.
So back to Andy D.'s book review (yes - the book I have yet to read). Apparently, the author (Limbaugh) asserts that the Democratic Party suffers from moral bankruptcy. And, to this I agree before I read a page. The Democrats have essentially gotten into bed with the atheists and atheists have difficulty arguing for any morality. However, the Republican are simply duplicitous and to me moral turpitude or lack of morality is better than lying about ones morality. Since, we are dealing with politicians, I guess it is expected that we have to deal with liars on both sides. The news helps both sides cover their tracks, but the tracks are often uncovered when you look back a few weeks or months or years.
The Democrats now have their time in the sun, however, because the system has been so partisan for the last few Congressional session watching the parties work on C-SPAN has been a lot like watching parliament - except not as funny or eloquent and with a lot more empty seats that should have behinds in them. The partisan nature of the Congress has had a Majority Party doing essentially what it wanted and a minority party that essentially acted like a peanut gallery, offering criticisms, but because it was not the party in the power never offering any workable solutions. The Democrats have basically whined for the last few years and in that time do not seem to have developed any coherent plans for the nation even within their own party. And, this is a matter of concern and I think works to the disadvantage of any Democrat to run in the next presidential election, particularly if they try to transition from Congress to the Whitehouse. The most important measurement of a candidate in my opinion is the measure of the effectiveness of that candidate of formulating and implementing strategy when his or her resources are limited. That is why John McCain has a great chance in my opinion to come out on top in the next few years, because he has navigated the waters fairly well and seems to have compromised his own status to an extent to make his party stronger. I hope they don't stab him in the back again - of course, it might just be a show Republican morality if they do. Even, if McCain doesn't win the nomination - say it goes to Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani (Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!) the Democrats, in my opinion really don't have an electable presidential candidate.
Do you remember the debates for the 2004 election. Bush is not a great speaker, but was able to stay on message (again), while Kerry was still trying to figure out what his was. I personally feel Kerry outperformed Bush, not because of how great he was, but because of how indefensible so many of the Bush administration’s positions were. But, during his performance he failed to effectively differentiated his brand and his own Democratic allies beat him up enough in the primaries that the GOP was ready for him on Election Day. The election was close though.
As much disdain as there is for Dick Cheney, who is a remarkably composed and intelligent, he womped John Edwards, just by being able to hold his ground and essential convince the public that John Kerry was pretty, but didn't really exist. Mr. Vader at Johnny boy for lunch, I'm surprised they didn't pass him a toothpick at the end of the debate. Seriously, Dick Cheney, in my opinion is the most significant and powerful Vice-President in recent memory - up there with George Bush, Sr. and LBJ. He has the ability to convey a sense of definite, indisputable direction.
I'd love to be a Democrat, but I can't be one right now. I have to stay independent in order to hold on to some of my conservative values and to avoid turning the world upside down.
Take for example the Democrats green agenda (oh yeah they want nuclear power now - dizzy - compass keeps moving). While I love the environment most of the green agenda it is competively stupid and will make the US even less competitive as we pay for the transition cost of moving the new economy while the nations that are making the biggest gains on us such as China and India do not. The Dems talk about all the high paying jobs that will be created by transitioning the economy to new fuels and what not - that's true to a point but the jobs won't be producing a good, they will represent a higher cost for transitioning goods. We need so much energy, without reducing any of our usage of existing resources we just need to bring new ones online to reduce the actual cost of usage by increasing supply. If we increase our supply sufficiently we will drive the world prices down by reducing our relative percentage of demand. (As China and India’s increase and ours increases slower - we will reduce overall demand.) We are no where near running out of oil, we are just slowly running out of easy to pump oil -- that is why the oil companies spend so much money on increasing their capital investment they have no intention of walking away from an industry that may have a few hundred years left in it.
Anyway... I would like to see some spine and more importantly sensible spine in the Democrats. I happen to like Charlie Rangel and I tend to agree with much of his analysis on many matter, the man is wise to know he is old and wise enough to that old men don't have times to mince words. I could be wrong, but I believe that he has some morals - as much as a politician can have anyway. Joe Lieberman, who I think is as exciting as toast, actually has some morals - he got abandoned by the Dems for not agreeing to be wimp with them - of course he has a lot of state interest in Defense too - with the Naval Sub base and Electric Boat and all.
Even during the Clinton years, the Democrats weren't popular because of their moral certitude. The Waco disaster, which still has not been adequately explained, was not a moral act on American - there were children in that building. But, guys like Chuck Schumer did their part to defend the party as opposed to get to the truth. With the resources available to the ATF/FBI and the US government - non-lethal extraction was possible. You don't spray kids with flammable gases and powders and then claim moral high ground.
The Dems are now trying to claim some the moral high ground in relation to the War on Terror (a ridiculous term which the have adopted). The problem here is that war's don't have moral high grounds, they simply have winners and losers. And, if the US seeks to suppress terrorists it does little good to deal with the problem based on morality. Morality is what is used to determine who is or is not a terrorist as opposed to a freedom fighter, the means of dealing with either needs not be moral it only needs to be effective. The Democrats, at least many of them, have spent far too much time making the Christian Right the enemy and expressing desire to negotiated with entities that actually wish and practice death and destruction on Americans. The Christian right is the best friend of the Democrats, if the say fours things:
- Gay people can shack up but they can't be legally married...ever - because that is fricking ridiculous and opens the door to marrying dogs (such as myself) and horses, and chickens and children. Gay marriage is not civil rights issue it is a lifestyle issue.
