No … I’m not talking baseball … the NY Transit workers strike. Unions are getting ridiculous. I’m not just talking about the Transit workers union in NY, but fairly much all unions across the board … they seem to be in it to kill the companies rather than protect their members.
I don’t recall if it was Eastern Airlines or United that the Head of the Union stated in an interview that his goal was to bring down the company … and he did … and you know what … all the union members found themselves out of work … THAT’S what I call looking after the members best interests … yup … I’m sure that all those un-employed mechanics, pilots, stewardesses and everyone else in the company REALLY appreciated that help.
Now I believe that in many instances (particularly in the airlines) management plays a large part of the problem as well … but when you start to put some of the union demands in perspective … well they start to sound like spoiled brats that always get their way.
Presently NYC Transit workers make, on average, a better annual wage than most police officers and teachers. For a job that requires less education (a transit worker position requires a High School diploma (or, I believe, a GED) while law enforcement generally requires 2 years of college and teachers require a full bachelor degree at the least) and is often less demanding.
But they want more money … Of course they’ve been offered a raise (between 3 and 4%) – just not a large enough raise in their minds. And they don’t want to pay more toward their pension (currently they pay 2% … the Transit Authority wants them to pay 6% … 6% is better than most workers in this country are offered.) … and from what I can see that increase would ONLY apply to new hires and only for the first 10 years of employment.
They cite the large surplus of funds that the Transit Authority has … some $1 Billion (45% of which is earmarked for the Transit Workers Pension Fund) … but that surplus is the result of tax money, not increased Transit Worker work … they didn’t DO more to earn that surplus there was simply more collected in city TAXES than originally predicted when the budget was made out.
The Union’s view on this is simple … since the government collected more taxes than they expected then they should give more of that tax money to the transit workers … no they shouldn’t lower taxes or do anything else that might benefit the people that actually PAID those taxes with that extra money … no … that wouldn’t be right … no … better to give it to the union members who came in and worked the same 8 hour shift with all the mandatory breaks and such … after all … they WORKED … um … wait a tick … actually they did the same thing they would have done if there was a $1 billion dollar short fall because the city collected LESS taxes than it expected …. And you can bet they wouldn’t take a pay cut or anything in THAT situation…
Of course … you also have to keep in mind that the strike is, in fact, illegal. “The strike by the 33,000-member Transport Workers Union is illegal under a New York state law that bars public employees from walking out.” [Jail Threat Ups Ante for NYC Union Heads] … mind you in the mind of a Union Leader … the LAW isn’t important, no, they’re more interested in the rule of the mob, not the rule of law.
Currently the employees on strike are loosing 2 days pay for every day that they remain on strike and a judge has ordered fines on the union of $1 million a day.
Every day that this strike continues it puts more stress on the people of NY … not the Transit Authority or the Transit Unions (though both of those parties are loosing money) but on the citizens of New York … a city that relies heavily on it’s mass transit, a city where some people do not have viable alternatives to get to work some of whom may loose jobs or pay because some union leader in a suit and tie living on the sweat of others decided that a 4% raise wasn’t enough.
Personally … fire the lot and start the replacements at 60% of the current salary … then take that extra 40% and give it to the police departments, since they’re the ones working over time through this transportation crisis.
The times that we needed unions are long gone … they’ve grown fat in the excesses and only take, and take, and take. They are a lead weight on the gossamer balloon of the economy and we really need to cut them loose before they drag us down.
The biggest problem is that the unions have grown too big … the have gone from small organizations whose leaders were the working men … the leader was ‘ole Gus’ working on lathe 231 … and Gus had the interests of the other guys in the shop at heart because he worked next to them, sweated with them … he saw how things effected them. Now, many union leaders may never have even DONE the job that the union represents … they are lawyers, not workers, and many of them don’t have a single clue about the concerns of the members … they don’t know the names of the members … they don’t know their families … and they don’t give a rat’s ass about how this strike is effecting the members or how their demands will effect the over all picture in the long term.
Thinking long term … realizing that constantly taking more and more will eventually end up with a situation where there’s nothing LEFT to take … where you’ve taken to the point that you’ve taken everything, and lost everything because the people that you were taking FROM collapsed and disappeared leaving you holding an pension from a fund that is bankrupt.
Some myths say that a vampire that completely drains his victim dies with them … their bodies slowing and falling into that cold empty chasm of death … I think they were speaking of unions and, hopefully, predicting their fall.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Profiles
[Disclaimer – any numbers, percents, age groups are grabbed from thin air as examples in order to make a point and are not the result of any form of scientific study or research unless a specific source is linked.]
Okay, what is it that people have against profiling? If, statistically speaking, it was to be shown that 75% of terrorists were white males in the 25-40 age range, what is the big problem with paying a little more attention to white males aged 25-40? Oh, wait … if it was white males no one would have a problem with profiling in the first place … they’d call it good police work.
So why is it no longer good police work when the majority of terrorists fall into another ethnic group? Why is it that people have to be so adamantly against profiling that they actually end up making law enforcement pay LESS attention to the people that are MORE LIKELY to be the cause of problems for fear of being accused of ‘profiling’?
Certainly I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be looking at everyone, even in the above example 25% of terrorists would NOT fall into the ‘white male aged 25-40’ category. But I mean come on … if 75% of terrorists come from a specific ethnic group, then, in my opinion, something close to 75% of the attention of law enforcement and security personnel needs to be focused on the people that MATCH THAT DESCRIPTION.
It’s not a matter of racism … I don’t believe that my race is better than their race … Though I’m sure that someone reading this will probably call me a ‘racist’ because I believe that one of the best ways to catch criminals is through the use of profiling. I’ll just call them an ignorant slob and be done with it.
I don’t know the exact numbers, though I’d be willing to bet you that the numbers are out there. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies collect data regularly on people that commit pretty much any type of crime and so can tell you what type of person is most likely going to commit any given crime.
Last I knew middle aged white males were the highest percentage of serial killers … so, if you’re looking for a serial killer then you should probably spend a majority of your time on middle aged white males … concentrating your investigations on old ladies in wheelchairs is, most likely, only going to lead to more dead bodies.
So why is it that people wildly outside the ‘terrorist’ profile seem to be the most commonly picked for ‘closer investigation’? Very simply … if you take an Arabic male for screening then you can probably expect to be accused of ‘profiling’ and/or being prejudiced …
Profiling makes sense … it works, and it has a greater success rate than ‘random’ checks. Is there still a chance that someone can be overlooked? Sure, but there is ALWAYS that chance. Remember profiling doesn’t mean ONLY checking those that ‘match’ the profile …
The side effect of profiling might also be that the people belonging to that ethnic group might, oh I don’t know, start to put pressure on to distance themselves from those elements that create the problem.
Can’t call them Islamic terrorists … that would be insensitive to those followers of the religion of Islam that aren’t terrorists. Well maybe if we stop being ‘sensitive’ to them all the time then maybe it would encourage them to do things in order to distance themselves from their more radical elements.
Let’s just get rid of the whole concept of ‘political correctness’ as it seems to be aimed at mucking up our ability to use common sense in this country.
Okay, what is it that people have against profiling? If, statistically speaking, it was to be shown that 75% of terrorists were white males in the 25-40 age range, what is the big problem with paying a little more attention to white males aged 25-40? Oh, wait … if it was white males no one would have a problem with profiling in the first place … they’d call it good police work.
So why is it no longer good police work when the majority of terrorists fall into another ethnic group? Why is it that people have to be so adamantly against profiling that they actually end up making law enforcement pay LESS attention to the people that are MORE LIKELY to be the cause of problems for fear of being accused of ‘profiling’?
Certainly I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be looking at everyone, even in the above example 25% of terrorists would NOT fall into the ‘white male aged 25-40’ category. But I mean come on … if 75% of terrorists come from a specific ethnic group, then, in my opinion, something close to 75% of the attention of law enforcement and security personnel needs to be focused on the people that MATCH THAT DESCRIPTION.
It’s not a matter of racism … I don’t believe that my race is better than their race … Though I’m sure that someone reading this will probably call me a ‘racist’ because I believe that one of the best ways to catch criminals is through the use of profiling. I’ll just call them an ignorant slob and be done with it.
I don’t know the exact numbers, though I’d be willing to bet you that the numbers are out there. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies collect data regularly on people that commit pretty much any type of crime and so can tell you what type of person is most likely going to commit any given crime.
Last I knew middle aged white males were the highest percentage of serial killers … so, if you’re looking for a serial killer then you should probably spend a majority of your time on middle aged white males … concentrating your investigations on old ladies in wheelchairs is, most likely, only going to lead to more dead bodies.
So why is it that people wildly outside the ‘terrorist’ profile seem to be the most commonly picked for ‘closer investigation’? Very simply … if you take an Arabic male for screening then you can probably expect to be accused of ‘profiling’ and/or being prejudiced …
Profiling makes sense … it works, and it has a greater success rate than ‘random’ checks. Is there still a chance that someone can be overlooked? Sure, but there is ALWAYS that chance. Remember profiling doesn’t mean ONLY checking those that ‘match’ the profile …
The side effect of profiling might also be that the people belonging to that ethnic group might, oh I don’t know, start to put pressure on to distance themselves from those elements that create the problem.
Can’t call them Islamic terrorists … that would be insensitive to those followers of the religion of Islam that aren’t terrorists. Well maybe if we stop being ‘sensitive’ to them all the time then maybe it would encourage them to do things in order to distance themselves from their more radical elements.
Let’s just get rid of the whole concept of ‘political correctness’ as it seems to be aimed at mucking up our ability to use common sense in this country.
Of Spies and Freedom
Okay … I’m sure that you’ve read the stories about the President being raked over the media regarding his authorization of wire taps without a warrant. Oh the shock, oh the horror … oh the humanity.
First off, well, I’ve personally believed for ages that the government was doing this anyway, and there is at least one news article claiming that Clinton used the power of the White House in a similar manor (Clinton Used NSA for Economic Espionage). I have no doubt that you can likely find similar uses during the Senior Bush administration, Regan, Carter, and on down the line … especially during the cold war era.
Should we be horrified by this? Should we be outraged? They’re invading our privacy!
Ah … But where is this right to privacy? Where is it guaranteed? I will admit that I’m not a Constitutional Scholar or a Lawyer so I may be over looking something, but the closest I can come is the 4th amendment to the Constitution which reads:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (4th Amendment to the Constitution, 1791)
However … a phone tap is not technically a search OR a seizure … nothing has been taken and it would be a broad definition of ‘search’ that would include monitoring phone conversations.
Now, certainly I believe that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in many things … but talking on a phone is iffy … emails are very iffy … cell phones, oh we’re so far into the realm of ‘iffy’ that it isn’t even funny. Communication in such ways is transmitting a private conversation through public lanes. If I’m having a conversation in a restaurant I accept the fact that what I say can (and likely will be) overheard by someone else … chances are pretty good that anyone who overhears it isn’t going to pay it any attention, but say the right phrase and trust me, they’ll pay attention.
Certainly there are differences between a spoken conversation in a restaurant and a conversation with anther person over the phone, but the fact of the matter is you’re transmitting your voice over a wire that you don’t own or control … through routing stations, switches, etc. … it’s possible to be overheard even if someone isn’t trying to.
It would be, of course, illegal for me to go and tap into someone else’s phone lines and listen to or record their conversations … but this is (aside from simply being rude) partially due to the fact that I would have to in some way alter something that didn’t belong to me it in the first place. The phone company itself would probably be considered in breach of contract in that the people involved pay for the phone service (besides any phone company that got a reputation for doing that would find itself without any customers in fairly short order).
The government (and law enforcement more generally) has a responsibility to protect the citizenry. Sometimes this is going to mean doing unpleasant things in order to protect the greater good. This would not be the first time that law enforcement had tapped a line without a warrant to gather enough evidence to get a warrant.
If evidence is deemed, by the judge, to have been obtained without proper legal authorizations then the judge can prevent the evidence from being used during the trial. This is part of the checks and balances built into our entire governmental system. Will some innocent people get their lines tapped … but then again there are times that innocent people get arrested for murders, robberies, etc.
The question has to be judged on a case-by-case basis … and in the case of an incorrect tap being placed and nothing is ever done with information, then is it really an issue?
‘You have the freedom to seek happiness, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom from oppression. None of these can exist without the fifth freedom … the freedom to protect all other freedoms by any means necessary.’ [Opening to Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell – note I will have to get the exact quote and edit this later]
The world is not black and white … not all enemies confront us openly … there are times when extreme measures must be used in order to protect the freedoms of many.
As citizens we must make certain that the proper checks and balances are in place to insure that the power … any power … that we give to that government is not abused … at the same time, however, we must make sure that we don’t tie their hands to the point that they are unable to protect us ….
First off, well, I’ve personally believed for ages that the government was doing this anyway, and there is at least one news article claiming that Clinton used the power of the White House in a similar manor (Clinton Used NSA for Economic Espionage). I have no doubt that you can likely find similar uses during the Senior Bush administration, Regan, Carter, and on down the line … especially during the cold war era.
Should we be horrified by this? Should we be outraged? They’re invading our privacy!
Ah … But where is this right to privacy? Where is it guaranteed? I will admit that I’m not a Constitutional Scholar or a Lawyer so I may be over looking something, but the closest I can come is the 4th amendment to the Constitution which reads:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (4th Amendment to the Constitution, 1791)
However … a phone tap is not technically a search OR a seizure … nothing has been taken and it would be a broad definition of ‘search’ that would include monitoring phone conversations.
Now, certainly I believe that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in many things … but talking on a phone is iffy … emails are very iffy … cell phones, oh we’re so far into the realm of ‘iffy’ that it isn’t even funny. Communication in such ways is transmitting a private conversation through public lanes. If I’m having a conversation in a restaurant I accept the fact that what I say can (and likely will be) overheard by someone else … chances are pretty good that anyone who overhears it isn’t going to pay it any attention, but say the right phrase and trust me, they’ll pay attention.
Certainly there are differences between a spoken conversation in a restaurant and a conversation with anther person over the phone, but the fact of the matter is you’re transmitting your voice over a wire that you don’t own or control … through routing stations, switches, etc. … it’s possible to be overheard even if someone isn’t trying to.
It would be, of course, illegal for me to go and tap into someone else’s phone lines and listen to or record their conversations … but this is (aside from simply being rude) partially due to the fact that I would have to in some way alter something that didn’t belong to me it in the first place. The phone company itself would probably be considered in breach of contract in that the people involved pay for the phone service (besides any phone company that got a reputation for doing that would find itself without any customers in fairly short order).
The government (and law enforcement more generally) has a responsibility to protect the citizenry. Sometimes this is going to mean doing unpleasant things in order to protect the greater good. This would not be the first time that law enforcement had tapped a line without a warrant to gather enough evidence to get a warrant.
If evidence is deemed, by the judge, to have been obtained without proper legal authorizations then the judge can prevent the evidence from being used during the trial. This is part of the checks and balances built into our entire governmental system. Will some innocent people get their lines tapped … but then again there are times that innocent people get arrested for murders, robberies, etc.
The question has to be judged on a case-by-case basis … and in the case of an incorrect tap being placed and nothing is ever done with information, then is it really an issue?
‘You have the freedom to seek happiness, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom from oppression. None of these can exist without the fifth freedom … the freedom to protect all other freedoms by any means necessary.’ [Opening to Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell – note I will have to get the exact quote and edit this later]
The world is not black and white … not all enemies confront us openly … there are times when extreme measures must be used in order to protect the freedoms of many.
As citizens we must make certain that the proper checks and balances are in place to insure that the power … any power … that we give to that government is not abused … at the same time, however, we must make sure that we don’t tie their hands to the point that they are unable to protect us ….
