Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 15 Jan 2007 17:16 Shortened version ahead. --- PART 2 --- On Sun, 14 Jan 07 13:51:57 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <5tjiq25dnn5457prt97qpu7d9ibk6htabo(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>On Sat, 13 Jan 07 13:48:07 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >< snip of PART 1 materials > >............................ >>>Now, >>>if this is trusting him implicitly in everything he does, then >>>you are completely delusional and illogical. >> >>That's just rhetoric from you. No, like I said earlier I never said >>you "trust him implicitly in everything." Those are your words you >>are trying to put in my mouth. Look back. >> >>In any case, even if I did believe that about you, trusting Bush >>implicitly in everything he does would make _you_ completely >>delusional and illogical and not me. But the reality is that my >>beliefs about your internal state of mind about Bush are fairly >>irrelevant -- all you need to do is say what your actual state of mind >>is and it dispels anything I might say. >> >>So feel free to be absolutely clear and tell me that you feel these >>presidential signings where Bush places himself outside the law are >>always wrong. >> >>>> Because it is certain that there is no >>>>other means by which such a rogue administration is being constrained >>>>when they choose to place themselves outside of law. If you agree >>>>with their approach, I can __only__ conclude that you trust them. >>>> >>>>That isn't and shouldn't ever be an acceptable thought to anyone. >>> >>>It is your decision that this is a rogue adminsistration; that >>>is what the Democrats have been trying to do...see Bush as Bad >>>so they can get into the White House in 2008. >> >>I'm not a Democrat and feel they have much to answer for, in fact. But >>I am able to think for myself, outside of what either party tries to >>tell me. In all my personal life and in all my reading about earlier >>administrations and the history of the US, I cannot think of a more >>authoritative or worse administration. This administration represents >>an abuse of power beyond any of the others and I'd thought that his >>father as VP under Reagan had almost taken the cake before. > >Then you need to study a little bit more. How about you suggest a worse one on some basis? You know that I spend a great deal of time studying early US history. This also means I do spend some modest time on later administrations. You are free to suggest that I'm not well read about it, and I'm willing to grant the idea that I could be better educated, but I'd like to see your point. This kind of hand-waving is only personally insulting. If that is your intent, then fine. >>Do you remember Iran-Contra? Or the CIA involvement in shipping in >>cocaine for money as part of a triad policy to fund their wars in >>Central America? Or the savings and loan collape? Or the conversion >>of the US from the world's largest creditor to the world's largest >>debtor under one administration?? > >I remember. I also remember others. A very vague response. What exactly do you mean? And do you notice that while I am specific, you say nothing here at all? Note the difference here? About like Bush, I see. No wonder you like him. >>And these folks beat even that out. And they had a hard act to >>follow. >> >>This has nothing to do with Democrats, who were themselves complicit >>in much of the above. >> >>>Did you listen to their rebuttals to Bush's speech the other night? >> >>No. I don't ever watch TV or listen to the news. > >You should have listened to both. No. I do NOT appreciate "on the spot" details. I prefer to put some distance between me and the news, to allow time to fill in details for me and to allow both me and others enough time to do some analysis. Watching a PR event adds nothing I can't get at a later time. >>I always choose >>sources that require me to read and think more carefully. Haven't >>seen TV in 15 years or more, bought a newspaper in as long, etc. > >Your method does not allow you to track word-of-mouth [emoticon >hunts for a word] trends. Hmm? >This is important if you wish to look >at what's happening today rather than what has happened 50-100 years >ago. I don't wait _that_ long. I like to allow at least two months, though. >I'm trying to analyze a current situation. I'm trying to allow time for the dust to settle. This isn't some video arcade game where quick responses are required. If I were in control and deciding things, I'd require more urgent information and would need to act to 'vibrations' like a spider in a web. But I'm merely a voter. I can afford the time. No need to be impetuous about it. Nothing gained from it. >I do not have >the luxury of a time machine so I can look back with an objective >view of the overall trend. Why? How does a vortex of early pre-digested information serve you better? It's been my experience that placing myself into the violent and near constant strong stream of advertising and political messages does not really help one to gain clear analysis. The only benefit I can see for inserting myself back into that mess would be if I played a feedback role in all of that. In other words, if the input led to immediate actions on my part where time was of the essence and where the time for better analysis was more expensive. I am, instead, a simple math/physics/computer type working also on a small farm of sorts out in Oregon, at the tail end of US politics. The flurry is irrelevant to my life. >>>None of them dealt with the real problem. >> >>That's none of my business. > >That's fine if you decide to shrug off dealing with this problem. Just to be clear for others reading here, my response quoted above was about your point that the Democrats