- Partial birth abortion is a brutal killing and looks a lot like infanticide. (Stem cells are not the issue here it's how their obtained that causes the problem.)
- Peace and stability will be achieved at the expense of the enemy not of the US or its allies.
- It's ok to pray and display the Ten commandments.
Slap...bang... boom... the Dems win! Problem is they are on a slippery moral foundation and intellectual arguments only go so far with people when they feel that their getting punched in the gut.
To a different subject:
In terms of the news, I dislike much of the reporting provided by Fox and, although there are times when the presentations are balanced, in general, I find it to terribly biased. But Fox News is a cable channel and has no responsibility to provide its programming for the public good. As a cable (entertainment) outlet Fox is free to present facts or fiction as it chooses. That said, I do appreciate what fox has brought to the news world as it has forced the other news networks to work to be more aggressive in terms of the stories they report. CNN seems to be responding well to the challenge and working to shrug off Fox's powerful jump to the front since 9/11.
One thing that I truly disliked about the Fox broadcasts that has worked it's way into the other news outlets is the playing of rock music for programs about sober subjects such as the Operation Iraqi freedom and the war on terror. It is as though they were trying to make it into a movie and to get people to act based on raw unfiltered emotions rather than rational thought. But, I guess what has to be done....has to be done... to get the message out.
The news programs in general seem to do an exceptionally poor job of providing the history behind the stories that they present and in a sense leave viewers in a rather compromised position when developing opinions. It would be useful if more information would be provided about where the audience can go to get more information about the subject. Of course, thanks to the Internet we do all have the ability to find track down some of the missing links in arguments provided. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 8:42 PM |
|
|
|
| Link to Fair Tax Act John Linder |
| Friday, November 17, 2006 |
What is the http://linder.house.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Resources.Home&Resource_id=1">Fair Tax Act supposed to do?
- Repeals all corporate and individual income taxes, payroll taxes, self-employment taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes and gift taxes.
- Imposes a revenue-neutral personal consumption tax on all new goods and services at the point of final purchase. Business-to-business transactions and used products (which have already been taxed) are not subject to the sales tax.
- Rebates the sales tax on all spending up to the poverty level.
And other stuff. Visit politicalfriends.blogspot.com for more. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 12:39 AM |
|
|
|
| Gen. Abizaid Stay the Course - Response to Andy D. |
|
Did you see the comments yesterday (November 15) by the leading military figure in Iraq? He didn't use the exact words but it sounded a lot like "stay the course". The Democrats are the first to point to the military if it disagrees with Bush, but when the military agrees, they are either quiet or try to undermine it.
I believe we need a new direction in Iraq. I don't believe that involves a "phased withdrawal". The tactics we have been using up until now are not working in the current situation. Time to change gears. Maybe it is time to take the gloves off. Maybe it is time to reevaluate how we wage war. I think Bush, the Republicans, and the Democrats need to listen to the assorted panels going on right now to find a new course in Iraq. We can only hope they can set aside their politics long enough to find what works best for the Iraqi's and the Americans, and not what looks good in the polls. (Political Friends)
I did find this article stating where yesterday US General Abizaid testified to congress that it was best to maintain the existing troop levels in or to maintain some type of security in the country. And, that does sound like something that the Democrats have painted themselves into a corner on. They have to advocate and increase or decrease in troop level and cannot advocate that the troop levels stay the same without appearing as bald faced politically expedient liars. I just want them to make the best decisions from this point forward, but you know that they have to push for something that doesn't look like staying the course. And, the majority of the Dems have already cast their lot on exiting the scene stage left.
This is a really weakness for the Dems at this point and could cost them some of the good favor they earned. I can understand your point. It seems like the Democrats have pickled themselves and now they must put there congressional seats where there mouths have been and disagree with the General Abizaid's assertion that:
Our troop posture needs to stay where it is," and the use of military adviser teams embedded with Iraqi army and police forces needs to be expanded, Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee. It was the first hearing on Iraq policy since last week's elections gave Democrats control of both houses of Congress starting in January. Abizaid is right. The politicians need to listen to the general on this one – unless they truly believe that wars are too important to be left in the hands of the generals who have to fight them.
I'm trying to find some better links to the release you referred to. Can you help me out? Nonetheless, I believe what you are saying, it seems like there are mixed messages being put out to the public by the Iraqi and US leaders.
The "stay the course" or "send more troops" would seem like the appropriate lines of though for a the Iraqi leaders to make sure they expressed privately to the US leaders. Would you really want someone to run off with the hose and baking soda if you were smoking a cigarette on a tinderbox, full of tenders, and soaked in gasoline?
When you see articles like this one about Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki asking the US to hand over the security situation to Iraqi security forces faster.
If that happens, a fresh round of ethnic cleansing is likely to ensue. (In my opinion.)And, the prime minister will need to flee the country - because he won't be able to control it.
It is still remarkable that the UN has not yet entered Iraq to create the conditions for peace. Actually, it is shameful. The milk has been spilled and there is a lot of work in cleaning it up.