Monday, December 19, 2005
Time
Time ...
Where does it go? … Tomorrow marks the one year anniversary of starting my blog. Well … technically the 17th is the one year mark of the first post, but it didn’t exactly say much of anything so I don’t really count it as the first post … it was more of a place holder.
Of course, the blog didn’t start off here on blogger, rather it started over on the guild portal blog site, and was mirrored there for a while after I moved over here to blogger. So, why did I move it in the first place? Simple really, the blogger site was part of the Scales of Pain guild site, and since I wasn’t talking about things relating to EQII I really didn’t feel right keeping my rants over there, so we ended up here.
And it’s been a good home too … comfy and welcoming. Certainly in the time I’ve been posting here I’ve never really had any problems. I’ve had a few friendly comments and shared my thoughts on a variety of subjects over the year past. Hopefully you have at least enjoyed the journey through some of the caverns of my mind. I think I’ve shown you at least a few gems mixed in with the coal and general detritus.
Looking back to that post on December 20th, 2004 (It’s the Holiday Season…) I have to say that I still agree with everything I said then. I might have said it differently had I written it today, but I think the sentiment would be the same.
In fact … looking back up the Word document that I’ve written all of this down in I have written 87 pages of rants, over 44,000 words. Not all of them have been as well organized as I would have liked, and in fact I think some of them failed to get the point that I was going for across … though I have a feeling that I got something across in all of them.
If I’ve offended you … oh well … you’ll live. After all … if you keep coming back and reading then I have to assume that SOMETHING interested you in what I have to say, and that means that there’s hope that I’ll get you thinking about things. That is, after all my main goal. I truly feel that it is a disturbing lack of thought that causes a great many of the problems in the world. Or, more accurately, a lack of ability to think about things logically, or a tendency to place importance on personal issues rather than important issues … to think long term.
“No, this is just personal. Personal’s not the same as important, people just think it is.” –Terry Pratchett “Lords and Ladies”
Over the year I have often quoted … though I think that’s the first time I’ve quoted Pratchett … quotes are the sound bites of print … a way for me to say what I’m trying to say, probably in a more articulate way than I would manage on my own. More often than not, anything I want to say has already been said better by someone else.
But really … where does the time go? I can hardly believe that it’s been 12 months gone already. I swear they don’t make months like they used to … there was a time when I could get stuff done in a month … when a month was a significant amount of time. Now … it seems hardly more than a week … or a day … you turn around and *poof* another month has passed and you’re left wondering where in the devil it went.
Some people say time is relative to age … the older you are the less significant a month or year is … when you’re 5 years old 1 year is 1/5th, or 20%, of your life … when you’re 35 years old 1 year is 1/35th, or 0.286%, of your life. The older you get the less significant time itself becomes, but the more important it becomes to you.
Another likely part of the equation is that as you get older, and become an adult with adult responsibilities, your life becomes busier. There are more demands on your time … work, play, sleep, family, friends, hobbies … as your life fills up with things to do and as you get caught up in doing them you stop paying attention to the time slipping away around you … and then one day you come to find, 10 years have got behind you, no one told you when to run … erm … sorry about that … couldn’t resist…
Time itself is an illusion … mankind forcing measurement on the series of events that make up life. We aren’t happy if there is something that we can’t find a way to measure and quantify. We slice it into little bite size chunks so that we can better handle it … we don’t have to consider the eternity of time, we need merely worry about the next second, or next minute, or hour, or day … and there was the trap we laid for ourselves. We ceased to look to the future, ceased to think about what may be … in favor of looking at the now, we act on what seems good now … often without consideration to what effects it may have in the future.
In any case, however, together we have completed the first cycle of this blog … With a bit of luck it will just be the first of many.
[In case any of you are wondering … no, I didn’t have any point to this rant … I was just writing what came to mind ... hopefully you got some entertainment out of the ramblings of my thought process … if not, I hope I didn’t bore you too badly.]
Where does it go? … Tomorrow marks the one year anniversary of starting my blog. Well … technically the 17th is the one year mark of the first post, but it didn’t exactly say much of anything so I don’t really count it as the first post … it was more of a place holder.
Of course, the blog didn’t start off here on blogger, rather it started over on the guild portal blog site, and was mirrored there for a while after I moved over here to blogger. So, why did I move it in the first place? Simple really, the blogger site was part of the Scales of Pain guild site, and since I wasn’t talking about things relating to EQII I really didn’t feel right keeping my rants over there, so we ended up here.
And it’s been a good home too … comfy and welcoming. Certainly in the time I’ve been posting here I’ve never really had any problems. I’ve had a few friendly comments and shared my thoughts on a variety of subjects over the year past. Hopefully you have at least enjoyed the journey through some of the caverns of my mind. I think I’ve shown you at least a few gems mixed in with the coal and general detritus.
Looking back to that post on December 20th, 2004 (It’s the Holiday Season…) I have to say that I still agree with everything I said then. I might have said it differently had I written it today, but I think the sentiment would be the same.
In fact … looking back up the Word document that I’ve written all of this down in I have written 87 pages of rants, over 44,000 words. Not all of them have been as well organized as I would have liked, and in fact I think some of them failed to get the point that I was going for across … though I have a feeling that I got something across in all of them.
If I’ve offended you … oh well … you’ll live. After all … if you keep coming back and reading then I have to assume that SOMETHING interested you in what I have to say, and that means that there’s hope that I’ll get you thinking about things. That is, after all my main goal. I truly feel that it is a disturbing lack of thought that causes a great many of the problems in the world. Or, more accurately, a lack of ability to think about things logically, or a tendency to place importance on personal issues rather than important issues … to think long term.
“No, this is just personal. Personal’s not the same as important, people just think it is.” –Terry Pratchett “Lords and Ladies”
Over the year I have often quoted … though I think that’s the first time I’ve quoted Pratchett … quotes are the sound bites of print … a way for me to say what I’m trying to say, probably in a more articulate way than I would manage on my own. More often than not, anything I want to say has already been said better by someone else.
But really … where does the time go? I can hardly believe that it’s been 12 months gone already. I swear they don’t make months like they used to … there was a time when I could get stuff done in a month … when a month was a significant amount of time. Now … it seems hardly more than a week … or a day … you turn around and *poof* another month has passed and you’re left wondering where in the devil it went.
Some people say time is relative to age … the older you are the less significant a month or year is … when you’re 5 years old 1 year is 1/5th, or 20%, of your life … when you’re 35 years old 1 year is 1/35th, or 0.286%, of your life. The older you get the less significant time itself becomes, but the more important it becomes to you.
Another likely part of the equation is that as you get older, and become an adult with adult responsibilities, your life becomes busier. There are more demands on your time … work, play, sleep, family, friends, hobbies … as your life fills up with things to do and as you get caught up in doing them you stop paying attention to the time slipping away around you … and then one day you come to find, 10 years have got behind you, no one told you when to run … erm … sorry about that … couldn’t resist…
Time itself is an illusion … mankind forcing measurement on the series of events that make up life. We aren’t happy if there is something that we can’t find a way to measure and quantify. We slice it into little bite size chunks so that we can better handle it … we don’t have to consider the eternity of time, we need merely worry about the next second, or next minute, or hour, or day … and there was the trap we laid for ourselves. We ceased to look to the future, ceased to think about what may be … in favor of looking at the now, we act on what seems good now … often without consideration to what effects it may have in the future.
In any case, however, together we have completed the first cycle of this blog … With a bit of luck it will just be the first of many.
[In case any of you are wondering … no, I didn’t have any point to this rant … I was just writing what came to mind ... hopefully you got some entertainment out of the ramblings of my thought process … if not, I hope I didn’t bore you too badly.]
Thursday, December 15, 2005
A Historical Day
Yup … it was a historical day in Iraq today with millions turning out to vote in the elections today. The voting was peaceful with even the Sunnis turning out in large numbers. True, this is not the first vote that the Iraqi people have turned out for … but today was the day they voted to elect a new parliament of 275 representatives which will begin the process to select the President, Prime Minister, the Cabinet and so on.
Today the Iraqi people elected their new representatives in their new governmental structure. History is being made today and, history that will likely affect the politics in a major area of the world that we now live in. While it may not affect some people directly … it marks a major change in the world that may well mark the beginning of something larger.
This isn’t a small story … it is a story with wide reaching ramifications … and yet, going to most of the network news sites tonight and what is their lead story? For most it’s the ice storm in the south eastern United States. OMG an ICE STORM …. 450,000 people in Georgia and the Carolinas are without power!
Yes, I was one of those 450,000 that lost power today … lost it for … oh … about 8 hours maybe? Give it a rest folks … okay, that story may be news, but … even for those affected by the storm (which was hardly that bad) it isn’t the biggest news story of the day … not even close. Heck, there are other national stories that are more important than the ice storm (like the things going on in DC … immigration bills, and such) and I don’t believe that most of them are of more importance than what’s happening (well, happened at this point) in Iraq today.
This is what we’ve been fighting for … a free Iraq … and we’re winning (despite what Howard Dean and the many of the Democrats would like you to believe), we’re succeeding in the mission, and we’re having a positive impact in the lives of MILLIONS of people. And yet most of the news media is treating it as a ‘page 2 or 3’ story.
Why is this? Is the media afraid to show our success in Iraq? Are they afraid that it would cause the current President (and thus his political party) to look better in the eyes of the American people?
Bias is showed both in what you chose to say, and in what you choose not to say, by what you choose to give importance to, as well as what you choose to downplay. Even as our goals in Iraq are being accomplished the media chooses to focus on other stories.
But what would you like to bet that if there had been wide spread violence during the elections that the news would be the top story of the day … edging the ice storm to a (likely) distant second or, perhaps, even farther down the list. I would almost quarantine that 25 people being killed in a car bomb at a poling place would have made headlines and front pages across the country.
Now I could be wrong … tomorrow’s news papers could have large banner headlines about the success of the elections in Iraq … but I’m not holding my breath. Particularly in the case of the Atlanta paper which I’ll be amazed if the front page even mentions that there WAS an election in Iraq ….
You will hear about every gun fight, every car bomb, every US soldier killed (rarely will you hear about the Iraqi soldiers dying, unless it’s in a car bomb, or other mass attack) you won’t generally hear about the schools being built, the bolstered economic growth and increased standard of living. You will rarely hear how the life of the average Iraqi is already better than it was before the invasion and overthrow of Saddam. You see a lot of reports of certain politicians saying ‘we can’t win in Iraq’ and that we should ‘withdraw our troops now’ … but rarely do you hear the reports of the soldiers IN Iraq saying that we are winning the war … the stories of the troops volunteering to go back for second tours in Iraq because of the positive effects that they are seeing in that country.
Now our troops aren’t going to be shipping out of Iraq tomorrow, but we’re closer to a point now where we can start cutting back our presence. Every day more Iraqi soldiers are trained, and with the government in place the Iraqi people will be in a much better position to begin managing their own security. I expect that next Christmas we will still have a military presence in Iraq, and it will still be a significant number of troops. But it will likely be less than what we currently have deployed and that number will be dwindling further as more and more Iraqi troops are able to replace them in their duties.
As for the ‘War on Terror’ itself I believe that we are at a point best described by Winston Churchill, “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
The ‘War on Terror’ is a far reaching goal … it may be that human nature itself dictates that it can never truly be won because there is no decisive enemy to face, no capital that you can topple to end the power of the enemy. Even should we find Osama Bin Laden and destroy Al Qaeda there will be others to take their place.
That does not, however, mean that we should pack it up and call it quits … that would only encourage the terrorists further because they work on the mindset that if we back down in any way, they’ve won.
Again a quote of Churchill comes to mind “Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”
So long as terrorists confront us with force we must never back down … never give in … because to do so is to hand them victory on a silver platter, and in so doing we may as well cuff ourselves in chains and toss them the keys. We can not seek to appease them for each victory they accumulate through appeasement will only encourage them to try for more. We can not negotiate with terrorists, for such action will be seen as weakness and exploited further in their next action. We must forever be ready to defend ourselves and our freedoms from those that would take them from us … be it through force, terror, or guile.
Today the Iraqi people elected their new representatives in their new governmental structure. History is being made today and, history that will likely affect the politics in a major area of the world that we now live in. While it may not affect some people directly … it marks a major change in the world that may well mark the beginning of something larger.
This isn’t a small story … it is a story with wide reaching ramifications … and yet, going to most of the network news sites tonight and what is their lead story? For most it’s the ice storm in the south eastern United States. OMG an ICE STORM …. 450,000 people in Georgia and the Carolinas are without power!
Yes, I was one of those 450,000 that lost power today … lost it for … oh … about 8 hours maybe? Give it a rest folks … okay, that story may be news, but … even for those affected by the storm (which was hardly that bad) it isn’t the biggest news story of the day … not even close. Heck, there are other national stories that are more important than the ice storm (like the things going on in DC … immigration bills, and such) and I don’t believe that most of them are of more importance than what’s happening (well, happened at this point) in Iraq today.
This is what we’ve been fighting for … a free Iraq … and we’re winning (despite what Howard Dean and the many of the Democrats would like you to believe), we’re succeeding in the mission, and we’re having a positive impact in the lives of MILLIONS of people. And yet most of the news media is treating it as a ‘page 2 or 3’ story.
Why is this? Is the media afraid to show our success in Iraq? Are they afraid that it would cause the current President (and thus his political party) to look better in the eyes of the American people?
Bias is showed both in what you chose to say, and in what you choose not to say, by what you choose to give importance to, as well as what you choose to downplay. Even as our goals in Iraq are being accomplished the media chooses to focus on other stories.
But what would you like to bet that if there had been wide spread violence during the elections that the news would be the top story of the day … edging the ice storm to a (likely) distant second or, perhaps, even farther down the list. I would almost quarantine that 25 people being killed in a car bomb at a poling place would have made headlines and front pages across the country.
Now I could be wrong … tomorrow’s news papers could have large banner headlines about the success of the elections in Iraq … but I’m not holding my breath. Particularly in the case of the Atlanta paper which I’ll be amazed if the front page even mentions that there WAS an election in Iraq ….
You will hear about every gun fight, every car bomb, every US soldier killed (rarely will you hear about the Iraqi soldiers dying, unless it’s in a car bomb, or other mass attack) you won’t generally hear about the schools being built, the bolstered economic growth and increased standard of living. You will rarely hear how the life of the average Iraqi is already better than it was before the invasion and overthrow of Saddam. You see a lot of reports of certain politicians saying ‘we can’t win in Iraq’ and that we should ‘withdraw our troops now’ … but rarely do you hear the reports of the soldiers IN Iraq saying that we are winning the war … the stories of the troops volunteering to go back for second tours in Iraq because of the positive effects that they are seeing in that country.
Now our troops aren’t going to be shipping out of Iraq tomorrow, but we’re closer to a point now where we can start cutting back our presence. Every day more Iraqi soldiers are trained, and with the government in place the Iraqi people will be in a much better position to begin managing their own security. I expect that next Christmas we will still have a military presence in Iraq, and it will still be a significant number of troops. But it will likely be less than what we currently have deployed and that number will be dwindling further as more and more Iraqi troops are able to replace them in their duties.
As for the ‘War on Terror’ itself I believe that we are at a point best described by Winston Churchill, “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
The ‘War on Terror’ is a far reaching goal … it may be that human nature itself dictates that it can never truly be won because there is no decisive enemy to face, no capital that you can topple to end the power of the enemy. Even should we find Osama Bin Laden and destroy Al Qaeda there will be others to take their place.
That does not, however, mean that we should pack it up and call it quits … that would only encourage the terrorists further because they work on the mindset that if we back down in any way, they’ve won.
