Fear

I realize I haven't posted in a while and that is something I am going to try to be better at. I have been ruminating on many different current issues recently and feel that this is a good place to attempt to articulate my thoughts on where the world is going, specifically the USA (where I live).

It was a relief to have Obama elected as the next President of the USA not because of political views, or promises made presidential candidates (as if the promises meant anything, which they don't as ruled by the Supreme court), or as a correction to our previous administration. My relief in this election is a subtle and refreshing transition in the citizens of this state.

Obama ran on the platform of hope which stands in juxtaposition to the previous administrations platform of fear. America seemingly is fueled by fear. Currently we face many fears: the economy, terrorism, house foreclosing, unemployment, and the safety of our families to name just a few. I was pleasantly surprised that despite the bleak world and how much fear there is in our culture, people came out in mass to say, "I will no longer be afraid, there is hope."

I believe humanity is greatest when it holds hope. My hope is that we maintain our new found hope and fight against political cynicism and fear over the next decade no matter who is in office.

Dust to Dust to Dumb and Dumber

I swear every day I believe that organizations, government, and marketing firms think I get more stupid. The new one is the "Dust to Dust Automotive Energy Report." You can read a little about this here:

Hummer versus Prius:
“Dust to Dust” Report Misleads the Media and Public with Bad Science

The anti-hybrid “dust-to-dust” cost study that just won’t die

While there are a million blogs debunking the bad science, the bad methodology, the motives of the research organization CNW Research; there is a critical piece missing. The following statements are taken straight from CNW Researches website:

"To put the data into understandable terms for consumers, it was translated into a “dollars per lifetime mile” figure. That is, the Energy Cost per mile driven. This is a general-consumer report, not a technical document per se. It includes breakdowns of each vehicle’s total energy requirements from Dust to Dust but does not include issues of gigajuelles, kW hours or other unfriendly (to consumers) terms. Perhaps, in time, we will release our data in such technical terms. First, however, we will only look at the energy consumption cost."

Gee thanks! I don't think my feeble mind could even comprehend such complicated concepts as kW hours or gigajuelles, especially if I am interested in comparing environmental issues like, oh,... ENERGY CONSUMPTION! This has to be the worst cover for saying, "we have bad methodology and so we won't disclose it." No where is the methodology of the study offered or the data (something that is considered required for ANY academic or research publication.) This "report" is great example of how information can be created in a social context and justified by feeble logical fallacies, specifically Ad Verecundiam in this case.

It is amazing how article headlines, short tag lines, and buzz phrases have replaced (or is attempting to replace) actual critical thought that requires information to be digested and analyzed.

I ask nicely of my government and research organizations:

"PLEASE DON'T CONSIDER IT UNFRIENDLY FOR ME TO THINK. IT IS OFFENSIVE IN A DEMOCRACY THAT REQUIRES ITS CITIZENS TO THINK AND ASSESS!"

Some Basic Principles of Warfare That Bush Doesn't Get

Spate of Suicide Bombings Threaten "Surge"

I would never over simplify the situation in the Middle East and the current situation in Iraq. To be fairly blunt, I have not studied the nuances of the situation and thus in determining what is the best course of action is not within my current capacity. I do, on the other hand, have read some history; which might offer some insight to war in Iraq.

1. Declare war on enemies and with the purpose of destroying your enemies.

For some peculiar reason, modern times have seen "military operations" instead of war. War is a useful and powerful tool of a state to declare its will over another state. Utilizing war for anything else is not only foolish, but counter-productive. If a state is unwilling or unjustified in declaring war, it should think of other actions. If a state declares war without the intent of destroying its enemy, the war is lost. This lesson was learned in Vietnam, and I guess we are set to relearn this basic principle of war again.

2. An occupation is never a liberation.

I am amazed that people are astounded to hear that suicide bombings are increasing. This is not only surprising, but completely predictable. A military occupation, what ever the reasoning, will never be a liberation. Liberation requires that the people be empowered for their own fate, a military occupation (no matter how cooperative it is) is antithetical to this concept.

