Thursday, December 18, 2008

Where did the Hawks Go?

I don't always think in complete little ideas, usually just unfinished chunks of bigger ones. After the Mubai attacks I was more inclined to a hawk type of solution. Trying to get my head around some type of simplified policy to deal with the whole thing i read this quote posted on Ace. Along list of attacks followed by:

'"So enough. No more empty talk. No more idle promises. No more happy ignorance, half measures, or appeasement-minded platitudes. The time for hard-nosed, uncompromising action hasn't merely come – it's been overdue by seven years. The voice of our brothers' blood cries out from the ground.'"
The quote come from World Net Daily: Enough is enough of radical Islam. Not much of a fan of the site after all the birth certificate pieces they have been running. It summed up most of the problems i have with the current foreign policies. Of course it also went way to far.
"Enough with the myths. Not everyone on earth is crying out for freedom. There are plenty of people who are happy in their misery, believing that their suffering is part and parcel of a correct religious system. Those people direct their anger outward, targeting unbelievers. We cannot simply knock off dictators and expect indoctrinated populations to rise to the liberal democratic challenge. The election of Hamas in the Gaza Strip is more a rule than an exception in the Islamic world."
What do we do then? Carpet bomb? No, people can't cry out for freedom if they have no idea what it is. The only exeption i might make is for North Korea. Coexistence between their religion and a free society can't be found if they can't define freedom and are not taught to read even their own religious texts let alone any examination of any real kind of history. That is complete nonsense. The election of Hamas? What where the other choices? Would they even know what one would look like? Compare it to the thoughts of one that has been on the ground In that part of the world.
"Enough with the lies. Stop telling us that Islam is a religion of peace. If it is, prove it through action."
I don't have the intellectual ammo to refute this but I don't believe that to be the whole truth. What I do know that that will make at the least a whole lot of very uncooperative people. It is not that black an white although it should be more clear than it is being portrayed. The piece was a nice ramble but would convince no one of his view. He is preaching to the choir. It is nice from time to time but is absolutely useless to me. I moved on it fell out of the news.

Then today there is this: Some Disparate Dots from Shrink Wrap via Bookworm Room and Watcher’s Council nominations. This is a much better and more useful way to look at the matter.

"The West chose, and President Bush could not or would not take issue with the prevailing wisdom, to treat Islamic terror as distinct from and in conflict with traditional Islam as practiced and supported by states throughout the Muslim world. This was always an argument that had more realpolitik to it than reality and it crucially caused the West to disarm in the intellectual and information aspects of the ideological struggle with Islamic radicalism. Traditional Islam is a target rich environment for an ideological struggle. The traditionalists are completely inept in dealing with ridicule yet they constantly insist on issuing a stream of ridiculous pronouncements."
Then very nicely slides into our side of the problem.
'Compounding our problems, the West has been in an extended ideological slide of its own. It is not just that our elites have become unmoored from the traditional anchors of our ethics and morality (religion, tradition) but they have adopted as their ideological underpinnings a new variant on the Marxist mantra. We have gone from "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" to a more nuanced and contemporary "to each according to his desires, from each according to his willingness to donate (sometimes under coercion) his time, energy, and money."'
Religion in this case as religious philosophy not of articles of faith from my view. Wrapping it up:
"All these dots may only be related in my imagination yet they suggest that the Obama administration is going to elect not to fight ideologically against the Islamists but will try to manage terror using a policing model (with the more unsavory aspcets of the Bush approach, such as extraordinary rendition, simply being hidden and denied) which is guaranteed to never address the actual causes of Islamic terror."
A much more reasoned approach. It is as well a clear example of how the basic ideology of the in coming administration leads to all kinds of problems. Frankly it is dangerous. I found the Bush administration to walk a tight rope between the anti-war socialistic legalistic approach and a tempered war response. We all seem to ignore all of the Obama philosophy for so much useless minutia on every thing but. Why have we moved so far from the alternative to both takes?

From my hawkish prospective it is about time to ramp up the military, call those causing the problems out and be done with all this. Very over simplified. Yes military action should be the last resort but it should be all but off the table. What has been gained by the endless talking to to Iran? What happened to calling at least for regime change in places like Iran? What is the state of the broadcasts into Iran? What aggressive steps are we taking? What are the consequences for the bad actors on the world stage? None?

Give me a hawk, please! I want this over with. If in the end it takes three or four more Iraqs fine. I think we have a good idea on how to do it right now. I never understood exactly what was the opposition to nation building was. Is it hard? Yes. Can it fail? Yes. Weighing that against a failed state which is less dangerous? If we went down that road again, make threats and backed them up just once I don't know that that much military intervention would be necessary.