Again a quote of Churchill comes to mind “Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”
So long as terrorists confront us with force we must never back down … never give in … because to do so is to hand them victory on a silver platter, and in so doing we may as well cuff ourselves in chains and toss them the keys. We can not seek to appease them for each victory they accumulate through appeasement will only encourage them to try for more. We can not negotiate with terrorists, for such action will be seen as weakness and exploited further in their next action. We must forever be ready to defend ourselves and our freedoms from those that would take them from us … be it through force, terror, or guile.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
So whats up
With all the entries lately? Why the sudden burst of Blog entries after such a dry spell? Well I’m in training, so to speak.
Starting in January I will be taking on a personal challenge to write … to write more than I have ever written before. I am taking the NaNoWriMo challenge (though not during the usual NaNoWriMo month)
The long and the short of it is this … 1 novel …. 50,000 words … 31 days to write it.
Many of you know me … and you also know that I’ve always had a desire to write. I write little short stories that never get finished … that get a good start going and get people interested and then vanish into the abyss of my laziness never to be heard from again.
My wife has occasionally hounded me about this and invariably I get fired up and start writing … or start working toward writing. Either I dig up a story that I started writing before, or I start planning out a story that I’ve got running laps around my skull at the moment. In the case of the first option I usually end up re-reading my previous work and set down to edit it … the most common result is that I may add one or two pages onto the work, but most often I just finish re-writing it before something comes up that pulls me away for a couple of days and the writing momentum is lost. Or in the case of the second option, I outline and plan, write out character backgrounds and descriptions, define the world and then something comes up that pulls me away and that usually means that it gets filed away with the other projects.
This time, however, I am trying something different. This time my wife came across the NaNoWriMo site and pointed me to it. I was interested and she suggested that I pick up the book ‘No Plot, No Problem’ by Chris Baty (Also the founder of NaNoWriMo).
Chris lays out an outstanding argument in the book. While the book is aimed at helping people through the concept and completion of writing a 50,000 word monster in a month, the concept itself actually applies quite well to any creative endeavor.
Chris’ argument is basically that the only thing standing between me and getting a book finished is a deadline, or more accurately the LACK of a deadline.
Certainly he doesn’t paint the project as a cakewalk … and he points out many of the pitfalls that people face during the ordeal, and suggests ways to get around them. He talks about his experiences participating in NaNoWriMo since its founding in 1999, and he has snipits of advice and stories from other NaNoWriMo successes.
So after reading the book and seeing that I firmly fall into many of the pitfalls that he describes befalling what I call the ‘casual’ writer I decided … you know what … I can do that.
And I can and will make it. I’ve set the month of Jan for my novel in a month insanity because putting it off any farther than that is simply procrastinating and not accomplishing what I’m trying to do. One of the main points in NaNoWriMo is that there is no advanced preparation … the idea is to go into it blank. (the main reason for this is that the more advanced preparation that you do, the more attached to the story you become, and therefore the more likely you are to want to write it right and therefore will fall into the trap of editing … the idea is to get a complete first draft down, not a finished manuscript.)
What does this have to do with all the rants and rambles lately? Call it training … I’m getting used to the idea of writing on a nightly basis. And practicing sitting down at a set timeframe and writing without a significant amount of preparation. Of course these blog entries are significantly different from writing a novel in that I’m not going for an ongoing cohesive storyline. But they still get me used to using this timeframe for writing, used to focusing on something and putting my thoughts onto paper (or in this case on the monitor).
The next question becomes … what will happen to the blog in January? Well, blogging will probably slow down significantly as much of my ‘free time’ will be devoted to pouring my story out of the fires of my mind’s forge and beating it into some semblance of shape. I will, however, try to get some entries put up throughout the month … if nothing else to try and keep my regular readers informed on the status of the experiment. And of course if I get pointed to, or otherwise find a juicy article to rant about I may be able to spare some time to burble a few thoughts on the subject as well.
I will tell you now that I won’t tell you about my story … at least not until Feb … and more likely some time in March after I’ve had a chance to go through and chisel off some of the rougher edges. Not that I wouldn’t like to talk to you all about my story, but it’s one of the steps that they recommend to help keep from feeling pressured to perform (this is one of the main things that creates a lot of the pitfalls to the ‘casual writer’ … the feeling that it has to be right).
So … by the end of January I will be a novelist … not a published novelist to be sure, and the monster I write may never see the light of day, but I will be a novelist none-the-less. My plan from there is to take the same deadline concept and apply it (though with a longer deadline, or more likely a series of deadlines to keep myself going) to getting some of my other stories written, edited, and published (even if it’s just self published on a small scale.)
What will become of the one month monster? Only time will tell … I plan on taking Chris’ advice on the matter and waiting at least two weeks after the Jan 31st deadline before reading it over again and deciding if the beast is something that can be dressed up and taken out, or just needs to be buried and forgotten.
It’s going to be a rollercoaster … lets hope that I meet the height requirement….
Starting in January I will be taking on a personal challenge to write … to write more than I have ever written before. I am taking the NaNoWriMo challenge (though not during the usual NaNoWriMo month)
The long and the short of it is this … 1 novel …. 50,000 words … 31 days to write it.
Many of you know me … and you also know that I’ve always had a desire to write. I write little short stories that never get finished … that get a good start going and get people interested and then vanish into the abyss of my laziness never to be heard from again.
My wife has occasionally hounded me about this and invariably I get fired up and start writing … or start working toward writing. Either I dig up a story that I started writing before, or I start planning out a story that I’ve got running laps around my skull at the moment. In the case of the first option I usually end up re-reading my previous work and set down to edit it … the most common result is that I may add one or two pages onto the work, but most often I just finish re-writing it before something comes up that pulls me away for a couple of days and the writing momentum is lost. Or in the case of the second option, I outline and plan, write out character backgrounds and descriptions, define the world and then something comes up that pulls me away and that usually means that it gets filed away with the other projects.
This time, however, I am trying something different. This time my wife came across the NaNoWriMo site and pointed me to it. I was interested and she suggested that I pick up the book ‘No Plot, No Problem’ by Chris Baty (Also the founder of NaNoWriMo).
Chris lays out an outstanding argument in the book. While the book is aimed at helping people through the concept and completion of writing a 50,000 word monster in a month, the concept itself actually applies quite well to any creative endeavor.
Chris’ argument is basically that the only thing standing between me and getting a book finished is a deadline, or more accurately the LACK of a deadline.
Certainly he doesn’t paint the project as a cakewalk … and he points out many of the pitfalls that people face during the ordeal, and suggests ways to get around them. He talks about his experiences participating in NaNoWriMo since its founding in 1999, and he has snipits of advice and stories from other NaNoWriMo successes.
So after reading the book and seeing that I firmly fall into many of the pitfalls that he describes befalling what I call the ‘casual’ writer I decided … you know what … I can do that.
And I can and will make it. I’ve set the month of Jan for my novel in a month insanity because putting it off any farther than that is simply procrastinating and not accomplishing what I’m trying to do. One of the main points in NaNoWriMo is that there is no advanced preparation … the idea is to go into it blank. (the main reason for this is that the more advanced preparation that you do, the more attached to the story you become, and therefore the more likely you are to want to write it right and therefore will fall into the trap of editing … the idea is to get a complete first draft down, not a finished manuscript.)
What does this have to do with all the rants and rambles lately? Call it training … I’m getting used to the idea of writing on a nightly basis. And practicing sitting down at a set timeframe and writing without a significant amount of preparation. Of course these blog entries are significantly different from writing a novel in that I’m not going for an ongoing cohesive storyline. But they still get me used to using this timeframe for writing, used to focusing on something and putting my thoughts onto paper (or in this case on the monitor).
The next question becomes … what will happen to the blog in January? Well, blogging will probably slow down significantly as much of my ‘free time’ will be devoted to pouring my story out of the fires of my mind’s forge and beating it into some semblance of shape. I will, however, try to get some entries put up throughout the month … if nothing else to try and keep my regular readers informed on the status of the experiment. And of course if I get pointed to, or otherwise find a juicy article to rant about I may be able to spare some time to burble a few thoughts on the subject as well.
I will tell you now that I won’t tell you about my story … at least not until Feb … and more likely some time in March after I’ve had a chance to go through and chisel off some of the rougher edges. Not that I wouldn’t like to talk to you all about my story, but it’s one of the steps that they recommend to help keep from feeling pressured to perform (this is one of the main things that creates a lot of the pitfalls to the ‘casual writer’ … the feeling that it has to be right).
So … by the end of January I will be a novelist … not a published novelist to be sure, and the monster I write may never see the light of day, but I will be a novelist none-the-less. My plan from there is to take the same deadline concept and apply it (though with a longer deadline, or more likely a series of deadlines to keep myself going) to getting some of my other stories written, edited, and published (even if it’s just self published on a small scale.)
What will become of the one month monster? Only time will tell … I plan on taking Chris’ advice on the matter and waiting at least two weeks after the Jan 31st deadline before reading it over again and deciding if the beast is something that can be dressed up and taken out, or just needs to be buried and forgotten.
It’s going to be a rollercoaster … lets hope that I meet the height requirement….
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
On death penalties and timeframes....
Okay … I’m sure that most of you probably already know about the whole Tookie Williams story and the controversy surrounding his execution last night. I’m not going to discuss the details of the conviction here or the years of appeals or the last minute fight for a stay of execution. Those details can be readily found elsewhere. No, I’m here to talk in broader terms about the situation …
Tookie Williams was a thug … plain and simple. He was convicted of the murder of 4 people with overwhelming evidence and sentenced to death by a jury of his peers. This conviction was upheld by the courts through a full battery of appeals. Despite the claims at his execution that the state ‘executed an innocent man’ Tookie was far from innocent. He was the co-founder and leader of the Crips street gang in Los Angeles … he has never apologized or shown remorse for his acts … he has at least 10 accounts of extreme violence and threats to guards during his stay in prison.
‘But he wrote children's books and spoke out against gang violence.’ True … and I hope that it had a positive effect on some children in the society. But it doesn’t change the fact that he still praised militant black leaders, and it doesn’t change the fact that he was convicted of 4 counts of murder and sentenced to death.
The problem in this particular case is the timeframe. Tookie Williams was tried and convicted in 1981 … his execution took place in 2005 … 24 years later. The only time that someone should sit and rot in a prison for 24 years is if they have been sentenced to 24+ years in prison … not if they’ve been sentenced to death.
The appeals process … particularly in death penalty cases … needs to be short. Personally I say give them … I’ll be nice … 5 years (personally I feel it should be shorter … like a week but most people wouldn’t agree to that). If they can not come up with convincing evidence that they are innocent within 5 years then it’s time for them to get their ticket punched.
One of the problems of allowing them to ‘chill’ for 24 years is that people forget. It’s one thing to forget the passion of the moment and look at things from a more rational perspective … it’s something completely different to forget the evidence and the case as has largely happened with this particular case.
Of course you’ve got the fringe groups and the Euros that oppose the death penalty all together … but that’s not something I can agree with. I’m sorry, call me a barbarian, but I believe that the harsher penalties have greater effect on maintaining social order than the softer penalties.
It is the fear of punishment that prevents most people from doing things … be that punishment from a deity or punishment from government or other social structure. And face it … the ultimate punishment is death … no earthly force can do anything to you beyond that … now lets just move up the time frame to something a bit more reasonable.
Tookie Williams was a thug … plain and simple. He was convicted of the murder of 4 people with overwhelming evidence and sentenced to death by a jury of his peers. This conviction was upheld by the courts through a full battery of appeals. Despite the claims at his execution that the state ‘executed an innocent man’ Tookie was far from innocent. He was the co-founder and leader of the Crips street gang in Los Angeles … he has never apologized or shown remorse for his acts … he has at least 10 accounts of extreme violence and threats to guards during his stay in prison.
‘But he wrote children's books and spoke out against gang violence.’ True … and I hope that it had a positive effect on some children in the society. But it doesn’t change the fact that he still praised militant black leaders, and it doesn’t change the fact that he was convicted of 4 counts of murder and sentenced to death.
The problem in this particular case is the timeframe. Tookie Williams was tried and convicted in 1981 … his execution took place in 2005 … 24 years later. The only time that someone should sit and rot in a prison for 24 years is if they have been sentenced to 24+ years in prison … not if they’ve been sentenced to death.
The appeals process … particularly in death penalty cases … needs to be short. Personally I say give them … I’ll be nice … 5 years (personally I feel it should be shorter … like a week but most people wouldn’t agree to that). If they can not come up with convincing evidence that they are innocent within 5 years then it’s time for them to get their ticket punched.
One of the problems of allowing them to ‘chill’ for 24 years is that people forget. It’s one thing to forget the passion of the moment and look at things from a more rational perspective … it’s something completely different to forget the evidence and the case as has largely happened with this particular case.
Of course you’ve got the fringe groups and the Euros that oppose the death penalty all together … but that’s not something I can agree with. I’m sorry, call me a barbarian, but I believe that the harsher penalties have greater effect on maintaining social order than the softer penalties.
It is the fear of punishment that prevents most people from doing things … be that punishment from a deity or punishment from government or other social structure. And face it … the ultimate punishment is death … no earthly force can do anything to you beyond that … now lets just move up the time frame to something a bit more reasonable.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Kids
Okay … most people that read this on the regular basis probably know me and already know that I have exactly zero children (unless you count my 2 dogs, Kodo and Pepper). As such this is what one would call a ‘my view as an outsider looking in’ ramble. My observations both from public observation of other parents and their children and through talks with people that I know that have children of their own.
Yeah … it isn’t exactly political, or reactionary, or maybe not even relevant in the world at large, but it’s what’s on the plate for today … it’s better than cold leftovers after all.
This ramble was brought about through a combination of things … the time of year (who doesn’t think of kids around Christmas), a good article that my wife linked to me a week or so ago about kids in public places/stores, and talking to a co-worker about his two kids at home.
Since there’s a plethora of things in the article I’ll start with that and just try to weave other things into the ramble as I go along while still keeping it coherent. The article ran on MSNBC Dec 6th and was titled “Behave or else! Unruly kids in public stir debate” It was, as the title says, the issue of children misbehaving in public places … primarily restaurants, café’s and coffee shops, but it applies equally well across the board.
It starts by talking about the controversy surrounding a sign placed on the door to a café in Chicago which read “Children of all ages have to behave and use their indoor voices.”
Personally I don’t see anything ‘controversial’ about that statement. He isn’t ‘banning’ children from the café as some of the upset people in the community say … he is simply stating that he requires that they behave. And in my opinion I believe that children should behave in public … period … and their parents should enforce that … too few seem to these days (which would be what prompted the posting of the sign in the first place).
One mother says, however, that “…there are certain moments that all kids and parents have — and sometimes your kid is going to lose it in a public place.”
But the problem here is that she’s missing the point. Everyone understands that ‘stuff’ happens … that isn’t the problem … the problem isn’t that your kid ‘looses’ it in a public place … its how you HANDLE the situation when they do. Yes, there are going to be times when a child, even the best behaved child in the world, is going to act up in a public situation (unless of course you never take them into a public situation until they’re like 16 or so) and people (even us non parents) understand it … the problem is when the parents of the child in question either don’t try to remedy the situation, or worse aren’t around (or are just too oblivious) to even realize that there IS a situation.
As the owner of the café in question says “It’s not about the kids, it’s about the parents who are with them. Are they supervising and guiding them? I’m just asking that they are considerate to people around them.”
Whoa … now THERE’s a controversial opinion. He wants people to be considerate to others! I mean the nerve! Doesn’t he know that these people are taking their kids out to public places to let them run wild while they have other matters to attend to? Doesn’t it take a village to raise a child?
No.
Certainly it helps … but it’s not a requirement … especially when the other people in the village didn’t sign up for child rearing duty.