didn't deal with the real problem, as you see it, in their rebuttal to the President. You just changed the subject again, creating yet another strawman. You are now addressing yourself to the problem of a more general nature, that you believe you see. My point was simply about the Democratic rebuttal and what you believe is their failure to address themselves to it. A different thing. I am beginning to see why you are so easily taken in by this administration. You conflate things in your mind and cannot well separate differences. That's sad. My response was simple. But let me make it clearer to you: It is none of my business that the Democratic rebuttal to the Bush speech didn't deal with "the real problem," as you see it. That is their problem, not mine, because they failed to address your concerns in their rebuttal. Your pushing this into a "shrug" on my part as not "dealing with this problem" is simply your inability to understand the difference between what I said about the Democratic response and your apparent desire to get more of a reaction out of me about it. Frankly, I couldn't care much less about the Democrats failure to address themselves to you. Except that I understand you feel that way. >I cannot. Setting aside your change of subject for a moment and taking this new idea on its face -- the idea that you cannot shrug off some perceived problem, still unspecified by you here but which I presume must be also the one that Bush is selling to the public, today -- I can only say that I believe the better way to reduce terrorism around the world is not served by going around killing hundreds of thousands of people, a majority of whom are innocent "collateral damage." Let me put this more clearly to you, by being concrete about it. (Something I don't find you being, often enough.) I can assure you that if some administration in some country had come into my lands and killed my children, I would dedicate myself and my life and everything I had at my disposal to a satisfying reprisal. I would have no other remaining purpose to my life. None. And I can assure you that my training and skills would be applied to their best effect. Putting this more broadly to you, there are three known methods used in weapons of "mass destruction," today. These are: nuclear, chemical, and biological. In the past, and still today, nuclear and chemical means require so much infrastructure and delivery capability that their risk analysis and abatement amounts to tracking those few possessing both opportunity and motive. Those with the opportunity _and_ motive for nuclear and chemical weapons of mass destruction used in unpredictable ways are few. And they can be monitored and efforts to control them concentrated to some measurable effect. On the other hand, biological warfare has now proceeded to a point where almost anyone with a pressure cooker at home and a bachelors degree can make some serious stuff. The materials are all around us and readily available and the knowledge to use them to effect is public domain. This is the real risk, because the opportunity is so much broader here. Focusing on those with "motive and opportunity" is then expanded to the much greater problem of those with "motive." The only solution here, in risk management, is to reduce those with such motives. This is consistent also with not using warfare as a political solution. Bush is making the world MORE DANGEROUS, not less. jon --- END OF PART 2 ---
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 15 Jan 2007 17:18 Shortened version ahead. --- PART 3 --- On Sun, 14 Jan 07 13:51:57 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <5tjiq25dnn5457prt97qpu7d9ibk6htabo(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >< snip of PART 1 and PART 2 materials > >....................................... >> Bring your complaints to the Democrats. > >They don't listen. They don't listen to me, either. So telling me won't help. >They lost the 2004 election and are still running >for the 2008 election using the same platform. Yeah, I have my problems with them, too. >Their party is >building into a political crisis which will implode but that will >take time. This political crisis has been one Bush's administration has done little other than fan. If anything, I'd say that the deep disrespect that has developed into our political system has been largely the fault of the Republican Party, which has cast out almost all of its really great people of the 1960's and 1970's, calling them RINOs now, and replacing them with ideological nuts. (Not that the Democratic Party doesn't have any, but the Republican Party has changed a lot [I used to consider them my party, years ago] and has become far more ideological and unwilling to treat differing views with any respect. A lot has been destroyed in the process. And I blame the Republicans far more on this score.) This administration's authoritarian behavior has only made all of this so much worse. I've said this so many times, but I'll say it still again. Politics is ultimately about finding ways for a disparate group of people (yes, the US with 300+ million people across a wide land fits the bill) to live together without going to their closets to pull out their guns and start shooting at each other. That's the core nugget. There is much more, of course, once you have that much. But first and foremost, you need to find a way for people to resolve their different goals and views in a fashion that allows them to live together without killing each other. First, this means finding what is common to us. The political process finds those common goals and helps us set objectives along those paths we share. Second, where there is some disagreement, it's about finding a 'middle ground' that approximates into a relatively common goal