Venezuela: And while one man lives, another man dies

To contact us Click HERE
One of the police officers assigned from the Miranda (Venezuela State region) police force to protect presidential candidate Henrique Capriles Radonski was shot dead today. The following directly translated from this report:

"The Miranda police officer Edward Salazar, 26, who belonged to the security team of Henrique Capriles Radonski, was murdered at 05:30am this morning. Two criminals assaulted him (while he drove his car) and after robbing him of his belongings, among which was his regulation issued gun, shot him several times, according to Laverdad.com." continues here

Dare To Inquire

To contact us Click HERE
Finally I have finished reading "Dare to Inquire?" by Bruce I. Kodish. Actually I finished it about a month ago but have been involved with other pressing projects so I couldn't get the time to write this review or other posts. I know the book has been reviewed already and the reviews have been glowing to say the least. My humble effort can't match the stellar luminaries who have already commented but my direction and focus may be somewhat different from theirs and some may find merit in this essay.
There is a basic problem with General Semantics. The theory is fine but slogging through "Science and Sanity" or any of the other Korzybski texts can be daunting. He (Korzybski) writes in a highly condensed style that not only takes some acculturation but focus. Maybe it's the nature of the subject. Trying to explain the nature of meaning and context using the focus of that meaning conceptually is kind of like licking one's own elbow. You can see it, touch it, bump it and do all kinds of things with it but you can't lick it. So using language to describe the nature of language and how that language both influences and reflects societal trends, morals, ethics, laws, assumptions and folklore while also being influenced by all of he above is a difficult undertaking. Kodish, in this sense, is kind of like a Carl Saganesque character who explains GS in a way that looks at GS from a task-orientation. Take "the meaning of life" which Kodish makes into a whole chapter more appropriately titled: "The Meanings of Life." As he points out, he follows the Frnkl inquiry not the Monty Python although both end with the same conclusion.
One of the nice things Kodish does is to step-by-step, walk through the question. He takes "What is the meaning of life" and breaks it down using GS so the question is transformed from a global question into a personal one. This is interesting. "What is the meaning of life" is transformed into "How can (I, you) define the meaning of life." This fits with the whole tendency of the book to rely on individual rather than global systems which is also part and parcel of GS.
A side note here: Ian Graeme Barbour is a scholar who writes about the interface and interactions between science and religion (sound familiar?) He has written several books but by far, the one I consider the most influential is called "Myths, Models and Paradigms" written in 1974. He basically attempts to make a connection with the nature of a scientific discovery and the country, society, religion, (or lack thereof) political system and climate, and ethics of the discoverer or theory proponent. A simple case would be where something like the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg (published in 1927) could only come out of a system where the political thought mirrored the theory. If Heisenberg has been born and lived in China, he could never have come up with a theory that stressed independence of action in the sense of the theory. Barbour uses several "discoveries" to make his point and basically infers that the whole of particle physics could only have derived from democracies founded on individual achievement rather than on other equally powerful political systems.
Kodish does something similar. Using "meaning of life" he outlines it in a way that is completely western in concept and principles. Someone living under a totalitarian system where the underpinnings is adherence to the state would never examine the possibility of "self" meaning any more than a modern Dutch thinker would come up with theories where collective thinking takes place. In those situations, the personal identity of "I" would be subjugated to the collective identity of "us." (Notice that our current president constantly refers to the "collective" in most of his speeches. He refers to collective salvation, economic benefit, law, ownership and property in a collective manner rather than an individual one. So when Kodish defines the meaning of life statement in a personal manner, he is showing one of the strengths of GS for a western mind. Yes, GS is a valuable tool to allow I, Me, You to understand on an individual level but not on a collective level. Yet, GS requires agreement of definition and understanding of specifics so that generalizations can be made. If I can communicate what life means to me, it gives anyone I talk with a better chance of understanding what I mean when I speak.
Global belief systems such as political religious systems hinder communication and understanding because they rely on a fixed set of principles when the reality we are constantly confronted with is one where everything bends or is flexible. Kodish takes this concept of and attaches it with the GS concept of Time-Binding. Time-binding is basically an accumulation of information transmitted over generations or over the span of a generation. Remember that the ability to transmit or receive information does not equate with using that information but Kodish follows the Korzybski model in that sense. It's one of the few areas of disagreement I have with the book.
Time-Binders are those people who through some method become aware of the continuity of the human flow regardless of what they are told or goes on around them. An interesting read that sheds light on this is "Cosmic Consciousness" by Richard Bucke. One would suspect that Korzybski would have little regard for a book with such a title but he would be wrong. CC basically points out people who have had some kind of experience that transcends day-to-day tasks and opens them to perceive a larger, more inclusive view of humanity.
Another thing that Kodish explains well is how belief systems can be deciphered and how belief in belief can be used against he believer. In this sense, there is no collective awakening founded on belief because as soon as the collective awakens to whatever they are told, they are no further along than before. I remember sometime in the past that I was having an argument about whether music was the universal language. Stravinsky wrote that music was inherently meaningless and couldn't transmit anything. We, of course, have music that makes us happy, sad, melancholy but this is because we have come to associate the music with the feeling. There is no way that the feeling would invoke the music without the association first. Feelings of any kind can't automatically invoke any kind of sound association unless that association is already established. Taking a long walk with a group doesn't cause someone to start conceptualizing and understanding "marching" music like that of John Sousa. Somewhere, one must have seen people marching to the music and voila the association is made. Kodish points this out but using other examples and it's one of the better aspects of the book.
So how well does Kodish represent GS? Very well. But he goes further. He shows how one can use information derived from reexamining some basic principles divorced from dogma to understand how real the real can appear without a way to ferret out the wheat from the chaff.
GS has its detractors but it would be hard to find much fault with the inquiries posited by Bruce I. Kodish.
FB