But that’s one of the main problems today … people want the kids (or think they do) … but they don’t want to raise them … they ship them off to government schools to be raised and given an education (well, given what passes for an education in a government school). I’m tempted here to turn this into a rant about some of the wonderful stories of American Government School System and its glorious failings, but I’m going to refrain from that mess until I have some more recent news articles (or updates on older ones).
Then again … I’m of the opinion that sending any child to the government to be educated is a horribly BAD idea … but that is, in part, because I am largely distrustful of government in general and also in part due to the astounding failure of the government to handle most things that it tries to handle. (Both of these reasons are also why I shudder at the thought of governmental health care.)
Back to the question of children in public … I look back at my parents and how things were when I grew up. I know that my parents never allowed me to misbehave in public the way that I see many parents letting their children behave … I was taken from the store/restaurant/theater and out into the parking lot at the least … I may also have received a sharp smack on my backside to go with it. And you know what I learned pretty quick … that acting up in public was a BAD idea.
Of course, I was raised in a different time … a time when parents COULD discipline their children … these days if you look at your child cross-eyed then social services will be knocking on your door within 24 hours. You can’t discipline children … OMG that might lead to them having something akin to moral foundation or something … can’t let that happen. Worse even … they might, *gasp*, feel bad about something, that’s not good for kids to feel bad about anything … and if they DO feel bad about something, well there’s probably a prescription for that.
You know … my parents spanked me … not every day … and looking back, probably not even every time I deserved it … but certainly when they felt it was warranted for a punishment. And you know what? I haven’t turned into a mass murdering psychopath or an anti-social hermit … I wasn’t scared for life. What I did learn was discipline … and that breaking the rules had a price … and that the only one responsible for my actions was me.
There are family restaurants, and there are ‘non family’ restaurants … there are places to take you kids where you can let them ‘be kids’ and there are places where you take them that they need to learn to behave and be respectful of others … that’s part of growing up … and teaching them the difference is part of being a parent. Knowing the difference is part of being a considerate adult.
Yeah … it isn’t exactly political, or reactionary, or maybe not even relevant in the world at large, but it’s what’s on the plate for today … it’s better than cold leftovers after all.
This ramble was brought about through a combination of things … the time of year (who doesn’t think of kids around Christmas), a good article that my wife linked to me a week or so ago about kids in public places/stores, and talking to a co-worker about his two kids at home.
Since there’s a plethora of things in the article I’ll start with that and just try to weave other things into the ramble as I go along while still keeping it coherent. The article ran on MSNBC Dec 6th and was titled “Behave or else! Unruly kids in public stir debate” It was, as the title says, the issue of children misbehaving in public places … primarily restaurants, café’s and coffee shops, but it applies equally well across the board.
It starts by talking about the controversy surrounding a sign placed on the door to a café in Chicago which read “Children of all ages have to behave and use their indoor voices.”
Personally I don’t see anything ‘controversial’ about that statement. He isn’t ‘banning’ children from the café as some of the upset people in the community say … he is simply stating that he requires that they behave. And in my opinion I believe that children should behave in public … period … and their parents should enforce that … too few seem to these days (which would be what prompted the posting of the sign in the first place).
One mother says, however, that “…there are certain moments that all kids and parents have — and sometimes your kid is going to lose it in a public place.”
But the problem here is that she’s missing the point. Everyone understands that ‘stuff’ happens … that isn’t the problem … the problem isn’t that your kid ‘looses’ it in a public place … its how you HANDLE the situation when they do. Yes, there are going to be times when a child, even the best behaved child in the world, is going to act up in a public situation (unless of course you never take them into a public situation until they’re like 16 or so) and people (even us non parents) understand it … the problem is when the parents of the child in question either don’t try to remedy the situation, or worse aren’t around (or are just too oblivious) to even realize that there IS a situation.
As the owner of the café in question says “It’s not about the kids, it’s about the parents who are with them. Are they supervising and guiding them? I’m just asking that they are considerate to people around them.”
Whoa … now THERE’s a controversial opinion. He wants people to be considerate to others! I mean the nerve! Doesn’t he know that these people are taking their kids out to public places to let them run wild while they have other matters to attend to? Doesn’t it take a village to raise a child?
No.
Certainly it helps … but it’s not a requirement … especially when the other people in the village didn’t sign up for child rearing duty.
But that’s one of the main problems today … people want the kids (or think they do) … but they don’t want to raise them … they ship them off to government schools to be raised and given an education (well, given what passes for an education in a government school). I’m tempted here to turn this into a rant about some of the wonderful stories of American Government School System and its glorious failings, but I’m going to refrain from that mess until I have some more recent news articles (or updates on older ones).
Then again … I’m of the opinion that sending any child to the government to be educated is a horribly BAD idea … but that is, in part, because I am largely distrustful of government in general and also in part due to the astounding failure of the government to handle most things that it tries to handle. (Both of these reasons are also why I shudder at the thought of governmental health care.)
Back to the question of children in public … I look back at my parents and how things were when I grew up. I know that my parents never allowed me to misbehave in public the way that I see many parents letting their children behave … I was taken from the store/restaurant/theater and out into the parking lot at the least … I may also have received a sharp smack on my backside to go with it. And you know what I learned pretty quick … that acting up in public was a BAD idea.
Of course, I was raised in a different time … a time when parents COULD discipline their children … these days if you look at your child cross-eyed then social services will be knocking on your door within 24 hours. You can’t discipline children … OMG that might lead to them having something akin to moral foundation or something … can’t let that happen. Worse even … they might, *gasp*, feel bad about something, that’s not good for kids to feel bad about anything … and if they DO feel bad about something, well there’s probably a prescription for that.
You know … my parents spanked me … not every day … and looking back, probably not even every time I deserved it … but certainly when they felt it was warranted for a punishment. And you know what? I haven’t turned into a mass murdering psychopath or an anti-social hermit … I wasn’t scared for life. What I did learn was discipline … and that breaking the rules had a price … and that the only one responsible for my actions was me.
There are family restaurants, and there are ‘non family’ restaurants … there are places to take you kids where you can let them ‘be kids’ and there are places where you take them that they need to learn to behave and be respectful of others … that’s part of growing up … and teaching them the difference is part of being a parent. Knowing the difference is part of being a considerate adult.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
But the Supreme Court said we could!
Okay, this isn’t what I had intended on writing tonight … maybe I’ll cover it in a section to this rant later, maybe I’ll run out of time and put it into an article tomorrow. While looking around for interesting tidbits I came across two of the words I most hate to see together … Eminent and Domain.
You may be sick of hearing me ramble on about it, but if you want me to stop you’re going to have to do one of three things:
Now the basis of Eminent domain is not the problem … the problem is in the abuse of the power by government. The power to seize land for governmental use, it seems, wasn’t enough … they needed the power to seize land for private development in order to increase their power (ala tax base … spending power). The idea being that the government knows what the best use of all land is, and ownership grants no rights.
And there in lies my problem with the situation – The government does not generally care about what is best for the citizens, rather it cares what will give it the most money and power while still getting it re-elected.
If you strip away the right of ownership then what does freedom become? If I am free to say what I want, but the government can walk up and take my house away at their whim, am I really free?
[‘But it’s not at their whim’ some say … ‘they have to have a project that needs the land … and they have to compensate the owners.’ … Yeah, right, whatever. If they don’t want to buy at the price I set, then they don’t get to buy, but the government can come in and say, ‘here’s compensation now get off Property_Developer_03921734’s property’ … considering that they are not even required to pay the ‘appraised value’ used for property taxes the amount of compensation could be (and usually is) a small percentage of the market value of the property in question.]
The latest governmental land grab to make the news is Riviera Beach, Florida where the mayor is saying that they are going to “rescue and relocate individuals” like some urban wildlife conservation project.
Another, often used justification, is that the areas are ‘slums’ … but then what happens when all the ‘slums’ have been redeveloped into high rise, expensive, condos and restaurants and some developer comes along and wants to develop a new luxury condo, but there are all these middle-class suburban homes in the way whose owners don’t want to sell at the cut rate price he’s offering?
Another reason that the ‘poorer’ sections are often targeted is that they can rarely afford any legal counsel in the matter, are less educated, and don’t garner as much ‘sympathy’ as people of more means generally want the areas cleaned up anyway and therefore are willing to turn a blind eye to the abuse of power because it isn’t them being effected.
The fact of the matter is that these people OWN these homes and the property on which they are built. It should be their choice if they wish to sell or not, if the price is appropriate or not … this should not be the choice of the government. But that is where we stand in this country.
The Supreme Court has spoken on the matter and their ruling was that it was acceptable for state and city governments to seize private property for the sake of private development. Thankfully this has sparked a LOT of debate over the issue of eminent domain, and has prompted many states to pass constitutional amendments to prevent (or at least curtail) the abuse of this power.
Where this will go from here remains to be seen, but I fear that if people do not wake up and realize that the government is slowly gathering all of the power of wealth and ownership to itself, then we will soon find ourselves living at the whim of the government. Employed by the government, housed by the government, fed by the government, slaves to the government.
You may be sick of hearing me ramble on about it, but if you want me to stop you’re going to have to do one of three things:
- Stop reading the blog
- Revoke the right to freedom of speech so that the government can lock me and any others that speak out against eminent domain, or
- Do something to stop the governmental land grab.
Now the basis of Eminent domain is not the problem … the problem is in the abuse of the power by government. The power to seize land for governmental use, it seems, wasn’t enough … they needed the power to seize land for private development in order to increase their power (ala tax base … spending power). The idea being that the government knows what the best use of all land is, and ownership grants no rights.
And there in lies my problem with the situation – The government does not generally care about what is best for the citizens, rather it cares what will give it the most money and power while still getting it re-elected.
If you strip away the right of ownership then what does freedom become? If I am free to say what I want, but the government can walk up and take my house away at their whim, am I really free?
[‘But it’s not at their whim’ some say … ‘they have to have a project that needs the land … and they have to compensate the owners.’ … Yeah, right, whatever. If they don’t want to buy at the price I set, then they don’t get to buy, but the government can come in and say, ‘here’s compensation now get off Property_Developer_03921734’s property’ … considering that they are not even required to pay the ‘appraised value’ used for property taxes the amount of compensation could be (and usually is) a small percentage of the market value of the property in question.]
The latest governmental land grab to make the news is Riviera Beach, Florida where the mayor is saying that they are going to “rescue and relocate individuals” like some urban wildlife conservation project.
Another, often used justification, is that the areas are ‘slums’ … but then what happens when all the ‘slums’ have been redeveloped into high rise, expensive, condos and restaurants and some developer comes along and wants to develop a new luxury condo, but there are all these middle-class suburban homes in the way whose owners don’t want to sell at the cut rate price he’s offering?
Another reason that the ‘poorer’ sections are often targeted is that they can rarely afford any legal counsel in the matter, are less educated, and don’t garner as much ‘sympathy’ as people of more means generally want the areas cleaned up anyway and therefore are willing to turn a blind eye to the abuse of power because it isn’t them being effected.
The fact of the matter is that these people OWN these homes and the property on which they are built. It should be their choice if they wish to sell or not, if the price is appropriate or not … this should not be the choice of the government. But that is where we stand in this country.
The Supreme Court has spoken on the matter and their ruling was that it was acceptable for state and city governments to seize private property for the sake of private development. Thankfully this has sparked a LOT of debate over the issue of eminent domain, and has prompted many states to pass constitutional amendments to prevent (or at least curtail) the abuse of this power.
Where this will go from here remains to be seen, but I fear that if people do not wake up and realize that the government is slowly gathering all of the power of wealth and ownership to itself, then we will soon find ourselves living at the whim of the government. Employed by the government, housed by the government, fed by the government, slaves to the government.
It's Christmas, deal with it
What is it with people taking offense to Christmas? I’m sorry, but guess what, it’s a holiday and this is a free country, deal with it. There is no ‘right to not be offended’ and there is no law against the public display of religion. Christmas is a religious holiday and it is a holiday widely celebrated by elaborate displays of ornaments and lights. I am not Jewish, but I’m not offended by public Hanukah displays, Kwanza displays, or any other displays … yet every year there are reports from across the country about people getting bent out of shape over Christmas displays.
Last year there was several reports, but one I remember specifically hearing about was the demanded refusal of a donated manger scene from the front of a county office. Of course the display was cited as ‘offensive’ and ‘in violation of the separation of church and state.’ … Now, if the county refused to display donated Hanukah displays, or things along side the manger scene, then fine they can’t display the manger either … but that wasn’t the case, and county spokesmen welcomed people of other beliefs to donate displays for various holidays … not just Christmas/Hanukah. In other words the ‘offended’ people were ‘offended’ because it was a public display of religion, and the ‘violation of church and state’ people were just uneducated.
[For those that don’t remember or haven’t read some of my past articles I have previously pointed out that ‘separation of church and state’ as most people try to define it, doesn’t exist. The constitution simply states that the government can not pass a law that REQUIRES the worship of a specific religion, or a law which BANS a religion, nor can they prosecute people based on their religious beliefs (since a religion can not be against the law) … thereby a religious display on government property is allowable, provided that equal treatment is allowed for all religious beliefs.]
This year there have been reports of major retailers purposefully removing ‘Christmas’ from all store displays … even to the extent of labeling their trees ‘Holiday’ trees. (I believe that at the time of this writing this has been officially denied and at least one hardware store chain has changed their ‘holiday trees’ back into ‘Christmas trees’.) There is also a report of a homeowner’s association requesting the removal of a nativity scene from the front lawn of one family.
Normally I’d say, well they more than likely agreed to the rules of the association when they moved in (whether they realized it when they signed it or not), but in this case the rule that they are cited as being in violation of (which prohibits lawn ornaments, statues or outdoor art from being placed on the lot without prior approval of the board of directors) is being selectively enforced. That is the association is only asking that the nativity scene be removed, not the other statues that are technically violations of the rule as well.
To their credit, the management company that enforces the rules did say that they would not pursue the issue unless they received another complaint.
Oh, and the complaint?
“Although I'm not offended by it, I take issue about advertising personal beliefs and interests by putting them on display whatever the belief or interest may be."
Translated this works out to ‘even though I’m saying that I’m not offended by it, I’m offended by it.’
Guess what … it’s a free country … deal with it. The founding fathers gave us freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
Reference:
It's away with the manger - Thanks, Ssark.
Last year there was several reports, but one I remember specifically hearing about was the demanded refusal of a donated manger scene from the front of a county office. Of course the display was cited as ‘offensive’ and ‘in violation of the separation of church and state.’ … Now, if the county refused to display donated Hanukah displays, or things along side the manger scene, then fine they can’t display the manger either … but that wasn’t the case, and county spokesmen welcomed people of other beliefs to donate displays for various holidays … not just Christmas/Hanukah. In other words the ‘offended’ people were ‘offended’ because it was a public display of religion, and the ‘violation of church and state’ people were just uneducated.
[For those that don’t remember or haven’t read some of my past articles I have previously pointed out that ‘separation of church and state’ as most people try to define it, doesn’t exist. The constitution simply states that the government can not pass a law that REQUIRES the worship of a specific religion, or a law which BANS a religion, nor can they prosecute people based on their religious beliefs (since a religion can not be against the law) … thereby a religious display on government property is allowable, provided that equal treatment is allowed for all religious beliefs.]
This year there have been reports of major retailers purposefully removing ‘Christmas’ from all store displays … even to the extent of labeling their trees ‘Holiday’ trees. (I believe that at the time of this writing this has been officially denied and at least one hardware store chain has changed their ‘holiday trees’ back into ‘Christmas trees’.) There is also a report of a homeowner’s association requesting the removal of a nativity scene from the front lawn of one family.