I agree with you that there needs to be action taken to revise this new idea about how to wage war. It is wonderful to be surgical when you have an enemy that is dependent on fixed positions, but it makes no since against a guerilla army. I know this might sound counter intuitive, and I'm no West Point grad, but what good does a surgical strike do against an enemy that can blend into the background and doesn't depend on any fixed bases?
Guerillas are effective, because of their ability to cede and regroup quickly. Basically, the entire environment has to be made uninhabitable to overcome gorillas. This seemed to the thinking in the past. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 12:07 AM |
|
|
|
| Iraq Destabilized: Flee |
| Wednesday, November 15, 2006 |
Abductions are nothing new to Iraq and have been dominant spectre on the nations landscape since the start of the occupation. The smart people in Iraq are fleeing and this will likely encourage more to find a means of exodus.
The kidnapping was another blow to Iraq's post-Saddam education system, which has already been undermined by the murder of over 180 professors and the emigration of over 3,000 others. In recent weeks, prominent academics have been killed in Baghdad.
Iraq has a lot of criminals on the loose and their are a lot of old scores to settle. The stage is set for continuous urban violence and assassinations that would make the Columbia of the 1980s seem like a nice safe place to raise the kids.
In the Karrada neighborhood, where the research directorate is located, residents said the scale of the kidnapping suggested collusion — perhaps even participation — by real policemen. "How can you kidnap 100 people in the middle of the city and not be caught at a checkpoint?" said Raed Hussein, a shop assistant who works not far from the directorate. "The only way you can get away with this is if you have the support of the police." There are hundreds of police checkpoints in the Iraqi capital, and it is almost impossible to travel more than a mile without having to pass one.
And, once again, it appears that this was an act fo secular violence. The
In 2003, Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, stated prior to the US-led invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein released "something like 100,000 prisoners out of all of the prisons in this country before liberation...." He sure didn't do that because he thought he was going to win the war by using his stockpiles of WMD to drive off the Americans. Saddam also wired the oil wells in his own country with explosives and attempted to set them on fire. Many of these efforts failed. He sure didn't do this because he thought he was going to drive the Americans off with his stockpiles of WMD. He knew the score.
With all respect to those out there who thought that Saddam Hussein was stupid, because he was referred to as a thug forget that the power over the nation that Saddam was able to maintain and the methods he used to capture power in the nation were based on his ability to design and utilize and intellegence apparatus. This is his coup de grace. While he may be the guest of honor at his upcoming hanging, he's taking a lot of people with him and he has created an extremely expensive project for his conquerors.
This is why the Dems, a lot of independents, and a growing number of Republicans, just want to wash their hands of the whole business and be free of the expenses. Harry Reid will be taking over as the majority Senate leader in January and will push for a phased withdrawal of US troops from the Iraq. If the Dems are successful, it would probably be better form most Iraqi's to simply flee ther country, because although Romania has vowed to stick it out in Iraq, what good is that going to do. I mean really they have a token force of 800 to 900 non-combatant trainers in Iraq.
Whoever thought it would be a good idea to start arming any Iraqi group before the entire nation was disarmed has never observed the basic economies of the playground. And, any Democrat that views a withdrawal from Iraq as the way to peace in the country is simpply ignoring the slaughters that will happen in the absence of a US presence, when rivaling factions can move throughout the city with greater impunity. The fact is this although the Bush doctrined is failing to achieve results that the democrats find satisfactory, then Democrats have no policy that will achieve result that the bush administration will consider satisfactory. This is in large part due to the fact that the semantics used have so distorted the definitions of key words and spun the messages so far out of whack. That the objectives of both groups are less clear than ever - and this is what hurts our military. Military need clear definable and most importantly achievable goals. Neither the left or the Right is providing those. This is what happens when you let politicians do generals jobs. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 1:39 PM |
|
|
|
| Immigration Reform -- Farmers Branch |
| Tuesday, November 14, 2006 |
The city council of Farmers Branch, TX (which abuts Dallas) passed a bill to basically outlaw being an illegal immigrant. And, imagine this, they're catching flack for their legislative interpretation.
It is among the most ridiculous occasions in recent memory, when a law stating that it is illegal to be illegal or participate in illegal action is condemned as illegal. To me it is difficult to imagine that anyone fails to understand that entering the borders of another country without permission of that government is punishable by law, particularly when it is against the law of the country entered.
Portions of the Hispanic community has complained about the measure taken by the city council claiming that the actions are anti-Hispanic and these are the portions that are presented in the press. I am a citizen of the fine state of Texas, I work in the construction industry, and I know hundreds of individuals of Hispanic descent. Allow me to state that the Hispanic views often presented in the media do not represent the entire demographic of Hispanics, particularly, legal Hispanic American citizens. Most recognize that the issue itself not that complicated - it just the solutions that cause problems.
I will be the first to admit that I do believe that the immigrant population both legal and illegal adds value to our rapidly aging nation. It allows many American companies to be competitive and to drive consumer cost down for product, particularly real estate development. Take a look at realty sites and compare the relative cost of new homes, landscaping, catering, and other services that require large amount of low wage labor in areas that are likely to have high concentrations of illegal immigrants working and it easy to see that the consumer costs are lower, because the labor cost are lower. So, I would expect that the costs for a lot of service would increase substantially if only legal labor was used in the marketplace. At the same time, I disagree entirely with amnesty programs. The idea is obscene and solves none of the existing problems. It in fact will invite more illegals, because if their is a "Amnesty 1" their will likely be "Amnesty 2".