we can agree upon. Third, where the disagreements are more serious and deep, that we can negotiate in good faith with each other to find something that no one necessarily likes at all, but at least where we can live in peace about what is agreed on for a time. All of this, including the idea of 'negotiating in good faith' requires respect. That respect existed. I was there. I saw it. I felt it. I heard it. It is gone, today. And this is more true with Republican officials who treat their opposition like dirt, pettily turning off the microphones just to shut up Democrats, for example. This kind of vicious and petty behavior has been taken to new dizzily new heights by the Republicans. And when they controlled all of the Congress as well as the executive branch, they did little else than make it all the worse. Certainly, they did nothing to ameliorate any of it. I have never in my life had a discussion with any friend of mine, before this last year, like I have now had. I was being completely paced and calm, and pointing out some of the details of all this rancor and saying to him that "We need to find a measure of respect in our political lives. Otherwise, it will ultimately turn to people reaching into their closets for their guns. This is serious." His response to me shocked me! He said, "Let them. I'm ready." I never, ever, ever expected to hear one American say this about any other. Never. Yet I have. It deeply saddens me. >Our state legislature is already at the peak of this >arrogance; they seem to keep going without taking heed of the warning >that over half of the voters no longer belong to any political party >and are classified as "unenrolled"; unenrolled is what most people >think of as Independent but there's a party which is called Independent >so we have a different noun. Our state legislature was once Democrats and Republicans with differing approaches but a common measure of good respect for each other. During the '80's, the Republican Party here was transformed into the 'party of religious ideologies' and it lost its greats. Senators Bob Packwood and Mark Hatfield, or Governor Tom McCall -- all great Republicans and deeply respected by a great many here on all sides. None of that exists, today. It is so very sad to see this demise. >>>All of them were >>>campaigning. Doesn't this elision bother you just a little bit? >> >>Now that you make me think about it, I really wouldn't care that much. > >I know [very sad emoticon here]; it seems that no many do. This >is a prerequisite for a mess. This is you making a mountain out of a mole hill. Something I think I've seen you do on other scores here. You are easily driven to fear, from what I weigh of your words. And easily pushed to an extreme view, when a more moderate one is argued for by the objective and well-shown evidence. This is an example I'll use to make that point. I don't care about the Democratic rebuttal's failure to deal with what you perceive as the "real problems" discussed by Bush in his speech. To me, their failure to address your needs here is minor in the larger picture. You are one person, with your perceptions. Their failure in that regard does not cause me any great concern. More, even if their rebuttal failed in a broader meaning -- not just _your_ concerns, but ones held, let's say, by a great many people like you -- even then, I'd not be terribly concerned. It's a speech. It was designed to reach a certain segment of the population, I'm sure, and I rather doubt that it failed to bring up things that were a concern to a different 'great many' people. So while they may have failed to address the concerns of many, I'm sure they addressed the concerns of another many. If so, my residual concern would mostly be to the furthering of political division in this country. And yes, on that point I'd have some concern -- though I have to say that I've been so concerned so many times on this point that it's hard to pony up a lot of emotion right now about it. And had I actually listened to their rebuttal, I might have found something on my own to be concerned about. But I didn't listen. So I am saved that anguish. >>Everyone in the Democratic Part __AND__ the Republican Party are >>suspect of such motives every time they speak, write, or travel >>somewhere. And does your comment here somehow suggest that you >>imagine that Bush wasn't compaigning when he spoke, perhaps? > >I didn't hear campaigning in the speech he made Wednesday(?) night. I'm sure you didn't. I'm going to point you to a Scientific American article. In the November, 2006, issue, there is an article by Giacomo Rizzolatti, Leonardo Fogassi and Vittorio Gallese called "Mirrors in the Mind." If you get a chance to read it thoroughly, let me know and we can talk. It covers the deeper meaning of my above short sentence. It is very interesting research on an accidentally discovered feature of human thinking. I will also recommend Oliver Sach's, "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat." I think you'll enjoy it, frankly, but beyond that there is some important information there, too. If I were to discuss this with you, I would be speaking out of a context from these and other science articles about thinking and propaganda. >I heard a description of the problem, a description of what would >happen if the problem is ignored; an invitation for input from the >opposition for better ideas (they have none); and a description of >what he intends to do. Accepted for now. I haven't listened, but I will begin to read some analysis in about a month or so. >>Oh, well. No matter. If I let those kinsd of things bother me much, >>I'd be in constant pain. >> >>What do you make of it? (I don't make anything much of it.) > >My whole life has been working on mess prevention. I'm very >good