Nuclear missiles were being sent within range of the United States. From what I've seen, these missiles have the range of the missiles currently under discussion from Iran, in terms of Israel.
When I checked last, Israel is one of our allies.
Clearly, they are punching above their weight.
Within the last week, the Obama Administration has leaked information about Israel, and their intention to defend themselves against attack, with nuclear devastation, from Iran. And I'm reminded of a time when America had to deal with nuclear weapons, within a hundred miles of our territory.
It was known as the Cuban Missile Crisis.
So, let's take a look. Our President(?)'s offers to talk to Iran. International sanctions.
What would happen to Iran if we enforced a naval blockade?
And why is it, that the question isn't on the board? We want to relegate this decision to a question of existence for our ally, Israel. When we could put an iron fence around the ports of Iran. With one simple request; end your nuclear program.
Someone, somewhere said, "War is an extension of diplomacy by other means."
I know that our President is a committed advocate for the end of imperialism. I don't necessarily argue the point, since I've never felt that American foreign policy ever had an emphasis on creating an imperial America. Have we had moments when we've extended our control and authority over others who didn't have a clue who we were, or where we were from? Yep. Like chess pieces in the Grand Game. Doing a Google search isn't going to help you here. None of the sources that would elucidate your voyage to understanding world international politics, and the balance of power, get switched to your desktop. You're going to find either that you don't care to learn, or choose to go to a reasonable library, to answer for yourself, the importance of finding the answer to this question.
It seems entirely too near to find ourselves locked out of our own history and our nation's policies. But the intertubes is a controlling bitch, and simply disregards the requests of the User. We don't have to lie about the past, we need only break the link to the past.
Military force is an extension of diplomatic maneuvering. It has been, and always will be. As much as Progressives and Democrats have advocated for negotiation and conversation, existential concerns still exist around the planet. Having the wherewithal to exert positive force into the equation of determining the choice of any particular government, the lack of positive military force is a certain game changer. When the oil embargo in 1973 occurred, the head of the Saudi government asked, "how many aircraft carriers do the Japanese have?"
You don't have to be a hawk to understand that the values we hold as Americans are values worth holding. Respect for the individual, standing before law, freedom from coercion, these are the American values that our Fathers and Grandfathers fought for, and our young are dying for, today. Freedom. Liberty. These aren't foreign concepts for Americans, but they certainly are for much of the rest of the world.
Europeans talk somewhat in the manner we converse. But it's not the same thing. Europeans never believed that individuals could ever decide for themselves what it is that is appropriate for that individual to do, under any circumstance. The European mind is conditioned from decades and centuries of servility to the State. Asian nations view themselves as citizens under the authority of their national governments. African nations struggle to find the balance between national authority and individual autonomy. The number of country's that adhere closely to our American ideal of individual autonomy is a short list. And, I'm afraid, that there's every indication that England will soon fall of this list.
Canada, America, Columbia, Australia, India, Israel and in a sense, Korea and Japan, stand squarely opposed to oppression. The Malays are close. Maybe even post-Apartheid South Africa. There are smaller countries in Central America who are fighting for the values of the individual, but they are under attack, from the least likely source; the Obama Administration.
World geo-political centers exist. Europe, Russia, the former Soviet republics. In the Middle East, we're watching the slow death of Syria, without the concomitant rise of Lebanon. We tip-toe around states like Jordan. Somalia is in total disarray, and ignore the threats revolving around allies like the UAE. How many Yemens will it take to ask the question, do we have a functional, coherent, international policy?
And then, we have our President making off-camera comments to the Russian president.
Malfeasance.
"The commission of an act that is unequivocally illegal or completely wrongful.
"Malfeasance is a comprehensive term used in both civil and Criminal Law to describe any act that is wrongful. It is not a distinct crime or tort, but may be used generally to describe any act that is criminal or that is wrongful and gives rise to, or somehow contributes to, the injury of another person.
"Malfeasance is an affirmative act that is illegal or wrongful. In tort law it is distinct from misfeasance, which is an act that is not illegal but is improperly performed. It is also distinct from Nonfeasance, which is a failure to act that results in injury.
"The distinctions between malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance have little effect on tort law. Whether a claim of injury is for one or the other, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed a duty of care, that the duty was breached in some way, and that the breach caused injury to the plaintiff.