Normally I’d say, well they more than likely agreed to the rules of the association when they moved in (whether they realized it when they signed it or not), but in this case the rule that they are cited as being in violation of (which prohibits lawn ornaments, statues or outdoor art from being placed on the lot without prior approval of the board of directors) is being selectively enforced. That is the association is only asking that the nativity scene be removed, not the other statues that are technically violations of the rule as well.
To their credit, the management company that enforces the rules did say that they would not pursue the issue unless they received another complaint.
Oh, and the complaint?
“Although I'm not offended by it, I take issue about advertising personal beliefs and interests by putting them on display whatever the belief or interest may be."
Translated this works out to ‘even though I’m saying that I’m not offended by it, I’m offended by it.’
Guess what … it’s a free country … deal with it. The founding fathers gave us freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
Reference:
It's away with the manger - Thanks, Ssark.
Friday, December 02, 2005
The keyword is Legal
Okay … I’ve been quiet too long but I’ve just been too lazy to put fingers to the keys and actually rant lately. Not that there hasn’t been suitable material to rant about, or that there haven’t been things in the past weeks and months that got my blood boiling. There is always something worth a good rant … rather this was a plethora of excuses to procrastinate, a slew of ‘I’ll rant about that when I get a little more time’ or ‘well my work schedule is changing in a few weeks, it will be more convenient after that.’
True to life, however, things passed by and in the end most of the things I had been waiting on to start writing again ended up not happening … work didn’t lighten up and the schedule change that was supposed to free up more time fell through.
None of that, however, is here nor there in turns of what I set out to write about today….
Immigration … it’s been in the news … the President gave a speech on it a couple of weekends ago. There are as many opinions out there on the issue as there are people to ask … and likely even more than that given most politician’s propensity for double talk.
First, I am pro-immigration. That is to say that I believe it would be a horrible disservice to the founding concepts of this country to adopt a closed boarder policy. I have nothing against people immigrating to this country and working hard to achieve a better life. That is one of the principles on which this country thrives.
What I don’t have any use for are those that come here illegally … yes most come here for the same reasons … to work hard and earn a better lives for themselves. But they do so without any respect for the dream that they are striving toward, because they have disrespected the legal in favor of the easy, much as a thief will break into a house to steal rather than work, save, and purchase the item for themselves.
(And if you just thought to yourself, ‘Oh, he just called all ‘undocumented workers’ thieves!’ take a 2x4 and slam it into your head a couple times and try reading that again …)
The President says that he wants to strengthen the boarders … more fencing … more patrols …. Arrest and deport those found entering the country illegally. And that would be a good start, hopefully ‘we the people’ will keep the feet of the politicians to the fire and actually get some follow-through on this issue, but it’s only half the problem.
What is the Presidents plan to handle the millions of illegals already in the country? A ‘guest worker program’ that he says is not amnesty. Okay … Technically speaking it may not be amnesty, but it’s as close as you can get without becoming it. The plan would allow any illegal holding a job in the US to continue working for up to 3 years, at which point they must leave the country.
Now … let me get this straight … they break our laws and come here illegally … and they get a job (technically breaking another law) … and their punishment is they get keep the job and stay here and we’ll come back to deport you in 3 years.
Raise your hand if you actually believe that they’ll be gone in 3 years …
No … sorry … doesn’t work. Sends the wrong message both to prospective immigrants (legal and illegal) and to employers.
No … what you need to do is be tough on the illegals and on the employers that enable them. If you are found in this country illegally you should be immediately deported back to your country of origin, if you are found guilty of a crime while in this country illegally your sentence should immediately be the maximum sentence and you should be deported once you have served out your sentence. (Of course prisons in this country are a completely different rant) If you are found employing an illegal you should face stiff fines and/or jail time … say $2.5 million per illegal and/or up to 10 years in prison (compounded for each illegal).
The idea is to make hiring an illegal so unattractive, so risky, that an employer is going to do everything possible to make sure that his employees are in this country legally. Now I’m willing to be lenient in a case where the employer is able to show due diligence in their hiring, but was taken by forged documents, but this would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Now, some people will yell and scream that the immigration system is outdated, archaic, and too slow. I would probably agree with all of the above, and I would certainly agree that there needs to be some massive reform to the system, but that is no excuse for willingly and knowingly entering the country illegally or remaining in this country illegally. If I get pulled over for speeding, should I not have to pay the ticket because the county I was pulled over in doesn’t accept electronic payment and requires me to pay in person, in cash, on the appointed court day? No.
We should come down hard on those that have no respect for our country and our laws, and embrace those that show us that they respect us and wish to follow the American dream.
“In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
This was sent to me as a quote by Theodore Roosevelt, though I haven’t been able to confirm if Roosevelt actually ever said it. Who said it or didn’t say it, however, does not change the truth in the statement. Sadly the realms of political correctness erode this country and strip from it even its identity … it divides us into groups and subgroups and pits us against one another weakening us from within.
True to life, however, things passed by and in the end most of the things I had been waiting on to start writing again ended up not happening … work didn’t lighten up and the schedule change that was supposed to free up more time fell through.
None of that, however, is here nor there in turns of what I set out to write about today….
Immigration … it’s been in the news … the President gave a speech on it a couple of weekends ago. There are as many opinions out there on the issue as there are people to ask … and likely even more than that given most politician’s propensity for double talk.
First, I am pro-immigration. That is to say that I believe it would be a horrible disservice to the founding concepts of this country to adopt a closed boarder policy. I have nothing against people immigrating to this country and working hard to achieve a better life. That is one of the principles on which this country thrives.
What I don’t have any use for are those that come here illegally … yes most come here for the same reasons … to work hard and earn a better lives for themselves. But they do so without any respect for the dream that they are striving toward, because they have disrespected the legal in favor of the easy, much as a thief will break into a house to steal rather than work, save, and purchase the item for themselves.
(And if you just thought to yourself, ‘Oh, he just called all ‘undocumented workers’ thieves!’ take a 2x4 and slam it into your head a couple times and try reading that again …)
The President says that he wants to strengthen the boarders … more fencing … more patrols …. Arrest and deport those found entering the country illegally. And that would be a good start, hopefully ‘we the people’ will keep the feet of the politicians to the fire and actually get some follow-through on this issue, but it’s only half the problem.
What is the Presidents plan to handle the millions of illegals already in the country? A ‘guest worker program’ that he says is not amnesty. Okay … Technically speaking it may not be amnesty, but it’s as close as you can get without becoming it. The plan would allow any illegal holding a job in the US to continue working for up to 3 years, at which point they must leave the country.
Now … let me get this straight … they break our laws and come here illegally … and they get a job (technically breaking another law) … and their punishment is they get keep the job and stay here and we’ll come back to deport you in 3 years.
Raise your hand if you actually believe that they’ll be gone in 3 years …
No … sorry … doesn’t work. Sends the wrong message both to prospective immigrants (legal and illegal) and to employers.
No … what you need to do is be tough on the illegals and on the employers that enable them. If you are found in this country illegally you should be immediately deported back to your country of origin, if you are found guilty of a crime while in this country illegally your sentence should immediately be the maximum sentence and you should be deported once you have served out your sentence. (Of course prisons in this country are a completely different rant) If you are found employing an illegal you should face stiff fines and/or jail time … say $2.5 million per illegal and/or up to 10 years in prison (compounded for each illegal).
The idea is to make hiring an illegal so unattractive, so risky, that an employer is going to do everything possible to make sure that his employees are in this country legally. Now I’m willing to be lenient in a case where the employer is able to show due diligence in their hiring, but was taken by forged documents, but this would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Now, some people will yell and scream that the immigration system is outdated, archaic, and too slow. I would probably agree with all of the above, and I would certainly agree that there needs to be some massive reform to the system, but that is no excuse for willingly and knowingly entering the country illegally or remaining in this country illegally. If I get pulled over for speeding, should I not have to pay the ticket because the county I was pulled over in doesn’t accept electronic payment and requires me to pay in person, in cash, on the appointed court day? No.
We should come down hard on those that have no respect for our country and our laws, and embrace those that show us that they respect us and wish to follow the American dream.
“In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
This was sent to me as a quote by Theodore Roosevelt, though I haven’t been able to confirm if Roosevelt actually ever said it. Who said it or didn’t say it, however, does not change the truth in the statement. Sadly the realms of political correctness erode this country and strip from it even its identity … it divides us into groups and subgroups and pits us against one another weakening us from within.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Gas and Economics
Some people (okay a LOT of people) have been complaining about the price of a gallon of gas. First off … the price of gas in the US is one of the lowest in the world, Europeans generally pay anywhere from $5-$10 a gallon to fill up … most of which is taxes. Second off gas prices are, in large part, dictated by the price of crude oil … this in turn is mainly controlled by OPEC as they represent the collaboration of most of the Oil Producing countries in the world.
For various reasons the price of crude oil has been rising over the last several years … this means that the refineries that we depend on for gas have to pay more for their oil … in turn having to charge more for the gas they produce meaning that the stations have to charge more to cover the expense of buying gas.
Now there are a lot of factors involved here … but part of the problem also comes in the fact that no new refineries have been built in the US in roughly 30 years. The existing refineries have been operating at max capacity for several years now … we can’t produce gas any faster even if we got more oil. Add to that the fact that there are MORE vehicles using the gas … many of which are of the low MPG rated ‘utility vehicles’ and you have a situation of increasing demand with a fixed supply whose raw materials are becoming increasingly expensive.
Now … let’s take a look at the consumer end of things since that’s where most people are complaining about things. We’ll create a fictitious gas station called the Gas-O Line …
I’m opening a new Gas-O station … and I buy 1 weeks worth of gas to get started at $1.00 a gallon (keeping the numbers simple for the purposes of calculation) … of course I have other expenses, station maintenance, electric bill, phone bill, employee salaries (and payroll taxes), rent or mortgage, insurance, etc. … I determine that I need to add $0.50 to each gallon of gas to cover these expenses and, as a business, I want to make a profit so I decide on a 10% profit margin … that would be another $0.15 so I need to charge $1.65 a gallon to cover my expenses + profit … of course the government lays another tax on the sale of that gas that I have to collect at the time of the sale … let’s say it is 10% as well (that’s another $0.165) … so now I’m charging $1.815 / gallon when I open my station.
2 days after I open something happens and my supplier raises his price to 2.00 a gallon. No problem, right? I’ve got a weeks worth of gas already right? Wrong. If I continue to sell my gas at $1.815 a gallon for the rest of the week I won’t have enough money to buy the next weeks supply when the time comes. (Remember only $1.15 of that $1.815 will be around the $0.50 is already spent on employees, etc, and the $0.165 is straight to the government.) To insure that I make enough money to keep my supply going I have to raise my prices to a minimum of $2.75 a gallon … with no profit (which if I’m not going to make any profit I may as well just close down.) … so let’s say $2.85 (less than a 5% margin) … but I’ve already sold 2 days worth so I also have to make up the difference in that gas (this would depend on numbers that we haven’t been dealing with how much sold in those two days, how much was left in the tank, etc. so for now we’ll assume that it is another $0.05 to cover it) … so $2.90 a gallon then.
Most people would accuse me of being ‘greedy’ because of this … say that ‘I’m taking advantage of things’ ... now certainly I can gamble that the price will come back down by the time I need to buy my next weeks worth of gas … but if I do that and keep my price at the $1.815 and the price doesn’t come down I will only be able to afford to fill half my tank ... and if supply prices continue to rise that gets ugly fast.
There are of course a lot of things I’m not taking into account in all this to try and keep it simple. But that is the gist of it … the electric company works in much the same way … they have to charge based not on what they paid, but on what it will cost them to keep their supply coming.
“But prices should be kept low … we need gas!”
In other words “Government should use our tax money to subsidize gas so I can afford to drive whenever I want.”
No, no, no and NO.
We need LESS government in the economy, not more. Part of the problem in general is that we don’t ‘need’ gas … driving is a luxury, a convenience, not a necessity. That we, as a society, have grown so dependent on it is a completely separate matter.
Another part of the problem is those organizations that call themselves ‘environmentalists’ … It has been environmental laws (and a bit of a NIMBY (Not in MY backyard) mentality in general) that has prevented the construction of new refineries to help keep up with the increasing demand for fuel. It is environmentalists that have so far prevented oil drilling in the section of ANWAR that was set aside for oil drilling as well as off the coast of Florida increasing our dependence on foreign oil from a very volatile international oil market – though we have to keep in mind that without more refineries to refine the crude oil, gathering more oil may have a minimal impact on the price of gas due to the fact that our refineries are already operating at max capacity, the only difference would be that we wouldn’t be buying the oil from overseas so the refinery would likely be getting it’s raw material cheaper.
Oh … and also as far as ‘need’ keeping the price of something low …. Think of it like this:
You are the only person in 1000 miles that can do ‘job A’ … 60% of the people in that 1000 miles ‘need’ job A done. Should you be forced to work for minimum wage because it is a ‘needed’ job? You’d better get some other people to learn to do the job … but what’s their incentive if they can only work for minimum wage? [Ignoring for a moment the fact that I don’t generally agree in minimum wage laws in the first place ….]
Most of you that know me and read this already know all this of course and understand that one of our greatest bastions of freedom is the Free Market system, and that the Free Market system fails to operate when the government interferes with it.
For various reasons the price of crude oil has been rising over the last several years … this means that the refineries that we depend on for gas have to pay more for their oil … in turn having to charge more for the gas they produce meaning that the stations have to charge more to cover the expense of buying gas.
Now there are a lot of factors involved here … but part of the problem also comes in the fact that no new refineries have been built in the US in roughly 30 years. The existing refineries have been operating at max capacity for several years now … we can’t produce gas any faster even if we got more oil. Add to that the fact that there are MORE vehicles using the gas … many of which are of the low MPG rated ‘utility vehicles’ and you have a situation of increasing demand with a fixed supply whose raw materials are becoming increasingly expensive.
Now … let’s take a look at the consumer end of things since that’s where most people are complaining about things. We’ll create a fictitious gas station called the Gas-O Line …
I’m opening a new Gas-O station … and I buy 1 weeks worth of gas to get started at $1.00 a gallon (keeping the numbers simple for the purposes of calculation) … of course I have other expenses, station maintenance, electric bill, phone bill, employee salaries (and payroll taxes), rent or mortgage, insurance, etc. … I determine that I need to add $0.50 to each gallon of gas to cover these expenses and, as a business, I want to make a profit so I decide on a 10% profit margin … that would be another $0.15 so I need to charge $1.65 a gallon to cover my expenses + profit … of course the government lays another tax on the sale of that gas that I have to collect at the time of the sale … let’s say it is 10% as well (that’s another $0.165) … so now I’m charging $1.815 / gallon when I open my station.
2 days after I open something happens and my supplier raises his price to 2.00 a gallon. No problem, right? I’ve got a weeks worth of gas already right? Wrong. If I continue to sell my gas at $1.815 a gallon for the rest of the week I won’t have enough money to buy the next weeks supply when the time comes. (Remember only $1.15 of that $1.815 will be around the $0.50 is already spent on employees, etc, and the $0.165 is straight to the government.) To insure that I make enough money to keep my supply going I have to raise my prices to a minimum of $2.75 a gallon … with no profit (which if I’m not going to make any profit I may as well just close down.) … so let’s say $2.85 (less than a 5% margin) … but I’ve already sold 2 days worth so I also have to make up the difference in that gas (this would depend on numbers that we haven’t been dealing with how much sold in those two days, how much was left in the tank, etc. so for now we’ll assume that it is another $0.05 to cover it) … so $2.90 a gallon then.
Most people would accuse me of being ‘greedy’ because of this … say that ‘I’m taking advantage of things’ ... now certainly I can gamble that the price will come back down by the time I need to buy my next weeks worth of gas … but if I do that and keep my price at the $1.815 and the price doesn’t come down I will only be able to afford to fill half my tank ... and if supply prices continue to rise that gets ugly fast.