at figuring out how to prevent them or minimize them if >there's no way to avoid them. I understand that you don't want >to deal with these kinds of problems. Just don't get in the >way of those are working on them. You are the one who is >trusting implicitly in the people who are dealing, or not >dealing, with these problems. No, I'm not. And you have no business telling me that I am. I look for objectivity and transparency. I can recognize it well, as this is part of my stock in trade. It is lacking from this administration, which is authoritarian and secretive in the extreme. That is repugnant to me. Period. >Just a note. Not all Democrats are following their leadership's >platforms. However, those who do not obey are ostracized from >Congressional influences as much as possible. As though any of that is any different for the Republican Party. It used to be that you'd see cross-over all the time. Things are so polarized these days that cross-over isn't seen as disagreement, but as treachery. It's bad, all around. Jon --- END of PART 3, the last part ---
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 15 Jan 2007 17:21 On Mon, 15 Jan 07 13:19:27 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <45AB7C5E.4BB0A12(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> > >>> >When you call it a "war" you make them soldiers. When they are soldiers >>> >in a cause against you the other governments can't arrest them. When you >>> >stop calling it "war" and start calling it "crime", other governments can >>> >arrest them. This is part of why calling it a war is such an awful idea. >>> > >>> But nobody was arresting them, especially in Europe. >> >>We are now. > >And then letting them go because of legal loop holes. This >is utter nonsense. Some of the legal loopholes, as you call them, at least in the US were created because of horrible abuses of power by police earlier on. They were not created without some context. Do you not remember any of those contexts? Aside from that, what exact legal loop hole are you discussing? Or is this just some broad hand-sweep without any facts? Who is being let go, what is the exact reason, and why do you disagree with it? Jon
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 18:26 "Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:23onq25chhnknmfuva80otkuh6v6fj86lo(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:57:03 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>news:o57hq2hgacs104ki37lf6fd2d8lgjjulru(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:37:27 -0000, "T Wake" >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>>>news:l6hfq2hq3pl65gn8pceon4g8l0fbhvc9r3(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:17:34 -0000, "T Wake" >>>>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>"MassiveProng" <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in >>>>>>message news:qe6eq25v7vr2l8gqjagd38781phaa5v4kq(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:15:18 +0000, Eeyore >>>>>>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The simple answer is that the terrorists are criminals and what's >>>>>>>>required >>>>>>>>is >>>>>>>>international *police* action to stop it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is. It's called the Worldwide Struggle Against Terrorism, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AND IT IS A WAR. >>>>>> >>>>>>No it isn't. >>>>>> >>>>>>You do not declare war on things like terrorism any more than you >>>>>>declare >>>>>>war on poverty or childhood obesity. It sounds good, it makes a nice >>>>>>rallying call and fits soundbites. But it is not a declaration of war. >>>>>> >>>>>>Unless of course I missed the bit where the declaration was made >>>>>>official >>>>>>by >>>>>>a duly recognised authority. >>>>> >>>>> It's rhetoric from the administration with no other purpose at all >>>>> than to give it an excuse it can use to justify anything and >>>>> everything it does without having to make a rational argument to >>>>> anyone about it. The really sad thing is that the rhetoric actually >>>>> seems to gell with far too many here in the US. >>>> >>>>Aren't there certain conditions which have to be met before a "war" can >>>>be >>>>declared by the US? >>> >>> You know? I had thought so in my earlier years. Honestly believed in >>> the idea I was taught, that Congress declares wars. Of course, >>> reality has a way of making one more circumspect about this issue. >>> >>> I already wrote some material about the debate about war powers for >>> the president, so folks can refer to that other post for more details >>> about those powers as planned for by the federal convention. However, >>> they also never expected to see (and did what they could to prevent >>> it) the idea of a standing army in the US. They were downright >>> frightened of the idea and pretty much did everything they could to >>> prevent any possibility of it. Several Federalist Papers are mostly >>> dedicated to this problem and it was debated in various legislatures >>> convened to approve or reject the Constitution. >>> >>> I think they honestly believed they had taken all necessary steps to >>> prevent the possibility of a standing federal army and didn't believe >>> it would happen. With that assumption in mind, the question of a >>> president as commander-in-chief was reduced to only one of being the >>> executive officer over an army formed for specific purposes by the >>> Congress. And for that, most agreed that the president should be in >>> command. But this was a case where the Congress had to first act in >>> order to create an army (which takes money to do.) When the army >>> exists all the time and is funded all the time, the question >>> re-arises. And if they had had to face it, I'm sure they would NOT >>> have