Islamic terror is the issue on the table. When we decide to stop sitting on the fence intervene into the internal affairs of countries we should as well fix the mistakes of WWII. Change the borders when needed. Kashmir, Chechnya, Africa and any number of places. Let us all just make the push for a sustainable peace. It gets complicated when you try to enforce your will on to a country. There are basic that can be used and still allow a country retain its own culture. Free speech, some mechanism to express the will of the people, the ability of the people to obtain information (history, news, ect.) and the ability for citizens to leave for another country if they so desire.

Obama and crew with a legalistic approach giving enemies of all stripes room to make gains if not achieve their goals. Bush just trying to hold the line with the Obama types on his back. Maybe just may be we need to take a look at a more hawkish approach and at least get this over with and at best build a lasting peace.

My Brain as a Bad Filter on the World

My brain works in a kind of non sequential manner. It takes in info and ideas and then tends to boil it down, it is much easier to remember and understand for me. When I go to explain an idea the finer detail that went in is lost. I think in much more complex and explain more simply. As much as it may be an impediment to getting ideas out I don't think I'd change for fear of losing the little gains in insight I make on my own.

I is not that others haven't made the same little leaps, but no one can read everything. As for me I read far less than i should. My insights I understand. It my required a book to be written to convincingly get the same point across. To be clear I can usually ramble to several badly organized pages on a topic not to a convincing book.

Thus the heart of my brain problems. The outside view is one of over simplified and poorly thought out views. They may be at times but often it is me trying to stick to the point. The point, I am always trying to find or write in concise way that I don't have to boil down and can be reproduced out of my head with ease.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Christmas Bail Out

Ah Levity

U.S. Says It Will Bail Out: Christmas Easter and even Valentine's Day might be next.

'Apparently Santa's difficulties in "producing product," as Mr. Paulson described it, originated in a poorly understood aspect of the jolly elf's current operations known as "Christmas list swaps," or CLIPS.'
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, notwithstanding that she is the mother of five children, has reportedly told Mr. Paulson that Congress will bail out Christmas only in return for a promise from Santa Claus to "go green." Speaker Pelosi said the Environmental Defense Fund has long complained about Santa's eight tiny reindeer and that Mr. Claus would be asked to appear this Tuesday before Rep. Barney Frank's committee with a plan to reduce the sleigh's carbon footprint."

It is funny when your not talking about reality.

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Appeasement of States vs. Terrorists

Deepak Chopra. The first I knew much of him was an interview with Glen Beck. Some what interesting but a little new agey for me. I almost gave up on saying anything on the matter but Bill O'Reilly has Deepak Chopra on tonight so.

Basically Chopra blames the attacks in India on US policies and actions. You expect some one to say it. US policies do have bad side effects but not that. It is one of those ideas I just can't get my head around. I see the logic but it is just to much of a stretch.The "hate America" comments started, fine, what else is new. There is the back and forth and over the top analysis, Hannity has him on, that goes well, then Chopra fires back from the Huffington Post? He writes for the Huffington Post, D o n e. I like when people make it easy for me to ignore them. Another wonderful political extreme on extreme attack. A complete waste of every one's time. Someone should really do something about all this extreme on extreme verbal abuse.

For the record allowing any of these groups to fester in any back water is not an option. They are after a world wide Muslim State, not tomorrow but it is on the table down the road. Any thing of interest in any of this? One comment caught my ear. I think it was a Chopra comment but I was at that moment paralyzed trying to decide if I should hurry and catch the brain cell leaving my head or dive for the remote to stop the loss. Who it was is irrelevant to the point. Someone applied the appeasement to the terrorists. Appeasement is a kind of slow walk pacifism. Arguments can be made for pacifism but not so much appeasement in general.

The terminology is usually reserved for nation states. Just the idea of it being applied to terrorists jumps what might under some sort of extreme circumstance might be reluctantly acceptable. It usually starts with allowing a military build up, a pay off of resources or allowing territory to be annexed. Not of that is possible. We go directly to the actions that make the initial appeasement so dangerous. Surrender of whole states, changing of internal laws or policies and direct weakening of national security(ie. Cuban missiles). So what exactly are we talking about when we are appeasing terrorists?

Other Links:
Deepak Blames America -
CNN wins, FOX loses, Deepak Chopra and other Mumbai thoughts
Mumbai Terror: CNN & 'Uncomfortable Questions'
The Mumbai Attacks - Al Qaeda, Pakistani Proxies or Hindutva Backlash? | Crooks and Liars

Friday, December 5, 2008

Responsive Goverment Or Parroting the Drooling Idiocracy

Being responsive to the people sounds really good and it can be. As of late that has taken the form of parroting every ignorant half truth that is drooled out. Congress should be listening and using the great or informing the drool. It's leadership once again. Leaders learn and teach not parrot. They should as well know there limits.