The use of guest workers is common in the economies of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, where the citizens benefit from oil revenues and have no desire to inflate the size of the body that is eating the pie. And, traditionally this represents an owner class of people that can be used for labor-intensive jobs to increase the luxury of the elite and many countries have large bodies of low paid, unskilled workers. At present we are looking like much of the rest of the world. However, the problem with our country and the huge population of illegals has great ramification because of the socialist tendencies of our 20th century government and rich entitlement programs.
When there is low wage illegal labor in the US all those families that are just making it are subsidizing the undocumented worker benefits. The people who should have the biggest problem are not in the middle class, but are the economic lower classes. This group, which tends not to vote or form special interest lobbies, is the biggest loser presently and, in the event of an amnesty program, will likely continue to be the loser for three reasons:
- This population tends not to aggressively compete for available opportunities.
- Many of the existing illegals will receive little if any benefit from registering as guest worker and elect to continue working for approximately the same rate they are at present - many will probably just lose their jobs if the demand higher wages.
- New illegal will come in to continue to drive down labor costs at the expense of those who register as guest workers.
The problem is has been and will be at the borders - I mean sieve. Illegal immigrants are pouring in from nations all over the world and Latin America is only one of them. The problem is compounded by an ineffective or under funded INS, there is no support from most local municipalities.
Farmers Branch has taken it upon itself to pass a bill that would fine business owners and landlords for respectively hiring or renting to illegal immigrants. This is a community action to establish legislation that agrees with federal legislation. It is a small community trying to do what the federal government refuses to do.
To parody a Ronald Reagan line:
"Mr. Bush put up that wall!” |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 11:46 PM |
|
|
|
| Media Attack on Bob Knight |
|
Even when you accept major media outlets (an indeed most media outlets) make their money off ads, is still amazing how hard and how long they can beat a dead horse. We went from the old days of 35 minutes of new in one hour and prorgressed to CNN's model of about 2 hours of new in 24 hours and that's about where it has stopped. Becase now istead of filling up the time with the news loop its filled up with opinions.
All day I have been hearing about the Bob Knight slap on Michael Prince. This is my opinion.
- Michael Prince is an adult.
- Bob Knight is an adult.
- Michael Prince has no problem with the event.
- Bob Knight has no problem with the event.
- There is no story.
Have people really become that soft? It seems so and the media keeps trying make us more fickle and glandular. These days it start when kids are young being fed sugar candy cartoon coated stories instead of working with or for their parent and doing basic chores and continues all the way through college where they are dropped into hyper protective intstitutional systems that are more and more afraid of the students and disallowed from practicing discipline and finishes when the kids leave high school or college and have no basic math skills or common sense.
Bob Knight makes winners. He may go over the top on occasion, but he makes winners and goes the extra yard to see that his players play to the best of their potential. We need more teachers like that and stricter discipline in the schools. Basically, Dr. Spock was wrong and the world need to stop acting like he was right. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 11:33 PM |
|
|
|
| New Template |
|
| As anyone who view my blog can se, I am experimenting with a new template. It is essentially the stock newsline.Css template available from http://blogger-templates.blogspot.com/. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 11:33 PM |
|
|
|
| New Template |
|
| As anyone who view my blog can se, I am experimenting with a new template. It is essentially the stock newsline.Css template available from http://blogger-templates.blogspot.com/. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 11:30 PM |
|
|
|
| US Auto Companies: "Who's John Galt?" |
| Monday, November 13, 2006 |
Our major auto companies and many of our major US manufactures are union shops. Ford and GM will make approximately 500,000 less cars in the US as a result of rising health care costs and other burdens the company must carry. In addition, Toyota is contin ualy gaining US marketshare.
The burden of union benefits will cause Ford and GM to experience death by healthcare and pension expenses and basicaly requires them to look overseas for cost saving measures. The union will kill themselves by virtue of killing their employers.
Capital Research and Management Co. has reduced its capitalization of General Motors stock by 13.4 million shares over the past four months. That is |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 3:26 PM |
|
|
|
| Airline Passenger Screening |
|
The airlines and our goverment still and working on way to create security at airports or at least the appearance of security. The industry and the overall economy needs for people to feel safe about flying.
This is an excerpt from a post on 27B Stroke 6:
If you do the math, improving the detection of plastic explosives and guns would likely be more effective at preventing and deterring terrorist attacks on planes than figuring out better methods for trying to pinpoint terrorists with watch lists and algorithms, according to a mathematical study to be published in December.
Susan Martonosi, a mathematics professor at Harvey Mudd college, and Arnold Barnett of MIT's Sloan School of Management devised a mathematical model for judging the effectiveness of various security measures at preventing and deterring a terrorist who wanted to sneak a weapon through security. While they lacked data on how well the watchlists, puffer machines and x-ray machines, Martonisi and Barnett developed a mathematical model which showed that improvements in the screening that all passengers go through was more likely to improve airline safety than better passenger-centric solutions, such as the long-delayed Secure Flight program |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 3:19 PM |
|
|
|
| The Export to China Opportunity |
|
Here is the link and a summary.