"One exception is that under the law of Strict Liability, the plaintiff need not show the absence of due care. The law of strict liability usually is applied to Product Liability cases, where a manufacturer can be held liable for harm done by a product that was harmful when it was placed on the market. In such cases the plaintiff need not show any actual malfeasance on the part of the manufacturer. A mistake is enough to create liability because the law implies that for the sake of public safety, a manufacturer warrants a product's safety when it offers the product for sale.
"malfeasance n. intentionally doing something either legally or morally wrong which one had no right to do. It always involves dishonesty, illegality, or knowingly exceeding authority for improper reasons. Malfeasance is distinguished from'misfeasance,' which is committing a wrong or error by mistake, negligence or inadvertence, but not by intentional wrongdoing. Example: a city manager putting his indigent cousin on the city payroll at a wage the manager knows is above that allowed and/or letting him file false time cards is malfeasance; putting his able cousin on the payroll which, unknown to him, is a violation of an anti-nepotism statute is misfeasance. This distinction can apply to corporate officers, public officials, trustees, and others cloaked with responsibility."
The President adheres to his own agenda. Americans must adhere to theirs. There is little doubt in my mind, that an American President would have taken steps in Harm's Way, to defend her Allies. I have little doubt that our current President will do everything in his power to avoid taking a stand.
It's Change. And Hope. Just no work product.
.
Ten Mile Island
Friday, March 30, 2012
Not Just Wrong, But Dangerous
Living in a post-racial country is pretty exciting. The dreams of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King are being realized every day, as our nation is rejuvenated through the incredible healing powers of our first post-racial President.
In Israel, the President's former pastor is engaging in bring peace to the region.as protestors throw rocks and firebombs at police. In Florida, his bud's in the New Black Panther Party are oiling the waters. As is noted peace activist, the Reverend Al Sharpton.
And of course, serving the best interest of our country and our allies, our President is engaging in the Great Game, revealing the secrets necessary to defend the Iranians from the outcomes of their struggle for peace.
Yup. Living in a post-racial, progressive Utopia is a great experience.
A firm hand at the tiller.
Well, I've gotta go. Heading out to the golf course. Leadership, you know.
In Israel, the President's former pastor is engaging in bring peace to the region.as protestors throw rocks and firebombs at police. In Florida, his bud's in the New Black Panther Party are oiling the waters. As is noted peace activist, the Reverend Al Sharpton.
And of course, serving the best interest of our country and our allies, our President is engaging in the Great Game, revealing the secrets necessary to defend the Iranians from the outcomes of their struggle for peace.
Yup. Living in a post-racial, progressive Utopia is a great experience.
A firm hand at the tiller.
Well, I've gotta go. Heading out to the golf course. Leadership, you know.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Quote of the Day
"Gee, I'm shocked. You mean to say that massive, centrally-planned economies like those of North Korea and Zimbabwe don't work?
"Democrats == Schmucks."
Doug Ross.
"Democrats == Schmucks."
Doug Ross.
Learning How to Be A Racist (Again)
There have been instances during the current Presidency, that I've proverbially bitten my tongue.
When a person hears and sees a man speak, or reads his written words, that person has the obligation to derive certain parsings.
"Is it true?"
"Is it honest?"
"Does it attempt to conceal the truth?"
There is a difference between truth and honesty. And I think it's worthwhile taking a moment and asking yourself, "is what you enunciate as your opinion both true and honest?" You can hold an opinion as both true and honest, but that isn't a necessary condition for both cases in fact.
It may seem sufficient for you to hold views that are both opinion and fact that are true, but what happens when your opinions are false? You truthfully hold your opinion. To you, that may elevate your opinion to fact, but it doesn't. Your opinions are simply, your opinions. Facts are tricky things. Things that may be facts, in your opinion, may fail disastrously in the world of critical thinking. Think of it this way, if A is equal to 440, then any other note cannot be A. 2 + 2 = 4. No other possibility exists. There are certain conditions, held a priori, that define conditions that are both necessary and sufficient. No other outcome is possible. This thing, this fact, cannot be any thing other, than what it is. Whether you view perception as a critical position, or the the process of deduction as a critical position, if what you both view and what you perceive intellectually a priori match, there's a good chance that you've divined something that is both objectively true, and subjectively true.