There are of course a lot of things I’m not taking into account in all this to try and keep it simple. But that is the gist of it … the electric company works in much the same way … they have to charge based not on what they paid, but on what it will cost them to keep their supply coming.
“But prices should be kept low … we need gas!”
In other words “Government should use our tax money to subsidize gas so I can afford to drive whenever I want.”
No, no, no and NO.
We need LESS government in the economy, not more. Part of the problem in general is that we don’t ‘need’ gas … driving is a luxury, a convenience, not a necessity. That we, as a society, have grown so dependent on it is a completely separate matter.
Another part of the problem is those organizations that call themselves ‘environmentalists’ … It has been environmental laws (and a bit of a NIMBY (Not in MY backyard) mentality in general) that has prevented the construction of new refineries to help keep up with the increasing demand for fuel. It is environmentalists that have so far prevented oil drilling in the section of ANWAR that was set aside for oil drilling as well as off the coast of Florida increasing our dependence on foreign oil from a very volatile international oil market – though we have to keep in mind that without more refineries to refine the crude oil, gathering more oil may have a minimal impact on the price of gas due to the fact that our refineries are already operating at max capacity, the only difference would be that we wouldn’t be buying the oil from overseas so the refinery would likely be getting it’s raw material cheaper.
Oh … and also as far as ‘need’ keeping the price of something low …. Think of it like this:
You are the only person in 1000 miles that can do ‘job A’ … 60% of the people in that 1000 miles ‘need’ job A done. Should you be forced to work for minimum wage because it is a ‘needed’ job? You’d better get some other people to learn to do the job … but what’s their incentive if they can only work for minimum wage? [Ignoring for a moment the fact that I don’t generally agree in minimum wage laws in the first place ….]
Most of you that know me and read this already know all this of course and understand that one of our greatest bastions of freedom is the Free Market system, and that the Free Market system fails to operate when the government interferes with it.
Friday, September 23, 2005
Paying for the Hurricanes
I’ve seen a disgusting number of people from the President on down calling for massive federal funds to rebuild New Orleans … undoubtedly this will continue in the aftermath of the approaching Rita. But is this a proper use of federal funds? If a tree fell on my house tonight my house would be destroyed, I’d have no where to live, there’s a good chance I would have lost a good amount of the stuff I have in the house … but I wouldn’t be eligible for a single dime of Federal aid … In fact the town I live in had some Tornadoes hit as a result of the outer band of storms from Katrina … the people who suffered a loss in those storms are also not eligible to receive Federal aid…
This is exactly why the Federal Government is not supposed to get into the business of charity. There is no way for it to do so in a fair and even manner. It simply can’t afford it. People are calling for the survivors of Katrina to be given a monetary sum from the government to pay for the loss of their loved ones as was done for the survivors of the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Putting aside the fact that I didn’t agree with the payments to the victims families of 9/11 … putting aside the fact that no one called for such for the hurricanes that hit Florida last year … people are suggesting that people who died, largely to their own stupidity, to a storm that they were warned about and ordered to evacuate from DAYS in advance are in the category of people who died in a surprise attack that they couldn’t have escaped from.
Don’t get me wrong … I want to see the people of New Orleans helped … I want to see the people of Mississippi and Alabama that suffered from the hurricane helped ... I want to see those that suffer loss from Hurricane Rita helped as well. But that is why we have the American Red Cross and other, private, charities … it shouldn’t be the government’s responsibility.
The idea is that the federal government should have an insignificant impact in our lives … it should not come bailing us out of our problems. The contribution of the federal government to disaster clean up should be the deployment of federal troops and equipment IF REQUESTED, nothing more … they certainly shouldn’t be writing checks to people.
As it stands a large number of people in the hurricane stricken areas of the gulf coast will be helped twice … by the government and private charities. Other people in the United States will experience loss for various other reasons (house fire, tornado, etc) that don’t classify as a ‘natural disaster’ and many of those will be lucky if they receive help from the private charities. How is this fair and impartial? Did someone that looses everything in a fire in Nebraska somehow loose less than someone that lost everything to Hurricane Katrina? Both may also have lost loved ones in the disaster … both homes are destroyed … both have lost their belongings. But there is a difference here … the ones that lost their homes in a hurricane knew it was coming unless they had their heads stuck in the sand ….
But gone are the days when the Congress or the President will deny aid to a natural disaster victim … we live in the days when both the Congress and the President will happily spend the American Taxpayer’s money on ‘aid’ in order to look compassionate and buy votes. Any politician that tries to stand against what is, in essence, a misuse of Federal funds would loose any political future that they had … they would be called ‘heartless’, ‘callus’, ‘racist’ or even worse ‘rich’, and they would have the political life expectancy of a snowball in hell.
And that’s the hole that we have allowed to be dug … to change things at this point a majority of Congress would have to commit political suicide … while this might, in the short term, fix the problem it would almost certainly guarantee that the opposition would take power in the next election with the potential result of not only undoing that short term fix, but also lead to further power being controlled under the banner of the Federal government and away from the people who were supposed to wield it … We The People. What this essentially means is that the only way it is going to happen is if ‘We The People’ get out of our comfortable chairs and make it happen….
This is exactly why the Federal Government is not supposed to get into the business of charity. There is no way for it to do so in a fair and even manner. It simply can’t afford it. People are calling for the survivors of Katrina to be given a monetary sum from the government to pay for the loss of their loved ones as was done for the survivors of the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Putting aside the fact that I didn’t agree with the payments to the victims families of 9/11 … putting aside the fact that no one called for such for the hurricanes that hit Florida last year … people are suggesting that people who died, largely to their own stupidity, to a storm that they were warned about and ordered to evacuate from DAYS in advance are in the category of people who died in a surprise attack that they couldn’t have escaped from.
Don’t get me wrong … I want to see the people of New Orleans helped … I want to see the people of Mississippi and Alabama that suffered from the hurricane helped ... I want to see those that suffer loss from Hurricane Rita helped as well. But that is why we have the American Red Cross and other, private, charities … it shouldn’t be the government’s responsibility.
The idea is that the federal government should have an insignificant impact in our lives … it should not come bailing us out of our problems. The contribution of the federal government to disaster clean up should be the deployment of federal troops and equipment IF REQUESTED, nothing more … they certainly shouldn’t be writing checks to people.
As it stands a large number of people in the hurricane stricken areas of the gulf coast will be helped twice … by the government and private charities. Other people in the United States will experience loss for various other reasons (house fire, tornado, etc) that don’t classify as a ‘natural disaster’ and many of those will be lucky if they receive help from the private charities. How is this fair and impartial? Did someone that looses everything in a fire in Nebraska somehow loose less than someone that lost everything to Hurricane Katrina? Both may also have lost loved ones in the disaster … both homes are destroyed … both have lost their belongings. But there is a difference here … the ones that lost their homes in a hurricane knew it was coming unless they had their heads stuck in the sand ….
But gone are the days when the Congress or the President will deny aid to a natural disaster victim … we live in the days when both the Congress and the President will happily spend the American Taxpayer’s money on ‘aid’ in order to look compassionate and buy votes. Any politician that tries to stand against what is, in essence, a misuse of Federal funds would loose any political future that they had … they would be called ‘heartless’, ‘callus’, ‘racist’ or even worse ‘rich’, and they would have the political life expectancy of a snowball in hell.
And that’s the hole that we have allowed to be dug … to change things at this point a majority of Congress would have to commit political suicide … while this might, in the short term, fix the problem it would almost certainly guarantee that the opposition would take power in the next election with the potential result of not only undoing that short term fix, but also lead to further power being controlled under the banner of the Federal government and away from the people who were supposed to wield it … We The People. What this essentially means is that the only way it is going to happen is if ‘We The People’ get out of our comfortable chairs and make it happen….
Monday, September 12, 2005
State Rights
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina many people are questioning the ‘sluggish’ response of the federal aid. As I believe I’ve mentioned once already, this was partially the result of the Louisiana Governor declining the initial offer of federal assistance shortly after the hurricane struck. There were other factors, communication issues, coordination problems between state and local officials that compounded when federal assistance did get the okay to provide aid. While some of these probably were problems with the federal response, many were fundamental problems at the state and local levels.
All of this has led to people questioning why Bush didn’t force the issue and step in, and the reports are that he considered it. With the issuing of an Executive Order, he could technically have moved in and secured Louisiana with federal troops, why didn’t he? State Rights. State Rights have been dying a slow and painful death for decades at the least, but had “W” taken that step it would have essentially put the final nail in the coffin and placed us all directly under the bloated power of the federal government.
He would have set the precedent that the President could, at any time, use Federal Military Forces to seize control of any State in the Union. There is a reason that this is not meant to happen … and it is in essence the same reason that the President couldn’t send troops over to secure Spain after the train bombs last year … he would be grossly overstepping his jurisdiction. This is the type of thing that ignited the war between the states in the first place … the right of the state to govern itself.
People have forgotten the idea that this country was originally organized around … local control by the people. The idea was that most of the ‘government’ that affected our lives was to come from the most local level so that ‘we the people’ could control it. City governments were responsible for handling disputes and enforcing the law of the local area … state governments were to manage those disputes that arose between towns … the role of the federal government was to look to the protection of the states and manage disputes between the states to allow fair and equal treatment based on the constitution. The states were, in essence, small countries with the federal government mediating between them and maintaining the forces necessary to protect the whole.
Now we have President Bush saying Congress should consider whether the federal government should have more authority to step into disaster areas without a request from the states. The answer should be ‘no’ … we don’t need to give the federal government any more authority than it already has, and I would say that we actually need to take some of the authority that it has now, and return it to the States where it more appropriately matches the original ideas on which this country was established.
We as a country need to stop looking to the federal government to ‘bail’ us out … it is not their job. Why does a state need to build a state highway that has to be financed 75-100% by the federal government and has to be maintained primarily through federal funds? The idea is supposed to be that those funds should come from the local level … where the people providing the money can keep a closer idea on where their money is going. What money can’t be gained by the state should come from private investment not money taken by the federal government from people on the other side of the continent. But politicians learned a long time ago that things are so much easier to handle when they are out of sight of the people funding them … it is much easier to get funding for ‘pork’ projects when the money is collected by the federal government and then distributed to the states …
The system also makes it easier to hide ‘pork’ problems at the local level … ‘local’ tax money can be collected and spent reasonably on ‘proper’ projects while federal money can be used for the ‘pork’ projects because the locals won’t look at those numbers as closely … after all … that’s not THEIR money … that’s federal money.
No … the federal government doesn’t need more authority to step in without request from the state … the states need more authority to handle disaster situations. Of course that would mean that the blame for the failures to plan, to use the money and resources properly, for maintaining law and order, and all of the other duties of the state would fall on the state and local government….
All of this has led to people questioning why Bush didn’t force the issue and step in, and the reports are that he considered it. With the issuing of an Executive Order, he could technically have moved in and secured Louisiana with federal troops, why didn’t he? State Rights. State Rights have been dying a slow and painful death for decades at the least, but had “W” taken that step it would have essentially put the final nail in the coffin and placed us all directly under the bloated power of the federal government.
He would have set the precedent that the President could, at any time, use Federal Military Forces to seize control of any State in the Union. There is a reason that this is not meant to happen … and it is in essence the same reason that the President couldn’t send troops over to secure Spain after the train bombs last year … he would be grossly overstepping his jurisdiction. This is the type of thing that ignited the war between the states in the first place … the right of the state to govern itself.
People have forgotten the idea that this country was originally organized around … local control by the people. The idea was that most of the ‘government’ that affected our lives was to come from the most local level so that ‘we the people’ could control it. City governments were responsible for handling disputes and enforcing the law of the local area … state governments were to manage those disputes that arose between towns … the role of the federal government was to look to the protection of the states and manage disputes between the states to allow fair and equal treatment based on the constitution. The states were, in essence, small countries with the federal government mediating between them and maintaining the forces necessary to protect the whole.
Now we have President Bush saying Congress should consider whether the federal government should have more authority to step into disaster areas without a request from the states. The answer should be ‘no’ … we don’t need to give the federal government any more authority than it already has, and I would say that we actually need to take some of the authority that it has now, and return it to the States where it more appropriately matches the original ideas on which this country was established.
We as a country need to stop looking to the federal government to ‘bail’ us out … it is not their job. Why does a state need to build a state highway that has to be financed 75-100% by the federal government and has to be maintained primarily through federal funds? The idea is supposed to be that those funds should come from the local level … where the people providing the money can keep a closer idea on where their money is going. What money can’t be gained by the state should come from private investment not money taken by the federal government from people on the other side of the continent. But politicians learned a long time ago that things are so much easier to handle when they are out of sight of the people funding them … it is much easier to get funding for ‘pork’ projects when the money is collected by the federal government and then distributed to the states …
The system also makes it easier to hide ‘pork’ problems at the local level … ‘local’ tax money can be collected and spent reasonably on ‘proper’ projects while federal money can be used for the ‘pork’ projects because the locals won’t look at those numbers as closely … after all … that’s not THEIR money … that’s federal money.
No … the federal government doesn’t need more authority to step in without request from the state … the states need more authority to handle disaster situations. Of course that would mean that the blame for the failures to plan, to use the money and resources properly, for maintaining law and order, and all of the other duties of the state would fall on the state and local government….
Friday, September 09, 2005
Katrina and the Race Card
I get really tired to hearing that <insert issue of the day> is caused by racism, or that people who believe that law and order should mean something are racists, or that only racists support welfare reform (or tax reform, or immigration reform, or virtually any type of reform known to man).
It is, in essence, minority leaders (or those pandering to minorities) saying ‘I can’t actually debate with facts so I’m just going to call anyone that disagrees with me a racist.”
Take looting in New Orleans as an example …. There have been reports of people, even some political figures that have compared people who expressed opposition to looting as, in the words of one blogger, ‘racist f---s’.
I’m sorry … but there is nothing that you NEED in a jewelry or electronics store. I can distinguish and allow the ‘looting’ of grocery and convenience stores for food and/or water in a situation such as this, heck a lot of the food in those places will spoil and have to be thrown out anyway ... at least this way SOMEONE gets some use out of it, but that plasma TV isn’t needed for your survival. Of course had residents been properly prepared then they wouldn’t need to loot even for the necessities of survival …. But that’s an argument for a different rant.
One person tried to justify the ‘looting’ of televisions by saying that they would use those televisions to ‘barter for the necessities’. I’m sorry … but what’s wrong with using cash, or items that *gasp* actually belong to you.
I’m sorry, I don’t care if you’re Black, White, Hispanic, Oriental, Martian, or Green with Purple Poka dots, stealing is stealing, and while I can forgive theft for the necessities of life given the extra ordinary conditions … taking advantage of those conditions to steal the property of others for personal gain is not forgivable. It’s not a ‘race’ issue … are most of the looters in New Orleans black? Well, given that most of the citizens of New Orleans are black (to something like a 7:1 ratio) then odds are pretty good that, yes, most of them are. Chances are pretty good that they are poor too … and that doesn’t matter either.
Odds are that … regardless of race … the people that start looting in these situations are the same people that take the ‘easy way’ out of life, preferring to live off government hand outs than to actually work for anything. Denied those hand outs they seek to take what they want directly (notice the use of "want" as opposed to "need"). At best they are lazy good for nothings, at worst they are social predators to whom stealing is already quite familiar.
Others want to blame the slow response of federal agencies on ‘racism’ … saying, as Georgia Democratic Congressman David Scott suggested, that ‘Washington would have moved more swiftly if the faces on rooftops had been white.’