Exporting to China: Peril or Smart Business Plan
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-831942912969504009&q=China+business+seminar
China, one of the fastest growing economies in the world, has strong attractions for American traders who are considering entering the ... all » Chinese market. Yet it can be a difficult country in which to do business. American firms must deal with a wide variety of issues, including the changing priorities of the Chinese Government, the lack of transparency in government decision making, the ups and downs of U.S.-China relations and the difficulties in dealing with a different culture. This 2 hour 50 minute long seminar will help guide you past such obstacles—and put you on the path to a successful venture in this large and challenging market. Topics covered include:
Prospects for the Chinese Economy. - General overview plus business environment as perceived by American business in China (examples include HR, IPR, WTO). - Industry Issues, including Automotive, Banking. - Outlook for Business in China
China's Commercial Landscape - Opportunities and Challenges, Paths to Market Entry and Available Federal Resources
Managing Risk in an Evolving Business Environment. - Protecting IP. - Negotiating contracts, useful clauses & considerations.
Assessing and Reaching Chinese Market. - Customs and Logistics: Getting your products to Market. - Secure Financing and Getting Paid
|
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 2:13 PM |
|
|
|
| The Iraqi Constitution - Theocracy |
| Thursday, November 09, 2006 |
When I pay a subscription fee for something, I like to see what I am paying for. Iraq is like a subscription-fee project that we all pay our government for on a regular basis. The Iraq Constitution is an indicator of what we will get for our payments and debt.
The latter part of the constitution that deals with the distribution of powers within government is laid out to be quite similar to that of the US, but the beginning of the Iraqi constitution is littered with enough problems to make a grown man want to cry. Understandably, Iraq is a new nation and we, I mean they, aren't done rebuilding it yet, but one has to admit that the constitution reads like a high school civics project and it looks like it was more or less thrown together. A review of the constitution shows that Iraq is headed for theocracy from the start.
Article 2 of the Iraqi constitution states.
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.
C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established.
Can anyone say...theocracy. Let's back track to the preamble.
In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate
{We have honored the sons of Adam}
As such, the Iraq constitution implies that the world is about 6,000 years old. This a small issue, but boy are they going to have one hell of a Scopes trial in the future. Do you imagine that they will be able to teach evolution in the schools or modern astronomy without an imam pointing out that this runs counter to the national beliefs set forth in the preamble of the constitution? This will be quite a case before their new courts when it pops up and no law establishing that evolution be taught can therefore be legitimate as it would run counter to the Koran and poems of the Prophet.
We, the people of the land between two rivers, the homeland of the apostles and prophets, abode of the virtuous imams, pioneers of civilization, crafters of writing and cradle of numeration, upon our land the first law made by man was passed, the most ancient just pact for homelands policy was inscribed, and upon our soil companions of the Prophet and saints prayed, philosophers and scientists theorized and writers and poets excelled, acknowledging God’s due over us, and in fulfillment of the call of our homeland and citizens, That is how the constitution opens. The above excerpt represents the first third of the opening, and excruciatingly long first sentence, which continues below. It immediately focuses on religion and the history of the nation. This will be a theocracy in the future have no doubt. The constitution is part of there way of establishing that this has been there destiny. Of course destiny itself is a curious function, since whatever happens is apparently your destiny.
The preamble to the constitution continue to explain how the greatness of the Iraqi people set them free as the scientists, reformer, religious leader, and so forth made the 2005 election possible "in the midst of an international support," which was more like the only support since the people of Iraq never seemed to have figure out how to organize and get rid of their dictator themselves. This is not an insult, it is a fact, a lot has happened in Iraq fast. It is kind of like watching and episode of Star Trek where first contact is made and all the rules of the federation are violated. Anyway the preamble continues...
...and [in a response to the call] of our religious and national leaderships and the determination of our great references and our leaders and reformers, and our national strengths and our politicians, and in the midst of an international support from our friends and those who love us, marched for the first time in our history towards the ballot boxes by the millions, men and women, young and old, on the 30th of January 2005, invoking the pains of sectarian oppression sufferings inflicted by the autocratic clique and inspired by the tragedies of Iraq’s martyrs, Shiite and Sunni, Arabs and Kurds and Turkmen and along with the remainder of their brothers from all the other components and recollecting the darkness of the ravage of the holy cities and the South in the Sha’abaniyya uprising and burnt by the flames of grief of the mass graves, the marshes, Al-Dujail and others and articulating the sufferings of racial oppression in the massacres of Halabcha, Barzan, Anfal and the Fayli Kurds and inspired by the ordeals of the Turkmen in Basheer and as is the case in the remaining areas of Iraq where the people of the west suffered from the assassinations of their leaders, symbols and elderly and from the displacement of their skilled individuals and from the drying out of their cultural and intellectual wells, so we sought hand in hand and shoulder to shoulder to create our new Iraq, ... Wait there is more. The last few word of the first sentence read as follows:
...the Iraq of the future free from sectarianism, racism, locality complex, discrimination and exclusion. And that brings us to the end of the first sentence. It is the longest sentence in the entire constitution by far. This is the product of the group that will now become Iraq’s new forefathers and the US essentially paid for them to write it.