3. Liberty and Freedom are always relative.

To declare liberty and freedom, but in a specific manner (i.e. the US model's) is antithetical to the very principle of liberty and freedom. It is like telling a child they have the freedom to make any choice they want, as long as it aligns with the parents view. This is not a free choice at all. The outcome of such a situation is fairly predictable, the child will throw a tantrum. When applying the same principles on a grander scale; the outcome is also predictable. There will be an increase in conflict (which is what we are seeing in Iraq).

4. To Pull Out or Not to Pull Out

This question to me is a ludicrous question that now needs to be answered. This is like playing the game "just the tip" with your teenage girlfriend and at climax trying to decide, "do I pull out or not." The real question is: Are we at war? If we are at war, then destroy the enemy, nothing short of complete annihilation. This was more clear in ancient times where villages were burned, children killed, and women raped to breed out the people. Culture was not attempted to be saved or synthesized, it was eradicated.

To believe that war can ever be used to save a culture, protect the innocent, and liberate a people is naive. The only time this occurs is when the local people take up arms for themselves. Even the term "terrorist" is relative. The minute men of the US were thought of as terrorists by the dominant regime during their time. Now they are "freedom fighters". The line between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" is only where you stand.

Instead of fighting terrorists, why not avoid conflicts and wars that require people to become warriors for their beliefs. Let those battles take place in conference halls through spoken word, not on the battlefields with 18 year old lives. There are times for war, today is not one of them.

Love It or Leave It!

How many times have I heard the retort: "Love it or leave it!" I guess Halliburton has heard this and answered:

Halliburton Moves to Dubai

I don't understand debating whether Halliburton moved to avoid taxes, investigation, to put them closer to the action, or they just got tired of their surroundings. This debate is pointless and reduces to a he-said/she-said argument. Halliburton is moving their headquarters which is affecting our economy and our countries moral landscape.

Ultimately, I think Halliburton has a great idea and I would love for the government to support their move and maybe the US could create an entire industry off this model. I would love to see the day when one of our greatest exports is the exportation of CEOs. Maybe we could close the ridiculous gap in pay domestically that has occurred.

CEOs and the Rest of Us

What About The Children?

When did policy debates get reduced down to: "what about the children?" I was reading the news today and two articles referenced this line of argument once again:

• Residents near Rainier are getting fed up with their naked neighbor
  
  
• 
  Lawmakers take aim at 'distracted' drivers
  

The first story I can understand more than the second. A man walking around nude (there are references to exposure, but this would assume the person knows his intent and no where in the story did they prove intent). He is about to go on trial for what he has been charged; but has not been found guilty yet. That doesn't matter though, because we have to assume he is guilty and his intent FOR THE CHILDREN.

The second story is even more ridiculous. The justification for banning cell phones while driving is:

"But the question remains: Are you willing to let the next person who is injured be your child? To me, that trumps everything."

The reason quotes like this make any sense is it is a moral high ground that no one can refute and if they try they sound uncaring or cold. The reality of the situation is that people using this type of rhetoric are manipulative. The level of ethical repugnance of using children as pawns to push political or social policies is immeasurable. It attempts to forbid any discourse from taking place by putting the opponents of the "for the children" position on a footing of "evil."

The world is much more complicated than "for the children" rhetoric that we here. A good example of this is PervertedJustice.com. Here is a website that is about capturing child predators. What a great thing "for the children", right? How is it a founder of PJ Xavier Von Erck doesn't even like children? He started the operation to clean up chat rooms and the internet because he was annoyed by being bothered. What ever your view of this website and the TV series from it, the insight to gleen is this: "FOR THE CHILDREN" is a thin reason to do something. Humans are more complicated, people are more complicated.

Thinking of what is best for our children is an important question. Using the children as a political pawn is a thin veiled attempt to project our values into the world and then use "protecting children" as the method of justification. As opposed to the process of actually discussing those values and evaluating them. If we did things "for the children" then we should be asking:

• Should we be at war in Iraq? What about the next father who dies. Bring home the soldiers.... for the children.
  