permitted him such power. >>> >>> They simply didn't believe there was any real risk of a President >>> running amok with a military presence in the US or elsewhere without >>> Congressional approval and funding, since that would be needed in >>> order to create the military that the President would then command. >>> Since there was no standing army to worry about, a President couldn't >>> go around fielding a military presence elsewhere without the time and >>> Congressional funding approvals required. >>> >>> They felt sufficiently comfortable with a President being commander in >>> chief during times of war __enabled__ by Congress. They felt that >>> they had eliminated any risks of a President as commander in chief at >>> other times, by removing the possibility of a standing, well-trained >>> army which, to create, would require Congress to act. But on this >>> last point, it turns out they were dead wrong. They hadn't removed >>> the possibility of a standing army and they didn't face the question >>> of a Presidency in control over a perpetual military force. >> >>Thank you for the interesting post. >> >>I am still unsure though, in the US can anyone declare "war?" > > Anyone can use the word. There are no 'language police' like France > may have. > >>Does there have to be a formal declaration of war? > > The Presidential office was given the right to command the army and > the navy, when they are created for a time by Congress. His title is > 'commander-in-chief' and, so far as I'm aware of the history (and by > no means am I an expert on it) this means the ability to direct the > day to day operations -- like a General in command. The power was not > constrained. He can literally command them into the streets of a city > here and direct them to hold a town square, if he wanted to. Whether > or not the military, so ordered, would obey the command is another > question because there is a requirement that they only obey orders > that are Constitutional. But which of them would set themselves up as > a Constitutional scholar and disobey? So I think the effect of all > this is that the President has absolute control over the military, > consistent with the military commanders' own understanding of what is > Constitutional. The check against this is largely "the purse," which > is controlled by the House of Representatives. They can pull the > official funding. > > However, even that seems to be specious. Under Carter, a presidential > executive order forbade any US citizen or official or business from > being involved in supplying arms into Central America. This order was > recinded under Reagan, an administration that wanted to supply arms to > the Contras (and others.) The Congress reacted to this by passing a > series of Amendments to bills, which came to be known as the Boland > Amendments, that put Carter's executive order into law. In effect, > the President's budget for this kind of thing was limited to 24 > million dollars a year -- which his administration (most expecially, > George Bush the VP and some of his cohorts) felt was completely > useless for their intents. This led them to find other ways. (1) > They added a piece to a 1982 banking bill that for the first time > extended federal guarantees to each account, rather than to each > citizen. This allowed them to go to the banks, convince them they > would be insured by the feds when the accounts went sour, and ordered > them to make offshore loans as they indicated which would be used to > buy arms and pay necessary graft. (2) They started a process of > bringing in cocaine into the US, having agents contact known importers > of marijuana and giving them a non-choice (forcing) of either being > killed or else having their operation otherwise shut down or else > helping them break up the cocaine and sell it for money they needed. > This led to the change here in the US from where marijuana imports > were a serious problem to where cocaine rapidly became the 'new drug' > here. (3) They over-priced arms sales to Iran (and probably others), > transfered the the book-price to the US and kept the rest of the > profits for use in buying arms to ship into Central America. > > So even when the House acts to remove (or almost remove) funding, that > doesn't mean that a motivated executive won't find some other means. > Some of the people who were personally involved in that debacle, are > back in important appointed positions in this administration, by the > way. > >>Is it a presidential prerogative or one retained by congress? > > The House (1/2 of the Congress) sets funding levels. The executive > branch uses that funding. Even if the House set a low funding level > in order to just fund certain operations explicitly in the law, the > executive branch could ignore the restrictions and use the money for > purposes specifically barred in the legislation. He remains the day > to day operational manager of the funds he is given. > >>Can war be declared on things like obesity, heart disease, poverty etc? > > It can. But that wuold be an abuse of the word. > > We have a war on the middle class going on here, too. But again that > is an abuse of the word, I think. > > Jon
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 18:27
"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:23onq25chhnknmfuva80otkuh6v6fj86lo(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:57:03 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > <snip> >>Can war be declared on things like obesity, heart disease, poverty etc? > > It can. But that wuold be an abuse of the word. > > We have a war on the middle class going on here, too. But again that > is an abuse of the word, I think. Sorry, pressed send too soon before. All I wanted to say was, thanks for an informative post. |