The limit in this case is the auto bail out /loan /loan guarantee /bridge loan /credit line /take your pick. I want to know who in Congress has run a multi-national company and who thinks they have any idea what the hell needs to be done to keep them going. On that note just give them a loan, make it so we are paid first if they go under and leave them ALONE! Frankly if I ran one of these companies I would tell Congress where they could stick it. One of many jobs I would be fired from in the first week.

We operate in a free market. You congress have continually messed with our industry though union support, fuel efficiency/green nonsense, general uncertainty of ever shifting rules and (not Congress) general interference of local/state laws. Get off our backs! We greatly appreciate the infrastructure, protection of the armed services, the great people that joined us after they finished their service, general civil order and all that is required fora generally stable society. Thank you. However WE will stand or fall without your help outside of that now. Get off our backs keep your money, the green money as well. Despite everything you pile on, every road block you put up and ignorant or misinformed law you pass we will succeed! We will stand of fail with our suppliers, employees, management, products and customers. Thank You very much but no thank you.

I can have my dreams can't I. I hope that some day those with a little more honor, integrity and self reliance out number those with just enough to get by. Leadership at all levels. Dreams. They are a nice brake.

Parroting the drooling idiocracy. Big busies is not evil. Big business is big.

Private jets are not breaking the companies. Should the executives of a failing company spend 10 hours driving to D.C. and back? They just pissed two days away, it is a giant waste of time. They use the jets for a reason. Efficiency.

Advertisement, also serves a purpose. Ford I think stopped advertising for a number of years and after a while lost a large amount of market share. It is the height of arrogance to think you can just make things and the people will come running especially if they don't know your there. So Citi Bank having their name on a stadium? A great and unbelievable opportunity. I Hate it. I think it cheapens the stadium. That doesn't mean it is bad for the company. How many times will your name be mentioned? How much air time will you get during the games. What about playoffs or the world series? The record books? All the other events that go on there? What would that cost the company? What of word of mouth? Not of what the company does but just the name. It is the biggest kind of political yard sign in the world.

Among CEOs not doing enough, varied laws, union crap both ways and varied other nonsense one stands out. They did not move to fuel efficiency green cars fast enough. My TV usually cries every time some one even hints at this. Not because it knows better, it is very afraid. Afraid that at least it will get yelled at and at worst suddenly disassembles with a bat, ground to little pieces under my feet, and set on fire. It has come close to its end many and survived. After Congressman Frank on Larry King said exactly that that was the whole problem it needed stiff drink and a day off. It is better, it's muted most days.

Fuel efficiency. uh? Clearly I am not against pollution control. Pol lu tion. Mercury, lead, sulfur and others. Not Freak'n CO2.

Fuel efficiency. That is the problem. Why didn't you pass a law Congress. That would fix it. So its your mistake using your logic. (I don't have a bat your fine.)

What is it gotten use. Some good yes. It has also contributes to the crappy cars of the 80's and the complicated hard and expensive cars to fix. I had a used1988 domestic with one of the early aluminum heads. Nice idea horrible in practice, they figured it out eventually only after most warped and had to be replaced. Replacing that thing was a nightmare. Why aluminum heads, fuel efficiency. Why fiberglass panels, bumpers that cost thousands to fix, computer controlled to with in an inch of its life, hundreds for maintenance every 30 thousand miles, and virtual impossibility to fix them yourself? I spent half a day replacing two belts on my current car. I am not a mechanic but half a day for two freak'n belts. Take my self reliance away I don't care. (Oh don't cry you didn't do it this time.) How much money has been lost to all this? Could the car companies made and done more if they didn't spend so much time on Congressional mandated crap. People wanted fuel efficient car in the early eighties Congress didn't need to pass a law the market took care of it.

The other TV destroying piece of info (no no your fine) is that the hybrids still cost more than the non hybrids. Up until recently few wanted them. What were they supposed to do. Make cars that were, or would have been, massively more expensive that no one wanted. They would be out of business now. Fields fill with great fuel efficient cars that cost 60, 100 thousand dollars. That would be great. I seem to remember a story 3 yrs ago about a sports car that ran on batteries. Good, but the batteries cost about a million dollars. The tech has been too expensive or just didn't exist 5 years let alone in the 80's. As far as I can see most of it still is extremely problematic and the car companies are going to be pushed in to another round of crappy cars and finally out of business.

Congress, Parroting the drooling idiocracy of America till there is no America left.