Today is a Sad Day for the NASA Space Program

To contact us Click HERE
Today is a sad day. America has abrogated it's leadership role in space by turning away from a more advanced system and returning to a spiffed up version of the lunar Apollo program. This is akin to turning our back on all the work done to make automobiles last longer and require less service and adopting a 1953 Chevy BelAire as the foundation for all cars in the future. But wait, NASA isn't in the space business anymore. NASAs new charter is to make Muslims feel better about their contributions to the very same space program we are trashing. I think, unless we make some radical changes in our thinking, that historians will use the date July, 20 1969 as the date when America declines into just another sad socialist country begging for scraps from the more robust societies and looking to someone else for safety.
We need a radical change of thinking on the same level as militant Islam if we want to move the American dream forward and bury, for at least 100 years, this idea that collectivism is better.
FB

No Fly Zone

To contact us Click HERE
I've been to Libya. Actually if one looks at the country name, it has similarities with Dubya, our last president. There are a lot of flies there. There're lots of camels too and camels tend to attract flies. Getting rid of them would be a daunting task indeed. Similarly with the Libyan Air Force.
Some years back, the now venerated, by the Obama administration, Chairman Mao instituted a no-fly program in China. It was every citizens duty to kill at least one fly per day. They had contests, honors and benefits for the most killed (flies) and the most diligent. Soon, there were few flies in the cities. This was, of course, preceded by the crow shoot. The reason there were so many flies was because previously, China had declared the "War on Crows." So many were killed, to protect crops, that the insect population exploded. So the great fly swat was under way. Soon, the cities were nearly fly free. Now the result of this was that fly larvae, commonly known as maggots, didn't populate in the garbage and disease ran rampant. No amount of acupuncture could help when diseases ran rampant in the garbage fills. In essence, China had established a "Fly Free Zone."
We now have the administration positing a "Fly Free Zone" in Libya. This, of course, is so totally naive as to be foolish and will be damaging in both the short and long run. Why? Shouldn't America heed the call of the UN and throw our troops in harms way at their whim? Shouldn't we do the humanitarian thing and waste the lives of our troops to stabilize the region? In a short word, no. We should do nothing.
Does this sound crass? Maybe, but read on and I'll explain. What would we be doing if we send troops into an area? We would be reinforcing the structure of a nation that may be completely the imagination of one person. I posit the country of Yugoslavia as an example. Here is an artificial country borne in the mind of Tito. To keep it whole, Tito was a brutal dictator. There are many places in the world which are nothing more than political divisions established by people who DO NOT LIVE IN THE AREA and are not of the culture.
The world in a cultural geographic sense tends to seek it's own level just like flowing water. It's one of the reasons Islam will fail as a world religion. Right now, it's all the social rage and young people flock to militant Islam because there is little else to hold their interest that has potential global impact. Many of the people supporting Islamic causes are, in fact, supporting a system that would deprive them of the rights to support a system other than Islam.
The world needs to change. It has changed since the beginning of organized societies however small to however large. To be in a position to constantly reinforce the existing structure denies the reality of people: Too much consistency and people stagnate. Societies that once had brave and challenging ideas and systems become trapped in their own success and the ideas that founded the society are sacrificed for those that keep it safe and consistent. As we demand more consistency and sameness, we sow the seeds of our own destruction.
Regardless of whether we like war or not, it is a fact of being human. Human engage in war. It's part of the nature of being human just as it is the nature of a honey bee to gather honey.
We shouldn't be involved in the effort to keep the status quo. We did it in Kuwait with the disastrous results that we now have a major presence in Iraq. Kuwait was a province broken off of Iraq and given to a monarchy because that monarchy guaranteed cheep oil to England. The only way they can defend themselves is with the threat of America coming to their rescue or with America actually sending troops to defend them. What kind of a country is that? After all, natural law kind of says you can keep what you can defend and when you can't defend it, you lose it.
So we, in my opinion, should absolutely have nothing to do with the establishment of any kind of military action in Libya. It may seem brutal but these things have a way of working themselves out. The only road a no-fly zone can lead to is one where American boots and finally bodies hit the ground.
FB