Of course now we are finding out that the delay in federal support came because the Louisiana Governor declined the initial offer of aid, requesting time to assess the situation. The same also seems to be true with the Red Cross response … National Guard Troops and Red Cross were ready to go as soon as the hurricane was over … but were delayed by the state government.
Federal support can be offered, but unless it is accepted there’s nothing that they can do. Red Cross can technically go in on their own, but in a situation like that, if martial law is in effect they can find themselves on the wrong side of a bad situation. No … the slow response wasn’t racism … unless it’s the Governor of the state that you’re accusing of being racist.
Just because something bad happens to a member of a minority group … or a member of a minority group finds themselves in a situation that causes people to disapprove of their actions … doesn’t automatically make them a victim of racism. If a person that happens to be a minority gets fired from a job by a boss who is white because they weren’t DOING their job, that doesn’t make it racism, but there are those that will be jumping up and down shouting racist and pointing their fingers at the boss if it gets televised on the news.
We really need to take the ‘racism’ card out of the deck … with as often as it is used today the only thing that is happening is that true examples of racism are more likely to go unnoticed …. Much like the boy who cried wolf was ignored when the wolf actually showed up….
It is, in essence, minority leaders (or those pandering to minorities) saying ‘I can’t actually debate with facts so I’m just going to call anyone that disagrees with me a racist.”
Take looting in New Orleans as an example …. There have been reports of people, even some political figures that have compared people who expressed opposition to looting as, in the words of one blogger, ‘racist f---s’.
I’m sorry … but there is nothing that you NEED in a jewelry or electronics store. I can distinguish and allow the ‘looting’ of grocery and convenience stores for food and/or water in a situation such as this, heck a lot of the food in those places will spoil and have to be thrown out anyway ... at least this way SOMEONE gets some use out of it, but that plasma TV isn’t needed for your survival. Of course had residents been properly prepared then they wouldn’t need to loot even for the necessities of survival …. But that’s an argument for a different rant.
One person tried to justify the ‘looting’ of televisions by saying that they would use those televisions to ‘barter for the necessities’. I’m sorry … but what’s wrong with using cash, or items that *gasp* actually belong to you.
I’m sorry, I don’t care if you’re Black, White, Hispanic, Oriental, Martian, or Green with Purple Poka dots, stealing is stealing, and while I can forgive theft for the necessities of life given the extra ordinary conditions … taking advantage of those conditions to steal the property of others for personal gain is not forgivable. It’s not a ‘race’ issue … are most of the looters in New Orleans black? Well, given that most of the citizens of New Orleans are black (to something like a 7:1 ratio) then odds are pretty good that, yes, most of them are. Chances are pretty good that they are poor too … and that doesn’t matter either.
Odds are that … regardless of race … the people that start looting in these situations are the same people that take the ‘easy way’ out of life, preferring to live off government hand outs than to actually work for anything. Denied those hand outs they seek to take what they want directly (notice the use of "want" as opposed to "need"). At best they are lazy good for nothings, at worst they are social predators to whom stealing is already quite familiar.
Others want to blame the slow response of federal agencies on ‘racism’ … saying, as Georgia Democratic Congressman David Scott suggested, that ‘Washington would have moved more swiftly if the faces on rooftops had been white.’
Of course now we are finding out that the delay in federal support came because the Louisiana Governor declined the initial offer of aid, requesting time to assess the situation. The same also seems to be true with the Red Cross response … National Guard Troops and Red Cross were ready to go as soon as the hurricane was over … but were delayed by the state government.
Federal support can be offered, but unless it is accepted there’s nothing that they can do. Red Cross can technically go in on their own, but in a situation like that, if martial law is in effect they can find themselves on the wrong side of a bad situation. No … the slow response wasn’t racism … unless it’s the Governor of the state that you’re accusing of being racist.
Just because something bad happens to a member of a minority group … or a member of a minority group finds themselves in a situation that causes people to disapprove of their actions … doesn’t automatically make them a victim of racism. If a person that happens to be a minority gets fired from a job by a boss who is white because they weren’t DOING their job, that doesn’t make it racism, but there are those that will be jumping up and down shouting racist and pointing their fingers at the boss if it gets televised on the news.
We really need to take the ‘racism’ card out of the deck … with as often as it is used today the only thing that is happening is that true examples of racism are more likely to go unnoticed …. Much like the boy who cried wolf was ignored when the wolf actually showed up….
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
People in Need
This isn’t specifically about Hurricane Katrina, rather it’s about people in general, but it can certainly apply to the people affected by the hurricane. I’m not just talking about donations because while those people whose lives have been torn apart by the hurricane can certainly be helped by those and are definitely in need. I am also not specifically talking about beggars, panhandlers, or people on welfare that may or may not truly be in need.
I’m talking about normal people who find themselves, for whatever reason, in a situation that they could use some help. Car broken down on the side of the road, or find that they left their lights on and their car battery is dead, or they locked their keys in the car for examples. Minor things that could happen to anyone and, I dare say, eventually happen to everyone.
Now I would like to think that people have enough respect for one another to lend a helping hand to someone in need when they’re able to. I would like to think that people would provide that help to another person regardless of who the person in need was. I would like to think all that … but too often I see that just isn’t the case.
Certainly I understand that people aren’t always able to help, but I’ve personally encountered people that aren’t unable … they are unwilling to help … or were unwilling to help me at least. And today, as I’m reading Neal’s Nuze (http://boortz.com) I see “Yesterday I told you of one man who wrote that he was driving down an expressway and saw a car broken down on the side. There was a woman holding a small child standing outside the car. He pulled over to help, but when he saw the "W" sticker on the woman's car he drove off. He just couldn't bring himself to help anyone who supported George Bush.”
Now I believe he was referring to something that he had read off of http://www.democraticunderground.com/ and frankly, well, I can’t say I’ve exactly had a stellar opinion of the posters at that particular site, so I can’t say that I’m that surprised.
A lot of people wouldn’t have a problem with this stance … and maybe I’m just weird … but to me, there’s no difference between a person that would do this and a person that would drive off because he suddenly noticed that the woman was black, or saw a Star of David on her back window. This is a person who is willing to discriminate against another human being because she’s different than him. He believes that he is better than her because of her political choice … he believes that she doesn’t deserve his help. I bet he felt that he ‘taught her a lesson’ too … if he had a Kerry bumper sticker the ‘lesson’ that he probably taught her was that Kerry supporters were jerks …. Though there’s a good shot she already knew that….
I hope that he has a wife and young child, and that they break down on the side of the road, and the person that stops and helps them has a big “W” on their front bumper … proudly displayed. Of course they might be too proud to take assistance from a lowly ‘Bush supporter’ ….
People really need to realize that we’re all humans and we’re all different we should welcome that difference because life would be really boring if we were all the same.
Well … I’ve rambled enough for the day … hopefully there was a point in all that somewhere…..
I’m talking about normal people who find themselves, for whatever reason, in a situation that they could use some help. Car broken down on the side of the road, or find that they left their lights on and their car battery is dead, or they locked their keys in the car for examples. Minor things that could happen to anyone and, I dare say, eventually happen to everyone.
Now I would like to think that people have enough respect for one another to lend a helping hand to someone in need when they’re able to. I would like to think that people would provide that help to another person regardless of who the person in need was. I would like to think all that … but too often I see that just isn’t the case.
Certainly I understand that people aren’t always able to help, but I’ve personally encountered people that aren’t unable … they are unwilling to help … or were unwilling to help me at least. And today, as I’m reading Neal’s Nuze (http://boortz.com) I see “Yesterday I told you of one man who wrote that he was driving down an expressway and saw a car broken down on the side. There was a woman holding a small child standing outside the car. He pulled over to help, but when he saw the "W" sticker on the woman's car he drove off. He just couldn't bring himself to help anyone who supported George Bush.”
Now I believe he was referring to something that he had read off of http://www.democraticunderground.com/ and frankly, well, I can’t say I’ve exactly had a stellar opinion of the posters at that particular site, so I can’t say that I’m that surprised.
A lot of people wouldn’t have a problem with this stance … and maybe I’m just weird … but to me, there’s no difference between a person that would do this and a person that would drive off because he suddenly noticed that the woman was black, or saw a Star of David on her back window. This is a person who is willing to discriminate against another human being because she’s different than him. He believes that he is better than her because of her political choice … he believes that she doesn’t deserve his help. I bet he felt that he ‘taught her a lesson’ too … if he had a Kerry bumper sticker the ‘lesson’ that he probably taught her was that Kerry supporters were jerks …. Though there’s a good shot she already knew that….
I hope that he has a wife and young child, and that they break down on the side of the road, and the person that stops and helps them has a big “W” on their front bumper … proudly displayed. Of course they might be too proud to take assistance from a lowly ‘Bush supporter’ ….
People really need to realize that we’re all humans and we’re all different we should welcome that difference because life would be really boring if we were all the same.
Well … I’ve rambled enough for the day … hopefully there was a point in all that somewhere…..
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Hurricanes and Greedy Americans
I’m sure that you’ve all heard about Hurricane Katrina by now … heard of the devastation that it caused and the after effects that still continue to cause problems. Many of you also know that I went through Hurricane Andrew in South Miami in 1992, so I am acutely aware of the damage that a Hurricane can cause in an area and the needs that the people in such areas have.
I’m not here to give you news of the hurricane or it’s aftermath … there are plenty of news sources for that, and I’m not going to beg you for donations to help the relief effort or seek sympathy for the survivors or those that lost family members or lay blame for the hurricane.
I am here to talk about that whole ‘blame game’ though … as if anyone is to blame for a hurricane. I’ve heard various accusations in the wake of Katrina … that the hurricane hit because we have so many of our troops in Iraq that they weren’t here to do something about it (just what they were supposed to do I have no idea) … that it was the judgment of Allah (who didn’t see THAT one coming) … That it was George W. Bush’s fault (though I couldn’t figure out why specifically … I suppose it probably goes back to the war though) …. I thought I saw a suggestion that it was because we were drilling in ANWAR (except we aren’t … though we should be) … oh and it’s the fault of the Governor of Mississippi for not supporting the Kyoto treaty … and the fault of ‘greedy Americans’ and their SUVs.
Personally I blame John Kerry … if he had been a better Presidential Candidate he would have been elected and doesn’t everyone just KNOW that he’d have built a wall around the country to protect us from such terrible natural disasters? I also blame Germany and France for not supporting the war in Iraq … if we’d had more support from them more of our troops might have been here (though I still don’t know what they were supposed to have done to stop the hurricane) … I also blame the California Environmentalists since it was their environmental laws that caused the devastating fires in California a few years ago, and we’ve had more frequent and stronger hurricanes since those fires….
Does everyone see how completely stupid all that is? I can assign blame to whomever I want too, it doesn’t make me right or them at fault. All it does is make me one of ‘them’ … one of those people that tries to blame all the bad things that happen on the people I disagree with. One of those people that tries to politicize this natural disaster to try and gain support for my views.
I’m not here to give you news of the hurricane or it’s aftermath … there are plenty of news sources for that, and I’m not going to beg you for donations to help the relief effort or seek sympathy for the survivors or those that lost family members or lay blame for the hurricane.
I am here to talk about that whole ‘blame game’ though … as if anyone is to blame for a hurricane. I’ve heard various accusations in the wake of Katrina … that the hurricane hit because we have so many of our troops in Iraq that they weren’t here to do something about it (just what they were supposed to do I have no idea) … that it was the judgment of Allah (who didn’t see THAT one coming) … That it was George W. Bush’s fault (though I couldn’t figure out why specifically … I suppose it probably goes back to the war though) …. I thought I saw a suggestion that it was because we were drilling in ANWAR (except we aren’t … though we should be) … oh and it’s the fault of the Governor of Mississippi for not supporting the Kyoto treaty … and the fault of ‘greedy Americans’ and their SUVs.
Personally I blame John Kerry … if he had been a better Presidential Candidate he would have been elected and doesn’t everyone just KNOW that he’d have built a wall around the country to protect us from such terrible natural disasters? I also blame Germany and France for not supporting the war in Iraq … if we’d had more support from them more of our troops might have been here (though I still don’t know what they were supposed to have done to stop the hurricane) … I also blame the California Environmentalists since it was their environmental laws that caused the devastating fires in California a few years ago, and we’ve had more frequent and stronger hurricanes since those fires….
Does everyone see how completely stupid all that is? I can assign blame to whomever I want too, it doesn’t make me right or them at fault. All it does is make me one of ‘them’ … one of those people that tries to blame all the bad things that happen on the people I disagree with. One of those people that tries to politicize this natural disaster to try and gain support for my views.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Bring them home!
I keep hearing this in reference to our men and women of the armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and certainly I want them all to come home safely … with their mission accomplished.
History, however, tells those that care to listen that these things are never easy … they take time, and lots of it … not a couple of years. In this age of computers and instant gratification it seems that it is hard for people to come to grips with the fact that there are things that still take time.
The situation in Iraq in particular is one that we should have known going in was going to last, in all likelihood, a decade or so … in fact I believe something along those lines being mentioned back at the start of the war with Iraq but I can’t find a specific quote so that I can properly cite a source, and time.
“Well we certainly got out of ‘Nam fast enough” … yeah … and that is widely regarded as having been a ‘bad move’ on our part. Even aside from what happened in Vietnam as a result of our withdrawal the effect on the troops who were brought home in defeat … not to the enemy but to their own countrymen … was terrible. Placing that aside, however, ‘Nam was a different story … while it was a guerrilla war we were not there occupying Vietnam and establishing a new ruling body as we are with Iraq.
And make no mistake … that was our goal in Iraq … to remove a ruling body that was hostile toward the United States and our allies. To remove a leader who had openly stated hostility toward the US, had attacked neighboring countries, had used weapons of mass destruction (if he had them or not at the time of the invasion is the discussion of another rant … he HAD used them previously on Iran AND on his own people) and was known to have ties to terrorist organizations including Al-Qaeda (there was evidence of this before the war, and more evidence has been handed over by the provisional government).
You can’t walk in, remove a leader, and walk out … or else you are just leaving the door open to the possibility of the situation getting worse instead of better. If you are going to remove the leadership of a country you have to be prepared to either take over the country as part of your government or establish a new government … the Bush administration and advisors understood this and laid plans, even before the war, to help the Iraqi people establish a new … free … government.
So … how should we have known it would take time and that there would be problems? When was the last real, post war, occupation of a country by the US Military? Post WWII … Germany specifically. Can you tell me how long we occupied Germany after WWII? How long did we have a military government in that country to keep the peace?
The occupation lasted from roughly 1944-1955 … “with the Army as the executive agency for military government until 1949, and the Army continued to provide the occupation force until 1955” (Army Historical Series: The US Army in the Occupation of Germany) and it wasn’t a ‘smooth occupation’ either with Time Magazine publishing an article titled “Americans are loosing the Victory in Europe” in their Jan. 7, 1946 issue. (Life: Jan 7, 1946) and a guerrilla war against the Werewolves, a group of NAZI SS troops that fought actively into 1947 and some believe into 1949-50 primarily out of the Black Forest and Harz mountains regions.
James Rolleston of Duke University wrote this of post-war Germany, “… In such total flux no regulation could be immutable and no preconceived plan ... could be acted on. All was improvisation ….” (Excepted from a Talking Proud article which also enumerates several points of similarity between the occupation of Germany after WWII and the current occupation of Iraq) and I believe that the same quote could equally be applied to post-war Iraq, though I believe that we are at a better point in our occupation of Iraq now, than the Army was in their Occupation of Germany in the same time frame, which I believe can be attributed to learning from the mistakes of the German occupation.
