Current Events - #201 - #20 - Leave it to Robin Williams to come up with a "Peace" plan !

(Hard to argue with this logic!)

“I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here's one plan”:

1. The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Noriega, Milosovich and the rest of those 'good ole boys.' We will never "interfere" again.

2. We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one sneaking through holes in the fence.

3. All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them.

4. All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.

5. No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby.

6. The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing nonpolluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.

7. Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go some place else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)

8. If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.

9. Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

10. All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer.

Now, ain't that a winner of a plan?!

"The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses.' She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'You want a piece of me?'"

#101 - #36 - Well, what do you wish for?

It is time to decide what “people” wish for!

Question: Is their any way to decide what “people” wish for?
Can there be a majority of any thing that “people” wish for?

I don’t think so!!!!

As long as anyone or any group thinks there can be a “consensus” of anything, we are doomed to failure!

So, what to do? ........

There are groups that only analyze! There are groups that only criticize! There are groups that think they are powerful enough to direct human behavior, their religion, their way of government, etc. ! There are groups that only want to advocate their opinions!
What about groups that want to explore “successful alternatives”! Where are they? How do you hear from them? (If they just talk about any type of alternatives, they are missing the point! We want “successful alternatives”!)

Do the people have to “hit the streets” as a mob, to change things?
Is there a civilized way to address this question of “change”?

To the “few” who don’t need to run for re-election, to the “few” who don’t need the profit motive to do anything, to the very few “few” who think and reason; the challenge remains as to how to get organized and heard before “the mob hits the streets!

The occasional voices of reason are not getting to the people. The “people” are frustrated and are becoming more interested in themselves. That’s a “failure” of the “few” who are trying to bring reason and logic to our nation.
Should the “few” try to come together and organize? Is this possible? Can they then be heard more publicly?

Who will try to bring this group together? Can the various “think tanks” ever try to agree?
Who is willing to publicly challenge a misinformed voice?...... about facts?.... about conclusions, etc.?
Why must there be a “spin” on everything?

Are the “few” trying to determine the basics? Aren’t the “REAL basics” the survival of America and its Constitution?
Does our financial strength determine our ability to have the standard of living we think we enjoy?
Does the law and its restrictions determine the extent of our “democracy”?
Does our peculiar geographical position determine the commodities that we enjoy? (the coal. food, water, etc.)
Are these the “real Basics” we should consider? (Not abortion, Not gay marriage, Not education, Not immigration, etc.)
Are we so misdirected that we are distracted from the “real Basics”?

Do we consider these “Non Basics” in the same “logical and reasonable” way we intend to discuss the other “Real non-spin Basics”. Or do we continue to fill the general public with “spin” and opinions not necessarily based on facts? Do we wait for the inevitable “mob in the streets”?

It’s time to think about this.....

Government - #101 - #35 – “Policy and Concept Ideas”

If we have intellectual ideas that are about our future direction in the National policy, are they in any way in disagreement with the subject of “How to accomplish anything in current affairs?”
If we have two different subjects, how can there be substantial disagreement between the two?

“Globalization” and “Connective ness”, (turning the “Gap” into more of the “Core”) versus eliminating Oil and Energy as a source of tension and turbulence in the world are two ideas........
These words, these concepts and policy discussions should not be a source of disagreement.

The highest degree of intellect has brought these words and concepts to the public’s attention. Shouldn’t these be the areas of our most important concerns. Social security, Gay Marriage, Abortion, Democrat versus Republican ...all mean little if we have no country left!
Where is the world going? .... That’s the important question!

We are, indeed, so lucky that a few of our intellects have taken the time and their thoughts about these worldly issues (even at their own loss of personal fortunes).......
(Fame and notoriety do not sufficiently reward this type of analysis!)

Is the general public so caught up with their personal lives that they shun even the occasional thoughts in these directions. Is the mere fright of not knowing anything about these issues, enough to bury their heads into the sands. Is the excuse of.....“I’m too busy with paying the bills and raising my family to be concerned with these ideas and besides what can I do about them?” .... enough of a reason that they become mere sheep and go wherever their leader tells them?

What is the reason to “VOTE”? ...... Is being a Democrat or Republican enough of a reason? ... I don’t think so!!!