• How many kids come home to a home alone. Businesses need to be required to shut down by the time school is out.....for the children.
  
• What about the next child who is injured in youth sports. Youth sports should be banned..... for the children.
  
• What about the next boy that is violated by a priest. The entire Catholic church should be shut down.... for the children.
  

And the list goes on and on and on. These are ridiculous ideas, just as it is ridiculous to use this method to justify most social/political policies. My suggestion: lose the moral high ground methods and actually discuss the issues at hand.

Insight from Mr. Rogers

Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the "Neighborhood" at hours when some children cannot use it ... I have always felt that with the advent of all of this new technology that allows people to tape the "Neighborhood" off-the-air, and I'm speaking for the "Neighborhood" because that's what I produce, that they then become much more active in the programming of their family's television life. Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by others. My whole approach in broadcasting has always been "You are an important person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions." Maybe I'm going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a person to be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is important.

----------------------------------------

What do you with the mad that you feel?
When you feel so mad you could bite.
When the whole wide world seems oh so wrong
and nothing you do seems very right.

What do you do?

Do you punch a bag?
Do you pound some clay or dough?
Do you round up friends for a game of tag?
Or see how fast you go?

Its great to be able to stop.
When you planned the thing thats wrong.
And do be able do something else instead.
And think this song:

I can stop when I want to
I can stop when I wish
Can stop stop stop anytime
And what a good feeling to feel like this
and know the feeling is really mine
Know there is something deep inside
That helps us become what we can
For a girl can someday a lady
and a boy can be someday a man.

—Frederick Rogers,

A win for the US

You may be thinking I am referencing the Democratic wins in last night's election, but I am not. I am referencing the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. Whether or not the election pushed towards this is speculation, the simple fact is that Rumsfeld is now on his way out officially and maybe the US can start writing a new chapter in our history that is a little more sensible and respectable.

US Defence Secretary Rumsfeld stepping down

which is a little different tune than what was being pushed out on the 6th of November, where the response was to "shrug it off." At least now President Bush will hopefully be accountable for his decisions and not able to "shrug off" criticisms.

Military media call for Rumsfeld's resignation

Is our military smart or dumb?

I actually find this question to be kind of a pointless question as there is no set ruler for what denotes smart or dumb. But what we can look at is the educational level of the military versus citizens. I want to preface this with: ALL STATISTICS ARE BULLSHIT! Numbers can be manipulated to say whatever you want. I started analyzing the numbers due to this article:

John Kerry: U.S. Soldiers Not 'Smart'

Furthermore, there is a reference to another study that claimed that the US military is more educated the general public (this I found hard to believe). The referenced study is linked here:

Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11

What is interesting about this study is that it doesn't reference any recent data (2004 or 2005), yet this is the study that was being utilized to make a claim that our military was educated better than our citizens. So I decided to do some research.

ALL MY DATA CAME FROM THE US MILITARY AND THE CENSUS!!! I did this purposely as I figured it was the most forgiving source for analyzing the data. For education levels of the military, I took the data from and utilized 2005 and 2004 datasets:

Army G-1 Human Resources

To compare the data to the citizens, I took the general population data from the US Census located here:

Educational Attainment 2005

We could argue the validity of the numbers, how the data was attained, but the fact is simple: this data came from the government that is attempting to sell the public how educated and "of the people" our military is. So their data should support this claim. Does it?

Here are the results of the data that I came up with:

Military Overview
Number	HS/GED	AA	BA/BS	MA/PhD
1,390,093	991,543	135,256	136,142	60,037
	71%	10%	10%	4%

* Total % with HS/GED: 95%
* Total % with Some College or AA: 24%

Citizens 18-24 (numbers in thouands)
Number	HS/GED	AA	BA/BS	MA/PhD
28,009	8,384	11,141	2,258	86
	30%	40%	8%	0%

* Total % with HS/GED: 78%
* Total % with Some College or AA: 48%

Citizens All Ages (numbers in thousands)
Number	HS/GED	AA	BA/BS	MA/PhD
230,437	69,446	59,276	36,520	18,226
	30%	26%	24%	8%

* Total % with HS/GED: 88%
* Total % with Some College or AA: 58%

No matter how you interpret these numbers, there is no way to make a case that the military is more educated than the general public. A couple key things to denote:

1) Comparing 18-24 year olds to military seems most compatible, but military includes officers in that comparison which skews the comparison.