Now to some of the obvious farces of the constitution. Article 19, Second states:
The sanctity of the homes is inviolable and homes may not be entered, searched, or put in danger, except by a judicial decision in accordance with the law. Article 21, First states: No Iraqi shall be surrendered to foreign entities and authorities. The coaliton forces that go out and dispense justice and drag off the bad guys are a foreign authority. Does anyone think that the US is obtaining court issued warrants to enter each home in Iraq or to detain individuals? These articles from the start is not worth the paper that they're printed on, and will in the future serve to undermine the claims of legitimacy that the current government makes to those who are insurgents. If the government does not follow its own rules, why should anyone submit to it?
Keeping in mind that the official and highest authrity in Iraq will be the interpeted meanings of the Koran, which has many different and conflicting interpreatations, some of the laws seem problematic from the get-go. Article 34, Third staes:
The State shall encourage scientific research for peaceful purposes that serve man and shall support excellence, creativity, invention and the different aspects of ingenuity. When one remembers that the highest authority is Islam then you remember that the interpretation of the Koran, which is the area where Imams are the experts will determine what is science and what it not.
Article 7, First states:
No entity or program, under any name, may adopt racism, terrorism, the calling of others infidels, ethnic cleansing, or incite, facilitate, glorify, promote, or justify thereto, especially the Saddamist Ba’ath in Iraq and its symbols. This may not be part of the political pluralism in Iraq. A law shall regulate this. This is in many interpretations of the Koran an artice or law that runs counter to the teaching of the Prophet and thereby, according to the Iraqi constituion invalidates itself. The document is internally incosistent.
Article 43 states:
First: The followers of all religions and sects are free in the:
A- Practice of religious rites, including the Husseini ceremonies.
B- Management of the endowments (Awqaf), its affairs and its religious institutions. The law shall regulate this.
Second: The state shall guarantee the freedom of worship and the protection of the places of worship. This in many interpretations of the Koran is heretical. Many Koranic interpretation do not suport secularism at all. But, alas, this will all be settled when Iraq becomes a full theocracy ... and then, perhaps, a quasi-democratic dictatorship again. Nonetheless, this government is making an effort to craft an identity in the middle of a civil war and that has to be hard to do. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 11:15 PM |
|
|
|
| Democratic Congress, GOP President, and Iraq |
|
The Democrats and the Republicans have been slinging mud for months, so why should anyone imagine that they are getting ready to play nice. The relationship between the Democratic congressman and the President should be especially rancid, when one recalls how little respect these parties have shown for one another in the last couple of years.
Tuesday's Democratic election victory was by any measure decisive, yet in the perspective of history also unsurprising. In the sixth year of a two-term Presidency, Americans rebuked Republicans on Capitol Hill who had forgotten their principles and a President who hasn't won the Iraq war he started. While a thumping defeat for the GOP, the vote was about competence, not ideological change. (Full Article) What is striking to me is that the Democrat's have claimed to have extremely strong opinions about the President and have questioned the legality of a number of his programs, including domestic surveillance, the move to go war in Iraq, CIA interrogations, the meeting prior to the drafting of legislation for the energy bill, and the list goes on. If the Democrats truly feel that all of these acts were so dire and reprehensible and that the President has made the country significantly less safe, it is their duty to impeach. If they fail to move towards impeachment, as they almost certainly will, the proof is in the pudding that all of their concerns are fluff and the claims and criticisms have been primarily for political expediency.
Overall, however, this represents a good shift, if that is possible, because a number of incumbents were removed. The problems that are in congress are part partisan and mostly systemic. The aggregated whole of the congress is tainted with egregious levels of dishonesty and it will be good to have some new faces on the hill, because the new guys are more inclined to watch there step as the build a basis for re-election. Houseclean in the power rooms is good for us all.
One area where this may work well and cause the speedy passage of much needed legislation is the are of Immigration Reform. The President's plan seems to have been better received by the Left than the right and it could be a move towards some type of solution that would work to stem the tide of invasion. This will be an interesting two years to watch, but Bush at this point is essentially a lame duck, so the trades that will be made to get any of his desired legislation through will be pretty big.
What is striking to me is that the Democrat's have claimed to have extremely strong opinions about the President and have questioned the legality of a number of his programs, including domestic surveillance, the move to go war in Iraq, CIA interrogations, the meeting prior to the drafting of legislation for the energy bill, and the list goes on. If the Democrats truly feel that all of these acts were so dire and reprehensible and that the President has made the country significantly less safe, it is their duty to impeach. If they fail to move towards impeachment, as they almost certainly will, the proof is in the pudding that all of their concerns are fluff and the claims and criticisms have been primarily for political expediency.
Overall, however, this represents a good shift, if that is possible, because a number of incumbents were removed. The problems that are in congress are part partisan and mostly systemic. The aggregated whole of the congress is tainted with egregious levels of dishonesty and it will be good to have some new faces on the hill, because the new guys are more inclined to watch there step as the build a basis for re-election. A housecleaning in the power rooms is good for us all.
One area where this may work well and cause the speedy passage of much needed legislation is the are of Immigration Reform. The President's plan seems to have been better received by the Left than the right and it could be a move towards some type of solution that would work to stem the tide of invasion. This will be an interesting two years to watch, but Bush at this point is essentially a lame duck, so the trades that will be made to get any of his desired legislation through will be pretty big.