It is necessary that when you add 2 + 2 = 4, that 2 + 2 is in fact, 4. When you deal with non-rational numbers, it can be posited that the result is four, when in fact, it is some number other than four. It is sufficient that the number reported is "4", when the actual result is a non-rational number that approaches four, but cannot logically, nor mathematically, ever be four. This, in the math world, is "close enough for government work." And limit theory is a well advanced science. The limit is a demonstrable fact. We can know what a number will never be.
Learning how to discern between opinion and fact isn't easy. Why is it that 2 + 2 is always equal to 4? Before we begin to examine why, what is it we know about numbers? For one thing, a number is a purely intellectual construct. There isn't a street we walk down with numbers sharing the sidewalk with us. Maybe we'd all be better mathematicians if we lived in a world like this; sharing sidewalks and shopping carts with us. We'd get to know numbers for what they are; counting positions. One, as discreet from other whole numbers, such as, two.
Our three questions are:
"Is it true?"
"Is it honest?"
"Does it attempt to conceal the truth?"
Is One discreetly different from Two?
Yes.
Yes.
No.
There is no other case when this condition, "Is one different from two?" is falsified. It is an accurate statement of the conditions observed, and that the description fails to conceal the nature of the object being observed is true both a priori and a posteriori.(Yes, it's true, I've introduced a subjunctive case. Whatever you do, please don't Wiki.)
"Is it true?"
"Is it honest?"
"Does it attempt to conceal the truth?"
In my world, people are people.
Whether yellow, black or white. Red, young or old. Bald or hirsute. Fat kids, skinny kids, kids who climb on rocks, tough kids, sissy kids, even kids with chicken pox.
(This is, by the way, my objection to abortion. When you kill any unborn child, you may be killing the next great American. Any unborn child. YB or W.)
Why must a government take care of its citizens?
"Is it true?"
"Is it honest?"
"Does it attempt to conceal the truth?"
Huh?
Reparations for citizens. If you can't take care of yourself, then, the role of government is to take care of you, for you.
Why must a government take care of its citizens? This is an incredible shift in governance for Americans. Not for Europeans, whose governments we abandoned when we left the Old World. The New World was founded on beliefs held a priori, that all men are created equally, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That there are places where a government cannot intrude. Not that they could lack the force to intrude, any state with police powers has the force, either sufficient or necessary, to intrude at will. In terms of sheer force, it has to be admitted that the United States is without peer when it comes to either sufficient or necessary force. (For the moment.)
Why must a government take care of its citizens? In the United States, and the Thirteen Colonies that preceded the Articles of Confederation and our current Constitution, there were the conditions that were necessary and sufficient to observe that governments that allowed persons the freedom to choose their own beliefs, investments, employment and choices, that this system of limited governance would allow free men to choose their own ways for living their lives. Freedom was the essential God given right that made all men equal.
Outcomes?
Coldly, outcomes were dependent upon the individual. The benefit? That any man could achieve status, wealth and success dependent solely upon his own merit. No license, no benefit from any government to achieve wealth or success dependent upon the power of the State to confer benefit to any individual, company or enterprise. His life, and his choices, were the only determinants of his success.
Problem is, in the Ten Commandments. I call it "Number Ten."
"You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
Simple rule. If it isn't yours, it isn't yours. Get over it.
As far as I can see, disregard for this simple rule has cause the world more grief than any other thing. Not murder, not adultery, not theft. Maybe false witness. And God has time to wait for you to give up worshiping false idols. All the time in the world.
But coveting has a certain pretense. Looking for that which doesn't add up. When 2 + 2 doesn't seem to add up to four. The guy down the street has stuff I don't have. There's a guy at work that took the weekend off with his family and went camping in the desert. The boss has a better car than me, but I work more hours than him.
There's always a reason why we can't advance...why "I" can't advance. I have advantages in terms of who I am, and what I'm capable of doing, yet, I can't seem to gain the kind of success that I see in others. It isn't fair.
This is a chart from the FBI.
Point is, we tend to covet that which we see, not that which we don't see.
"Is it true?"
"Is it honest?"
"Does it attempt to conceal the truth?"
Is it true? Take any idea being advanced in the media, the current debate, and ask yourself, is it true? Is so-and-so a white Hispanic? Do Republicans hate the poor? Is Congress failing to act? Is Obama concerned about the middle class?