Battlefield Resolve and the Seeds of Defeat

To contact us Click HERE
The Army has announced a new rifle. It's spectacular and guaranteed to give American soldiers a giant leap forward in personal armament. But this begs a question: Who cares what armament we have? We can have the best guns, best trained troops, best support systems and best planners and officers. We can have a mighty force that, on paper, cannot be defeated by any present foe. But without the will to use that power, it's no better than masturbating to sire children. Oh, a stray sperm might somehow find it's way to an ovum, but the chances are slim indeed. There's a book written by General Rupert Smith called "The Utility of Force." In reality, it should be called "The Futility of Force" because there is nothing quite as futile as having the ability but not the desire. That's the position we find ourselves as a nation. Our military force is without peer but we dare not use it because someone may die because of the use of that very force. In other words, we're too good for our own good.
One wonders if the Roman army stationed at Hadrian's wall felt the same. They too had overwhelming force, a solid command structure, an incredible supply and resupply line and the ability to move fast, bring to bear superior arms and superior tactics yet they were defeated by marginally trained smaller forces who were not unwilling to use and apply the force they had at their command. I guarantee you that the Taliban do not file AA Reports, account for casualties they inflict or property they destroy. If a commander fails, he is replaced. They do not have to worry about gay rights, women's issues, promotion schedules or rotating troops out. Most of them are armed at 1/10th of the typical American soldier. They have no body armor and no personal communication capability. They do not need to get permission to engage the enemy. They do not have to be fired on first and to get wounded is a badge of honor. Yet these people take on forces that overwhelm them in every capability and they are winning in some areas. They can't take us on in a head-to-head fight because regardless of how good they are as a light infantry, they have no air support and none carry enough ammunition to engage in a sustained fight.
There is a distinct possibility that without air support, we would be hard pressed to achieve the accomplishments we have done to date on the battlefield and there is only one reason: We absolutely will not use the resources at our command to guarantee an outcome in our favor.
In many ways, our current state of operations in the Mideast, make Vietnam look like a colossal success. Force is useless if one doesn't use it and we don't have the strength of resolve or belief in the righteousness of our cause to be effective in the field. Individual soldiers, are, of course, gallant and serve with distinction. But the overall lack of a plan and the variance of ROEs which change on a daily basis in some cases, sap the development of any cohesive core of actionable plans and/or paradigms that have, as their outcome, the total victory by the American Military Forces and the total subjugation of any and all enemy forces.
The famous treatise ascribed to Lao Tsu called "The Art of War" goes completely unheeded by our administration. One of the main points brought out in the book is that an Army cannot fight both an enemy and it's leaders. To do so is to curry defeat. We are currying like crazy and now positing the establishment of another AO that will be populated by American troops with no plan for victory. Doesn't this administration have any regard for the military men and the zeitgeist of both the military and the command structure tasked with operating in these areas? It appears not.
FB