We’re making progress, but it isn’t going to be over this year … or next. If we pull our troops out and make Iraq ‘stand or fall on their own’ we’re running a grave risk … at best they stand on their own but likely have some bitter feelings of abandonment toward the US … at worst they fall and the region destabilizes further complicating our problem with terrorism. I don’t believe that is a gamble we can take … I hate that our men and women are dying over there … but they are dying to make things better … for us and for the people of Iraq … and those of us back home, who are relatively safe and secure due to their efforts, need to sit back and let them do their jobs … let them finish the mission before them and come home in victory.
History, however, tells those that care to listen that these things are never easy … they take time, and lots of it … not a couple of years. In this age of computers and instant gratification it seems that it is hard for people to come to grips with the fact that there are things that still take time.
The situation in Iraq in particular is one that we should have known going in was going to last, in all likelihood, a decade or so … in fact I believe something along those lines being mentioned back at the start of the war with Iraq but I can’t find a specific quote so that I can properly cite a source, and time.
“Well we certainly got out of ‘Nam fast enough” … yeah … and that is widely regarded as having been a ‘bad move’ on our part. Even aside from what happened in Vietnam as a result of our withdrawal the effect on the troops who were brought home in defeat … not to the enemy but to their own countrymen … was terrible. Placing that aside, however, ‘Nam was a different story … while it was a guerrilla war we were not there occupying Vietnam and establishing a new ruling body as we are with Iraq.
And make no mistake … that was our goal in Iraq … to remove a ruling body that was hostile toward the United States and our allies. To remove a leader who had openly stated hostility toward the US, had attacked neighboring countries, had used weapons of mass destruction (if he had them or not at the time of the invasion is the discussion of another rant … he HAD used them previously on Iran AND on his own people) and was known to have ties to terrorist organizations including Al-Qaeda (there was evidence of this before the war, and more evidence has been handed over by the provisional government).
You can’t walk in, remove a leader, and walk out … or else you are just leaving the door open to the possibility of the situation getting worse instead of better. If you are going to remove the leadership of a country you have to be prepared to either take over the country as part of your government or establish a new government … the Bush administration and advisors understood this and laid plans, even before the war, to help the Iraqi people establish a new … free … government.
So … how should we have known it would take time and that there would be problems? When was the last real, post war, occupation of a country by the US Military? Post WWII … Germany specifically. Can you tell me how long we occupied Germany after WWII? How long did we have a military government in that country to keep the peace?
The occupation lasted from roughly 1944-1955 … “with the Army as the executive agency for military government until 1949, and the Army continued to provide the occupation force until 1955” (Army Historical Series: The US Army in the Occupation of Germany) and it wasn’t a ‘smooth occupation’ either with Time Magazine publishing an article titled “Americans are loosing the Victory in Europe” in their Jan. 7, 1946 issue. (Life: Jan 7, 1946) and a guerrilla war against the Werewolves, a group of NAZI SS troops that fought actively into 1947 and some believe into 1949-50 primarily out of the Black Forest and Harz mountains regions.
James Rolleston of Duke University wrote this of post-war Germany, “… In such total flux no regulation could be immutable and no preconceived plan ... could be acted on. All was improvisation ….” (Excepted from a Talking Proud article which also enumerates several points of similarity between the occupation of Germany after WWII and the current occupation of Iraq) and I believe that the same quote could equally be applied to post-war Iraq, though I believe that we are at a better point in our occupation of Iraq now, than the Army was in their Occupation of Germany in the same time frame, which I believe can be attributed to learning from the mistakes of the German occupation.
We’re making progress, but it isn’t going to be over this year … or next. If we pull our troops out and make Iraq ‘stand or fall on their own’ we’re running a grave risk … at best they stand on their own but likely have some bitter feelings of abandonment toward the US … at worst they fall and the region destabilizes further complicating our problem with terrorism. I don’t believe that is a gamble we can take … I hate that our men and women are dying over there … but they are dying to make things better … for us and for the people of Iraq … and those of us back home, who are relatively safe and secure due to their efforts, need to sit back and let them do their jobs … let them finish the mission before them and come home in victory.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
The fear of a photo
No, I’m not referring to my wife’s dislike for having her picture taken. I am referring to the abhorrence of some groups of people (predominately black Americans) to having to show a photo ID to vote. Why? What’s the problem with proving who you are and that you can, legitimately, vote on the current ballet? What is wrong with this concept … why is it that some people dislike the idea so much?
One of the common statements I hear about this is ‘we’ll loose our right to vote’ … What? Are you a legal citizen of the United States, and have you registered to vote? If the answer is ‘yes’ then you have nothing to worry about step up, show your ID, and vote. IF you are not a legal citizen on the United States OR you have not registered to vote … (or you are legally dead, etc) then buh-bye, you have no right to vote anyway.
‘You should just be able to show that you live in the area … with a utility bill or something.’ … yeah … that will work … lets use utility bills as ID … I get, what … a power bill, phone bill, and water bill at the minimum … that’s 3 bills … should I be able to give the other two bills to someone off the street and say … here, go vote? Not to mention the fact that you don’t have to be a citizen to get your utilities hooked up, you DO, however, have to be a citizen to vote legally.
Keeping in mind that a ‘photo ID’ in itself doesn’t prove citizenship …
‘They’re taking away the anonymous ballot!’ … um … no … unless they are attaching your ID or putting your name/SSN on the ballet somewhere then showing your ID to a poll worker so that they can check your name against a list of registered voters does not take away the ‘anonymous’ portion of the ballot. Yes, they know you voted, but they have no way of knowing which ballet you cast or (as a result) who/what you voted for. There is no intention to start tracking peoples individual voting habits.
Part of the idea behind this is so that poll workers can make sure that ‘you’ only vote once. The ultimate goal is to lessen (or more hopefully eliminate) voter fraud. To stop non-citizens from voting, to stop people voting multiple times, etc. And I have to conclude that the organizations that are fighting against policies that would reduce voter fraud must have the most to loose from the elimination of voter fraud due to participation in it. The individuals … most are sheep … doing what the organizations tell them to do ‘in their best interests’, some are leaders using paranoia and misinformation in order to achieve their goals, knowing that the majority of those listening to them won’t think or question what they say.
Personally I think that it’s too easy to vote even with showing a picture ID. I have always felt that there should be more requirements to voting. Citizenship is one thing, but as the masses are generally woefully under informed I feel that there needs to be something more … a minimum awareness of the importance and responsibility of voting … required to be a registered voter. (NOTE – I’m not saying that the ‘masses’ are too dumb to vote … I don’t believe that … I simply believe that the vast majority of the masses make no effort to be informed of important issues. If those same ‘masses’ were to put forth the effort to be informed I believe that, for the most part, they would have the intelligence needed to make a good decision (even if it was one I disagreed with.)) At the very minimum I believe that a regular civics exam should be required to keep voter registration current … if you can’t answer certain questions about how our government operates then, in my opinion, you have no business voting anyway.
I have said it before, but I feel that it bears repeating – the ‘right’ to vote is a power, and like all power it brings with it responsibility. Specifically the responsibility to be aware and informed about the issues … to know what is going on so that you can use your power in an informed manner to help steer things in the direction that you, as an informed citizen, believe is the best.
The system works so long as those voting are aware of the issues and the various solutions that might be presented. Even in a Presidential Election you aren’t voting for an individual … you are voting for a vision of the future … a set of solutions to the problems facing the nation. If you aren’t aware of the problems facing the nation, or the difference in the visions presented, how can you pick which one is the best for the country? And, as someone who works on them, let me tell you that choosing based on political commercials is one of the worst things you can do … and yet probably a good percentage of voters in any election will do just that … or worse yet, will vote for someone just because of the political party that they are affiliated with.
One of the common statements I hear about this is ‘we’ll loose our right to vote’ … What? Are you a legal citizen of the United States, and have you registered to vote? If the answer is ‘yes’ then you have nothing to worry about step up, show your ID, and vote. IF you are not a legal citizen on the United States OR you have not registered to vote … (or you are legally dead, etc) then buh-bye, you have no right to vote anyway.
‘You should just be able to show that you live in the area … with a utility bill or something.’ … yeah … that will work … lets use utility bills as ID … I get, what … a power bill, phone bill, and water bill at the minimum … that’s 3 bills … should I be able to give the other two bills to someone off the street and say … here, go vote? Not to mention the fact that you don’t have to be a citizen to get your utilities hooked up, you DO, however, have to be a citizen to vote legally.
Keeping in mind that a ‘photo ID’ in itself doesn’t prove citizenship …
‘They’re taking away the anonymous ballot!’ … um … no … unless they are attaching your ID or putting your name/SSN on the ballet somewhere then showing your ID to a poll worker so that they can check your name against a list of registered voters does not take away the ‘anonymous’ portion of the ballot. Yes, they know you voted, but they have no way of knowing which ballet you cast or (as a result) who/what you voted for. There is no intention to start tracking peoples individual voting habits.
Part of the idea behind this is so that poll workers can make sure that ‘you’ only vote once. The ultimate goal is to lessen (or more hopefully eliminate) voter fraud. To stop non-citizens from voting, to stop people voting multiple times, etc. And I have to conclude that the organizations that are fighting against policies that would reduce voter fraud must have the most to loose from the elimination of voter fraud due to participation in it. The individuals … most are sheep … doing what the organizations tell them to do ‘in their best interests’, some are leaders using paranoia and misinformation in order to achieve their goals, knowing that the majority of those listening to them won’t think or question what they say.
Personally I think that it’s too easy to vote even with showing a picture ID. I have always felt that there should be more requirements to voting. Citizenship is one thing, but as the masses are generally woefully under informed I feel that there needs to be something more … a minimum awareness of the importance and responsibility of voting … required to be a registered voter. (NOTE – I’m not saying that the ‘masses’ are too dumb to vote … I don’t believe that … I simply believe that the vast majority of the masses make no effort to be informed of important issues. If those same ‘masses’ were to put forth the effort to be informed I believe that, for the most part, they would have the intelligence needed to make a good decision (even if it was one I disagreed with.)) At the very minimum I believe that a regular civics exam should be required to keep voter registration current … if you can’t answer certain questions about how our government operates then, in my opinion, you have no business voting anyway.
I have said it before, but I feel that it bears repeating – the ‘right’ to vote is a power, and like all power it brings with it responsibility. Specifically the responsibility to be aware and informed about the issues … to know what is going on so that you can use your power in an informed manner to help steer things in the direction that you, as an informed citizen, believe is the best.
The system works so long as those voting are aware of the issues and the various solutions that might be presented. Even in a Presidential Election you aren’t voting for an individual … you are voting for a vision of the future … a set of solutions to the problems facing the nation. If you aren’t aware of the problems facing the nation, or the difference in the visions presented, how can you pick which one is the best for the country? And, as someone who works on them, let me tell you that choosing based on political commercials is one of the worst things you can do … and yet probably a good percentage of voters in any election will do just that … or worse yet, will vote for someone just because of the political party that they are affiliated with.
Monday, August 08, 2005
Strange new world
It is a crazy world we live in, wars still rage in Iraq and Afghanistan … not against the Iraqi or Afghani people, but against fanatical elements within their culture that preach hatred and intolerance. Who teach that the way into the graces of god is through the murder of those who live or believe differently.
But then … are we not there killing them? I can already hear you saying “Klik, are you loosing your nerve?” No, not in the least. We are doing what we must … as the attacks on 9/11/01, last years attacks in Spain and the recent bombings in London show, we really have no choice.
Surely they attacked us for a reason, not just to randomly kill innocent people. I am certain that they fell that the did … in their minds they had a reason, even if that reason was only a hope of spreading Islamic law. But aren’t we in essence trying to spread what we call ‘freedom’?
There is the heart of the trouble though … and the solution. We can not win this war through force of arms, though force of arms is necessary to allow us the opportunity to win. We need force of arms to show that we will not tolerate attacks on our people or our culture and that we will not cave in from fear. Force of arms, however, will not bring us victory in this war.
Sure … we could grind them into dust … hunt them all down and kill them to prevent them from killing us. But doing that would make us no different from them. Justifying murder to promote our cause and security. Some would say that is the case anyway, but I see a difference … a light that shines into this dark world. That light is hope … and in hope lays our victory. It is hope that we bring and through hope that we show ourselves.
We do not seek to change Islam … rather we seek to co-exist with it. This is the difference … this is what we must show them … that we are willing to let them be them … but only so long as they allow us to be us. If they punch us … we will punch back … if they leave us to live our lives in peace … so too will we leave them to live their lives in peace.
Opposing us are the radical Islamic clerics who seek to spread their power and influence … to bring all people under the laws of their religion and power. To let us be us would, ultimately, be contrary to that goal. They can not spread their power and influence if they allow us to maintain our own culture and moral identity. For as long as they hold the hearts and minds of the masses we will never know peace or safety because they will continue to use their influence and religious positions to rail against peaceful co-existence … against tolerance … by painting us as evil demons to be destroyed at all costs.
It is a fight, however, that they are loosing … As we show our strength in our opposition to those that kill women and children in the name of morality and god, at the same time we show our compassion in helping others and by our presence the masses begin to see. They can see that we are not the evil demons that they have been told …
The world is smaller than once it was, and we can not sit idle and ignore those who would threaten our safety to spread their own power … but neither can they easily keep their followers in dark ignorance of us.
The war is not with Islam … it is with intolerance, no mater where it festers … it is against those who would use terror and murder to further their power … it is a war that has no borders, no boundaries … and an enemy that has no face and are not confined to any specific race, culture, or religion.
But then … are we not there killing them? I can already hear you saying “Klik, are you loosing your nerve?” No, not in the least. We are doing what we must … as the attacks on 9/11/01, last years attacks in Spain and the recent bombings in London show, we really have no choice.
Surely they attacked us for a reason, not just to randomly kill innocent people. I am certain that they fell that the did … in their minds they had a reason, even if that reason was only a hope of spreading Islamic law. But aren’t we in essence trying to spread what we call ‘freedom’?
There is the heart of the trouble though … and the solution. We can not win this war through force of arms, though force of arms is necessary to allow us the opportunity to win. We need force of arms to show that we will not tolerate attacks on our people or our culture and that we will not cave in from fear. Force of arms, however, will not bring us victory in this war.
Sure … we could grind them into dust … hunt them all down and kill them to prevent them from killing us. But doing that would make us no different from them. Justifying murder to promote our cause and security. Some would say that is the case anyway, but I see a difference … a light that shines into this dark world. That light is hope … and in hope lays our victory. It is hope that we bring and through hope that we show ourselves.
We do not seek to change Islam … rather we seek to co-exist with it. This is the difference … this is what we must show them … that we are willing to let them be them … but only so long as they allow us to be us. If they punch us … we will punch back … if they leave us to live our lives in peace … so too will we leave them to live their lives in peace.
Opposing us are the radical Islamic clerics who seek to spread their power and influence … to bring all people under the laws of their religion and power. To let us be us would, ultimately, be contrary to that goal. They can not spread their power and influence if they allow us to maintain our own culture and moral identity. For as long as they hold the hearts and minds of the masses we will never know peace or safety because they will continue to use their influence and religious positions to rail against peaceful co-existence … against tolerance … by painting us as evil demons to be destroyed at all costs.
It is a fight, however, that they are loosing … As we show our strength in our opposition to those that kill women and children in the name of morality and god, at the same time we show our compassion in helping others and by our presence the masses begin to see. They can see that we are not the evil demons that they have been told …
The world is smaller than once it was, and we can not sit idle and ignore those who would threaten our safety to spread their own power … but neither can they easily keep their followers in dark ignorance of us.
The war is not with Islam … it is with intolerance, no mater where it festers … it is against those who would use terror and murder to further their power … it is a war that has no borders, no boundaries … and an enemy that has no face and are not confined to any specific race, culture, or religion.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Welcome to the New Media Revolution
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