Is it honest? When I found out, tonight, that NBC news edited the 911 call from the guy in Florida, well, shit.
“'This guy looks like he’s up to no good … he looks black,' Zimmerman told a police dispatcher.'" (Here.)
I've done some searching, well, quite a bit, and it seems the offending audio or video isn't available on the interwebs. But here's the deal; what NBC news did tonight is clearly an offense against the range of values that can be used to accommodate the variations between truth, honesty and deliberate misdirection. It was a conscious decision to mislead.
You can listen to the unedited call here.
"He looks black."
Why was this statement uttered?
Zimmerman is a "white Hispanic." NBC reported that Zimmerman said "He looks black." As if he were racist (?).
A white Hispanic. A dead black kid.
The economy is going south, our reputation in the world community is in the toilet, the shooter is a Democrat and we're being lectured on race from the White House.
"Is it true?"
"Is it honest?"
"Does it attempt to conceal the truth?"
When a person hears and sees a man speak, or reads his written words, that person has the obligation to derive certain parsings.
"Is it true?"
"Is it honest?"
"Does it attempt to conceal the truth?"
There is a difference between truth and honesty. And I think it's worthwhile taking a moment and asking yourself, "is what you enunciate as your opinion both true and honest?" You can hold an opinion as both true and honest, but that isn't a necessary condition for both cases in fact.
It may seem sufficient for you to hold views that are both opinion and fact that are true, but what happens when your opinions are false? You truthfully hold your opinion. To you, that may elevate your opinion to fact, but it doesn't. Your opinions are simply, your opinions. Facts are tricky things. Things that may be facts, in your opinion, may fail disastrously in the world of critical thinking. Think of it this way, if A is equal to 440, then any other note cannot be A. 2 + 2 = 4. No other possibility exists. There are certain conditions, held a priori, that define conditions that are both necessary and sufficient. No other outcome is possible. This thing, this fact, cannot be any thing other, than what it is. Whether you view perception as a critical position, or the the process of deduction as a critical position, if what you both view and what you perceive intellectually a priori match, there's a good chance that you've divined something that is both objectively true, and subjectively true.
It is necessary that when you add 2 + 2 = 4, that 2 + 2 is in fact, 4. When you deal with non-rational numbers, it can be posited that the result is four, when in fact, it is some number other than four. It is sufficient that the number reported is "4", when the actual result is a non-rational number that approaches four, but cannot logically, nor mathematically, ever be four. This, in the math world, is "close enough for government work." And limit theory is a well advanced science. The limit is a demonstrable fact. We can know what a number will never be.
Learning how to discern between opinion and fact isn't easy. Why is it that 2 + 2 is always equal to 4? Before we begin to examine why, what is it we know about numbers? For one thing, a number is a purely intellectual construct. There isn't a street we walk down with numbers sharing the sidewalk with us. Maybe we'd all be better mathematicians if we lived in a world like this; sharing sidewalks and shopping carts with us. We'd get to know numbers for what they are; counting positions. One, as discreet from other whole numbers, such as, two.
Our three questions are:
"Is it true?"
"Is it honest?"
"Does it attempt to conceal the truth?"
Is One discreetly different from Two?
Yes.
Yes.
No.
There is no other case when this condition, "Is one different from two?" is falsified. It is an accurate statement of the conditions observed, and that the description fails to conceal the nature of the object being observed is true both a priori and a posteriori.(Yes, it's true, I've introduced a subjunctive case. Whatever you do, please don't Wiki.)
"Is it true?"
"Is it honest?"
"Does it attempt to conceal the truth?"
In my world, people are people.
Whether yellow, black or white. Red, young or old. Bald or hirsute. Fat kids, skinny kids, kids who climb on rocks, tough kids, sissy kids, even kids with chicken pox.
(This is, by the way, my objection to abortion. When you kill any unborn child, you may be killing the next great American. Any unborn child. YB or W.)
Why must a government take care of its citizens?
"Is it true?"
"Is it honest?"
"Does it attempt to conceal the truth?"
Huh?
Reparations for citizens. If you can't take care of yourself, then, the role of government is to take care of you, for you.