Our Ally Kuwait, Printing Money and Bribery

To contact us Click HERE
Didn't we sent troops over to the Mideast? Didn't we build staging areas in Saudi Arabia? Didn't we amass a force and attack the feeble Iraqi army occupying Kuwait and in essence, return rule back to the Kuwaiti monarchy? Didn't we do that stuff and aren't they our "ally" because of those actions?
Well, it appears not. To bolster it's own economy, the Kuwaiti Dinar was "unpegged" from the greenback in 2007. The reason they did it was that because of American debt, which was miniscule at the time compare to today, was costing the Kuwaitis too much when conducting currency exchanges.
This begs a question: Should a country remain an American ally and operate with American interests economically if America sends troops and pays to free them from an oppressor? The Kuwaitis may ally with the west because it make financial interest for a time but in fact, the average Kuwaiti has contempt for America on a par with the average Saudi. We come and help them keep the status quo then as soon as it's convenient they work against American interest. So why are we in such a hurry to repeat similar military actions around the world? What great advantage do we get by propping up corrupt governments with American cash, equipment and lives if the general core of the country has contempt for America.
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not against humanitarian aid when disasters hit. I'm not against sending military advisors to help train troops and I'm not against supporting an opposing force in a land that oppresses its people. But I am against the deployment of American troops to support regimes to try to gain favor in ruling groups who have nothing but contempt for America and things American.
For as long as I can remember, American foreign policy has rested on the fact that we don't want to fight battles here. It means becoming involved with less than savory characters and governments because it is easier than dealing with a democracy that doesn't happen to agree with the American way. I still think that battles should be fought on foreign soil. I have seen war on three continents and can say with some authority that we don't want that here.
It seems to me, however, that a promising policy has become one based on bribery and payoffs to ensure the illusion of stability when, in fact, it is only illusion. Oh, a strong leader can rule with an iron fist as is the case with many of our allies, but there is limited upward potential in this kind of arrangement. We can support the tyrant with bribes, foreign aid and military aid so he/she can stay in power but what is the long-term benefit? The more I see the outcome of these matters, the more I think we are taking the wrong path. If one looks closely enough, the path we are taking really costs far more than benefits we get from the relationship. The country that stands for freedom and individual rights is often caught in the position of supporting a country extolling exactly the opposite. As an interesting exercise, take a survey of American allies in the Mideast and you will find that more often than not, we aren't support the people but a tyrant. Is this a practical, long-term program that will bring us the benefits we think it will? Does supporting a tyrannical system because that system allows us to station troops on its shores really harm Americans and American interest?
Years ago, I would have thought the payoff worth the trade. After all, it's American first, right? But as I look closely at the ramifications of our actions, I have to think that Machiavellian policies are too short sighted. While they give one a momentary breather, they do nothing when trying to build a lasting policy based on American ideals. We have, in a sense, become what we hate to be what we think we are.
FB

Porter Stansberry's The End Of America 2011, the scam and unions.