As far as Iraq, it is anybody's guess what will happen. This is the pet project of the Whitehouse and they have demonstrated little true interest in leaving Iraq anytime without having a place to put the troops in the Middle East, such as Iran. The Saudi public does not want our army in their country, the Kuwaiti's prefer not to have any foreign armies in their country, and we have to have a place to put our forces. The Middle East is too critical a region to be left to itself. The US has too great an interest in the politics and resources of the region, including the shipping routes.
The problem in Iraq - if it can be reduced to one - is that there are too many problems to reasonably address without invading the country again and leveling every structure in it.
The "enemy" is now resident to the land. Like it or not the insurgency is fed and supported by enough of the public, that in the absence of US presence they are the real government. The government that has been elected is not the master of the country and that is why they will not be quick to ask the US to leave either. Many of the leaders in that government are all too aware that the life expectancy would be greatly shortened, if they did.
With that said Iraq is not the key to the US security strategy - and, unfortunately, the domestic surveillance programs and our military technology are. They attack on 9/11 did not come from abroad even if the plans originated in some cave. The attacks on 9/11 demonstrated a breakdown in our domestic systems and the wars we are in now are dog waggings and resource grabs. And, for better or worse, these actions have expanded the US-influence and demonstrated the ability of the US to establish and enforce law throughout the world. It is definitely going to bruise some egos out there, but that was the point.
Anyway, let the good times roll. Let's see what the Congress does to deal with the Iraq issue. Let's see how well they define their terms. John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) had an opinion editorial titled, "Confessions of a 'Defeatocrat'" in October. An excerpt from this article is found below.
Vice President Cheney has accused Democrats of "self-defeating pessimism." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has faulted us for believing that "vicious extremists can be appeased." The White House calls Democrats the party of "cut and run."
It's all baseless name calling, and it's all wrong. Unless, of course, being a Defeatocrat means taking a good hard look at the administration's Iraq policy and determining that it's a failure. His point is sound the Republican's have invested a lot of time in name calling - a great deal of it baseless and a great deal more misleading. It is the "Rovians" who have made withdrawal from Iraq equal defeat in Iraq. There is nothing farther from the truth, our military won the war. It did what is was designed to do, with minimal loss of life. The rising US body count and the unrest in Iraq is a result of asking the military to do something it is not designed to do. Militaries enforce martial law they do not build nations. In the modern, world the business of trade builds nations. Unfortunately, in Iraq, the portions of the population intent on taking action have other priorities such as ethnic cleansing. No one in his or her right mind should arm Iraq in its current state. That would be the same as walking into a juvenile detention system and handing out guns, because the kids their cannot participate in the economy and purchase their own. People use their weapons in Iraq and the militias are not under the control of any legitimate government.
Despite the elections that Iraq has had - the present government lacks legitimacy and this is why it fails to be the one clear source of authority in the country. Additionally, the creation of this stooge government and the fast tracking of Iraq towards independence has diminished our military's ability to act with absolute impunity and snuff out the problem in the country. The strategy was mottled and ill-considered from the start. The President's administration has focused a great deal on semantics of the strategy and too little on the merits. It is the semantics that have been used that have linked a stigma of failure to withdrawal from Iraq. It would be cheaper to leave the country and then invade it as necessary to keep it in line. If you look at the Iraqi constitution you will see that this is just another problem brewing. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 8:38 PM |
|
|
|
| Saddam's Fate to Hangs in the Future |
| Sunday, November 05, 2006 |
In a courtroom surprise, the Iraqi tribunal sentenced Saddam Hussein to hang for his participation in the 1982 murders and tortures of Shiites in the city of Dujal. As though there was ever any doubt of the inevitable outcome of the trial. This is Saddam Hussein, not O.J. or Robert Blake. The judgment was in long before the evidence was presented and it is a shame that so many resources had to be thrown into an unnecessary trial. Nonetheless, as a stepping stone for a future democracy, even if it ends up being a theocracy, it is positive that the Iraqi's are practicing dispensing orderly justice to guilty parties.
What is disturbing that Iraq has the ability to conduct such trial, under tribunal jurisdiction, before it became a sovereign nation. The trial itself began before the Iraqi's even had their first election on January 30, 2005. The fact that the trial became without an elected goverment will remain a rallying point for anti-American insurgents for years to come. Proof of the imperialist infidels at work amongst their civilizations. This is unfortunate, but likely.
While I shed not a single tear for Mr. Hussein, the entire trial seems to be a dark sort of comedy. I have seen first hand the type of wounds that his regime inflicted on its citizens and have spoken to Iraqi's forced to flee their country to find asylum from Ba'ath brutality and accept that Saddam represented an evil in the world. To see the former dictator sentenced by his own people, when they could neither overthrow his government or assassinate him by virtue of their own means, should serve as a fair warning to other leaders who are on the outs with nations with significantly greater military power. It will, in this layman's opinion, serve to galvanize rogue and anti-american heads of state into a more coherent whole for the purpose of self-preservation.
It's a damn shame that he has to go out like this, but, so long as he is not made into some sort of martyr (something that hapens alot in Muslim nations) it will serve to reduce some the of the expenses associated with the maintenance of his incarceration and the securtiy details assigned to protecting him can be assigned to protecting innocent people instead.