Why must a government take care of its citizens? This is an incredible shift in governance for Americans. Not for Europeans, whose governments we abandoned when we left the Old World. The New World was founded on beliefs held a priori, that all men are created equally, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That there are places where a government cannot intrude. Not that they could lack the force to intrude, any state with police powers has the force, either sufficient or necessary, to intrude at will. In terms of sheer force, it has to be admitted that the United States is without peer when it comes to either sufficient or necessary force. (For the moment.)
Why must a government take care of its citizens? In the United States, and the Thirteen Colonies that preceded the Articles of Confederation and our current Constitution, there were the conditions that were necessary and sufficient to observe that governments that allowed persons the freedom to choose their own beliefs, investments, employment and choices, that this system of limited governance would allow free men to choose their own ways for living their lives. Freedom was the essential God given right that made all men equal.
Outcomes?
Coldly, outcomes were dependent upon the individual. The benefit? That any man could achieve status, wealth and success dependent solely upon his own merit. No license, no benefit from any government to achieve wealth or success dependent upon the power of the State to confer benefit to any individual, company or enterprise. His life, and his choices, were the only determinants of his success.
Problem is, in the Ten Commandments. I call it "Number Ten."
"You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
Simple rule. If it isn't yours, it isn't yours. Get over it.
As far as I can see, disregard for this simple rule has cause the world more grief than any other thing. Not murder, not adultery, not theft. Maybe false witness. And God has time to wait for you to give up worshiping false idols. All the time in the world.
But coveting has a certain pretense. Looking for that which doesn't add up. When 2 + 2 doesn't seem to add up to four. The guy down the street has stuff I don't have. There's a guy at work that took the weekend off with his family and went camping in the desert. The boss has a better car than me, but I work more hours than him.
There's always a reason why we can't advance...why "I" can't advance. I have advantages in terms of who I am, and what I'm capable of doing, yet, I can't seem to gain the kind of success that I see in others. It isn't fair.
This is a chart from the FBI.
Point is, we tend to covet that which we see, not that which we don't see.
"Is it true?"
"Is it honest?"
"Does it attempt to conceal the truth?"
Is it true? Take any idea being advanced in the media, the current debate, and ask yourself, is it true? Is so-and-so a white Hispanic? Do Republicans hate the poor? Is Congress failing to act? Is Obama concerned about the middle class?
Is it honest? When I found out, tonight, that NBC news edited the 911 call from the guy in Florida, well, shit.
“'This guy looks like he’s up to no good … he looks black,' Zimmerman told a police dispatcher.'" (Here.)
I've done some searching, well, quite a bit, and it seems the offending audio or video isn't available on the interwebs. But here's the deal; what NBC news did tonight is clearly an offense against the range of values that can be used to accommodate the variations between truth, honesty and deliberate misdirection. It was a conscious decision to mislead.
You can listen to the unedited call here.
"He looks black."
Why was this statement uttered?
Zimmerman is a "white Hispanic." NBC reported that Zimmerman said "He looks black." As if he were racist (?).
A white Hispanic. A dead black kid.
The economy is going south, our reputation in the world community is in the toilet, the shooter is a Democrat and we're being lectured on race from the White House.
"Is it true?"
"Is it honest?"
"Does it attempt to conceal the truth?"
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Love
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
October Baby here.
October Baby here.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Requiring Americans To Purchase Alcohol
I'm for it. Imagine America where there's booze everywhere. Nirvana.
Take the flip-side; banning the purchase of alcohol. What would it take to ban the production and consumption of alcohol?
In America's case, it required a Constitutional Amendment. Then, another to repeal.
Requiring an American to do a thing is possible under our system of government. But it does require an Amendment to our Constitution.
The rules are out there. If you've ever read the Constitution.
Take the flip-side; banning the purchase of alcohol. What would it take to ban the production and consumption of alcohol?
In America's case, it required a Constitutional Amendment. Then, another to repeal.
Requiring an American to do a thing is possible under our system of government. But it does require an Amendment to our Constitution.
The rules are out there. If you've ever read the Constitution.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Thursday, March 8, 2012
"All Linky"
Ever wonder about the constraints our Constitution imposes on military action?
Don't worry.
Don't worry.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
"All Linky"
It's good to be busy. I'm not complaining.
Here's stuff you should know.
Chasing Andrew.
It's the economists, stupid.
Will CNBC ever put a leash on Steve Liesman?
Here's stuff you should know.
Chasing Andrew.
It's the economists, stupid.
Will CNBC ever put a leash on Steve Liesman?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)