To contact us Click HERE
There is a video/promo that goes under the title: theendofamerica2011.com. It is a voice-over powerpoint presentation filled with facts that lead to the ultimate conclusion: Continue on our spending path and America is doomed.
Well, this is hardly news. I don't think there is a person living in America, who is so deluded as to believe we can simply print money and assume debt forever, who doesn't understand that financing a life on debt really gives one very little freedom. You can amass things but the price you pay may not be worth the limited joy derived from the things. Everyone knows we are in a financial crisis but depending on self interests, place what to do about it at a different priority level.
So here is a self-anointed Investment Guru painting a picture of real financial gloom and doom then offering solutions that, if one heeds his commentary, would have little value when the "end" comes. In a funny way, his spiel sounds a lot like Mormon survivalists who have been cautioning the loyal to store food, water, defense mechanisms and other miscellanea against the day when all of society breaks down. There are many companies established in Utah primarily that specialize in products to survive "end of the world" scenarios. One wonders whether Porter is one of their ilk.
I listened to his spiel and each time he made an argument based on real events to support his position, I checked it out. Surprisingly, many are factual in part. Yes, certain economies have collapsed, OPEC countries have met to discuss whether to start using different currencies as the "reserve" currency and there are other factual statements too.
But when we get to the end, Porter suggest reverting back to the Gold Standard which was abandoned by America in 1971. In fact, during that time we broke our currency from any commodity. Dollars used to be "Silver Certificates." Now they are "Federal Notes." These are two completely different things.
Let's give Porter the benefit of the doubt and say that he's right on about the ramifications of continuing the current policy of spending by government on all levels. The days where we used to elect federal offices based on the ability of the candidate to get to Washington and "Bring Home the Bacon," are over. The reason? We're running out of pigs.
Just as England suffered in the 1970s with the winter of discontent based on liberal government spending policies, we will probably suffer something similar. Ben Franklin cautioned about assuming national debt as did many other founders. But we have a situation where we have a system based on redistribution of wealth, reparations for past sins, guaranteeing an equality of outcome and out-and-out bribery, class warfare and coercion to get votes. America has changed from a country of, by and for the people to a country of, by and for special interest groups. This change is killing us and our ability to grow into the next phase of the republic.
Unions are a good thing in principle. When workers were slaving in factories run by greedy, self-interested barons who fancied themselves rulers of the people in their workplace, we needed unions to give the worker some kind of leverage. But, recently, we have unions moving into the public workplace. Why shouldn't government workers also be allowed to unionize and negotiate for benefits? What could be the harm? Unions helped establish a strong middle class for a lot of people in private industry. Why not the same for government? But more important questions go unanswered: In what way do private sector unions relate to public sector unions? What does a public sector union offer in mobility, job safety and promotional considerations?
There is more than one reason why government workers should have unions but those unions should be restricted in what they represent. There are a couple of reasons for this. First and most importantly is: Government workers do not produce anything and are not involved in capitalism in any other way than controlling business and enterprise, assessing fees and fines and limiting one's ability to start a business. The businesses they are controlling are paying the taxes for their salaries. Some government workers work for organizations that get operating budgets from fines levied against the people over which the organization has power. The Water Boards in California are such entities. We have seen other examples of this in Sakharov's and Solzhenitsyn's descriptions of "People's Committees." But these people are supposed to be working for the public good not to find ways to fine offenders to generate operating capital. And each of these organizations has a staff of lawyers hell bent on levying as many fines as they can and generate as much money as they can. After all, their promotions depend on success of their actions. So incentive is not on serving the public good but on generating capital. They work for the government which is supposed to be us. But where they are supposed to assist they have become punitive. This type of thinking permeates all government workers and work. The idea was that they would have safer jobs because they wouldn't be competing with private sector workers. To offset high salaries, they would get good benefits. The unions have perverted this so that private sector workers are destroying the very system they are supposed to be supporting. And they do not care. Interviews with them and casual discussions show a total indifference and even hostility towards anyone trying to start, run and manage a private business. We have thousands of government workers who despise the very people they are supposed to be assisting. How can that work out well?
Public sector unions, who were losing private sector members due to the rise of the Hi-Tech sector, saw a golden opportunity to get new members and dues. You see, government unions do not give you the right to not join. The way the contracts are written, your union dues comes right out of your paycheck which is administered by the government entity you happen to be working for. You don't have to be a member of the union but dues comes out at any rate. Supposedly, if you don't join the union, your dues doesn't go to the union. But where does it go and why does government take money out of your check without your approval? Does this sound like freedom? Does it sound like a principle on which America was founded? It doesn't to me.
Now we have several states operating with a huge deficit. The public unions in these states have empowered their members to strike. Now, I have a simple question: If you are a fireman and you go on strike and my house catches on fire and burns down can I sue you for striking instead of being at your workplace and responding to a fire? In another vein: You are a teacher. You go on strike. Because you are not in class, I miss a vital part of something you were teaching and I have to take the SAT test before your strike is resolved. I miss a better score on the test because you were not at your workplace doing your job. Do I have the right to sue you for dereliction of duty?
What I am doing here is tying Porter's video which is partly correct without the sales pitch with one of the reasons his video is correct and that is public service unions who have so overwhelmed the system that they have helped create a government class which is not working for the benefit of Americans but for the benefit of Government Workers and Government. Porter's facts lead one to question the direction we are taking as a country and what role government will play in competition with the private sector and the picture isn't pretty. Unfortunately, parasites like Porter Stansberry use crisis times like this to profiteer from the very people he purports to inform.
FB