2) The military does seem to have a higher percentage of high school diplomas than the general public (this was the claim made to prove more education in the Heritage report), but what becomes quickly apparent is the quick drop off of education above the high school and/or GED level.

3) The education of the military is generally decreasing as we are longer in Iraq (this should not be a shocker).

In the end, if you want to make a straight up comparison of education levels, the military is not as well educated. It would be more accurate to say that the military is more minimally educated than the general public.

I would be fascinated to compare the education level of the average soldier to the average Senator and determine what the differential is there.

All these stats do not say nearly as much as the simple quote by Sartre:

"When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die."

Protect the Children!

Registered sex offenders told to ignore Halloween

This story made me ask a few questions:

• Are Athiests going to be told to ignore Christmas?
  
• Are Christians going to be told to avoid going to Coliseums?
  
• Are murderers going to be prevented from going to movies with violence?
  
• Are abusive spouses going to be told to avoid relationships?
  

I find this type of "protect the children" ideology to be completely anti-social. Yes, we as a society should protect its children. But let me suggest something:

Rather than worrying about the statistical minority of sex offenders on Halloween decorating their houses, how about we be concerned about all the fathers we are sending to Iraq and leaving children in one-parent families.

Statistically I am curious what is causing more damage in our upcoming generation. Sex offenders with carved pumpkins and Halloween decorations, or families torn apart when the fathers are sent to war.

Unfortunately, these issues are seldom about what they seem to be at face value. Instead, these distracting actions remain the best mechanism of social control, by making us feel warm and fuzzy while ignoring the realities of the world around us. I would suggest we refocus our concerns. We move from focusing on some inane fear that we can fix by forcing people to take down decorations, and instead focusing on what will protect the children of tomorrow the most: return their fathers to them.

Protect the children, allow them to have their fathers.

America May Be Finding Its Way....

Everyone has heard the same idea a lot lately: "We live in troubled times." What is meant by this? That we are at war? That the country is polarized? A plethora of scandals from torture to sexual misconduct? Or is it the totality of it all that makes it a troubling time?

I don't believe it is any of these issues that make it troubling. I believe it is that when the war on terror began, so did the war on political dissidents. A political dissident became equivalent to a terrorist and it didn't seem to matter where on the spectrum of dissidents one found themselves. To be politically active against the current administration was a terrorist act, just as bombing a building was. It was at this transitional time we, as Americans, lost one of our most fundamental American qualities.... the ability to be critical of ourselves.

I believe America is a great country. Not because of our education, not because of our military, not because of our economy; but because we have been self-critical. In the history of superpowers, this superpower has shown the highest level of accountability so far. This is not to say we can't improve, but compared to other historical superpowers we have grown in a way that hasn't in the past. We have grown ideologically. This is why I find recent years so troubling.

On Sept. 11th, the US was attacked. Millions stood in horror and shock, then anger, then fearfully numb. Our government, at a critical time in this countries history, made a fatal flaw in the decision making process. It forgot accountability. It forgot to ask a basic question: "why were we attacked?" And failing to ask and understand this question has led us down the road that previous superpowers have traveled before. The path of decree, the path of righteousness, and the path of self-destruction.

I see a glimmer of hope though. Americans are starting to find their voice, starting to criticize, starting to question again. Fear is subsiding to anger. And it is through anger and disgust that people are speaking. Americans have seldom agreed with one another and that is where the strength of this country can be found. In our dissident views of one another. It is time that we don't view our dissidents as terrorism against righteousness, but the grounding framework that gives birth to this great country.

Two movies take shots at Bush