After the verdict was delivered, there were threats from Sunni leaders in opposition of the new government and episodes of violence and among those who were pleased with the decision there was celebratory gunfire. The fact that Sunni leaders can make such threats and not be hanged or imprisoned as well for inciting violence against the governement or treason is indicative of the lack of penetreation the existing government has into the population. The fact that there was celebratory gunfire is a reminder that alot of Iraqi's have guns (which is part of the whole problem with the security situation).
With all sarcasm aside this is a demonstration of the power of the new Iraq government to dispatch justice on its own terms. The White House is apparently pleased with the verdict as it represents a measure of the success of the military campaign it initiated. Even though Osama got away and the WMD was never found, they did get Saddam Hussein and regime change. They succeeded in accomplishing the third goal of the previously state list of objectives and the goal that garnered the least global support or the three - and, incidentally, set the most disturbing recent precedent.
When will attention turn to forcing a remedy in Darfur or North Korea or China? If crimes against humanity truly represent a cause that justifies regime change, are there not many other nations in need of similar treatment? A few of them even have weapons of mass destruction. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 9:02 AM |
|
|
|
| Iraq: The Free Country |
| Saturday, November 04, 2006 |
"Freedom" and "security" are not synonyms.
Iraq is a free country. It is apparent that segments of the Iraqi population act without regard for the priniciples or policies of any government. Iraq is an example of a free country with all of the blemishes of free human behavior. Although there are significant initiatives to curtail the freedoms that in this country and to create a secure environment, it is now apparent what the will of the people looks like.
For all of the criticism that the current administation has recieved for its Iraq policy, they did indeed succeed at freeing the Iraq people. The only problem was the people behind the bars who are willing to take action in the absences of oppression have voted through their actions that they like oppression and have entered into violent campaigns to insert a new order.
As can be noted from the history of the U.S. and France and many other democratic governements, democracies are usually borne through violence and violent actions. Those who who watch the news on a daily basis are priveleged to watch the societal equivalent of a supernova on live TV. There is a great deal to be learned from these events.
The expectation that all of Iraq will align under the same flag in short order seems a little naive. Look at the former USSR - all broken up. Look at Rhode Island, a state smaller than the city of Houston - it's people preferred to remain a separate entity from other states and it has remained such for over 200 years. Then look again at Rhode Island -- an area smaller than that of Houston -- with two votes in the US Sentate. Then look at the former USSR, each new country now gets a vote in the UN. There is more power to be gained in a world democracy by alowing the country to be three separate countries that will vote on global issues in approximately the same way.
It is best for the US and many nations to see Iraq remain one continuous state, yet, to do so guarantees a few more years or decades of bloodshed and instability as freedoms are excercised and the Western world criticizes the very idea they claim to defend. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 8:25 PM |
|
|
|
| A Programmed Public |
|
The masses. The people. The society. The public. Each of these phrases is used to identify an undefined and loosely coordinated entity that for the purpose of presenting it as a defined whole. Each of these terms represents an abstract tool for creating an identity set. These are terms and phrases that are you to assist each of us in our programming by - another abstract - the media.
Our world is littered with generalizations. To a degree it is almost impossible to effectively and effeciently communicate wihtout the use of these generalizations. This works to the detriment and adavantage of each individual.
Examine the phrasing of speeches and presentation and consider whether or not you are being led to conclusions based on accurate generalizations. There is a reason why media outlets refer to their products and services as programming. The more you can reject and the more paradoxes you are willing and able to process the more freedom you will experience under any administration or governmental system.
Well, now enters into the population the most programmed and fragmented generation in at least a century. A generation enters that has been trained in similar manners while having access to diverse media outlets. The first generations who have been raised on more than three TV networks enters the marketplace. Expect confused votes in the future and erratic swings in public suuport for valuse initiatives in fifteen years, when the divided and confused new public rears its head.
We are fortunate to live in a "democratic society." Unfortunately, a very limited portion of the population understands the terms of the democracy and actively participates in the processes. It is possible that most efforts to alter the "system" fail, not because of there merits, but because those who attempt to alter or modify the system in which they exist fail to understand the rules of the system.
Conspiracy theories abound and, indeed, those who do not believe in conspiracies fail to understand the system we live in and the basic outcomes that system will inevitably produce. This is in part due to the fact the comprehensive ability of any individual is finite.
For the moment, consider the governmental system that we have - that has performed perhaps as well - if not better than any governmental system ever. Our governmental system is, in theory, based on the opinions and values of the public at large. The masses determine the direction of the nature. Yet, a more sophisticated analysis of the system clearly indicates that that was not the purpose of the system. Our governmental system is designed to limit the power to a smaller group - for the purpose of effeciency in the creation and dispensation law. Evidence of this can be found in the fact that representative for the public are elected and it is this elect that is supposed to make key decisions.
The power of the people has limited penetration into goverenment procedure as appointments are made. These apointments serve to limit the reach of the individual decision into the practice of governement and also serve to make the government itself more efficient. It is those that are appointed to position that craft much of what becomes the public programs and the values that many of us hold are as much a result of what we have been told or encouraged to think about as they are the values that we hold to represent our own best interest.
We will soon voluntarily give up all our rights. This will be a well deserved outcome for generations that have failed to learn what they were in the first place. |
| posted by Domesticated Dog @ 7:41 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