What concerns do the minority of the thinking and reading public have? Are their concerns easily misdirected into Social Security, Gay Marriage, Democrat versus Republican rather than these important “global” concepts? Do they sufficiently realize that these “other” things cannot exist if there is no World, no Nation?

How do you make the general public care?
How do you “re-educate” the majority of people that there are “successful alternatives”?

Do we wait for the masses in the streets to someday create a revolt .... (against what they know not!!!)

What do we do?

Government - #101 - #34 – Suppose we divide the world ......

Suppose we divide the world into three classes.

Class #1 – The rich people who have all their choices of good food and voluntarily go for exercise, outdoors and health.
Class #2 – The majority of people who survive on the food and health services that they either choose or are available. They work and they more than “just survive”.
Class #3 – The poor who work and who have few choices in food or health. They “barely survive”.

We, also, have the divisions called “Majority” and “Minority”.

1 - The “Majority” are those that work and “readily survive”.

2 - We, also, have a “Minority” that either is “rich” (and all that it provides) and the desperately “poor” that “barely survives”.

So we have BOTH types of divisions!!!

We have the “rich” who may choose to work or not.
We have the “majority” who do work.
And, we have the “poor” who must work.

We have people who choose to exercise....
We also have people who must work and do not choose to exercise.

We have people who choose the “right” foods.....
We have people who eat the food that is available.

We have people who are aware of reason and logic......
We also have people who are either unaware of, or, are to busy to use “reason and logic”.

The World has many divisions!!!

Do you think it is reasonable to assume that there is any one idea that applies to all the “divisions”?
Isn’t it “enough” to be an “expert” in one division? Should you even listen to many or all divisions?
Is it possible to ease the burdens of one division without trying to ease the burdens of all divisions?

Is it possible to affect one division without being deemed uncaring or selfish if you do not necessarily affect all divisions? (After all, who does the “deeming”?)

Let’s put this in the “Tsunami Issue”!!!

Well, now what?
Do we “help” or not?
Is the “help” we (and others) give to the countries involved going to change their ideas about the U.S.? Who is “their” ideas? Is it the people, or, the ruling party (with their secret police and armies)? What about the people who live inland and are not affected by the tsunami?
Will money and aid change “their” ideas or will the “help” be just absorbed in a time of natural disaster and survival?
Do we expect any changes?
Can we risk “not doing”?.... What do we risk by “not doing”?

Are the divisions by “inland” and “shorefront” people different?
(Again, there are millions of people in the nations affected! Is it possible to affect one division without being deemed uncaring or selfish if you do not necessarily affect all divisions?)

Again....

Can we or should we divide the world? .......
When should we divide the world? ........
How should we divide the world? ........

Government - #101 - #33 - When is it right for America to declare “war”?

There is only one obvious answer....
“When America is physically attacked on its own territory by “attackers” on its own territory.”

But this answer is NOT so simple!

What about the people who are simply against “war” in every case?
What if America is attacked on its own territory but its attackers are NOT on American soil! Does America have the right to “self defense”?
What if the attack is on American “interests” not located on American soil? Who or what determines American “interests”? ........ (By the way, what are American “interests”?)
What about treaties with other countries “to come to their aid in times of attack”? Do we honor these treaties?
What about war in the prevention of genocide?
What about war in the “change of an unjust or cruel regime”?

You see it’s not that simple!!

Take “war” and the people who are simply against violence and killing in every case. What is their “successful alternative”? It’s all right to be against something but what are they “for”? Negotiation and more negotiation have their limits. By whom, or by what or when are these limits reached? Who decides? What happens in the “meantime”? Who or what is responsible for the loss of life or territory in the “meantime”?
Take “self defense”! What constitutes “self defense”? Only attacks to “repel”? What about strategic attacks that can reduce the power of the attacks? Are they included in “self defense”? Do you have to see a mushroom cloud or a medical plague before you can recognize an “attack”? Is “pre-emptive attack” included in “self defense”? Who decides?
Is a treaty a matter of American “interests”? Is a friend or ally a matter of American “interests”? Who decides?
Is knowledge and awareness of genocide or unjust and cruel treatment by a regime to be overlooked or be confronted by America? If war and invasion turn out to be an option, do we consider this option?
If hurricanes, earthquakes, flooding, medical scourges and famines affect other countries, does America spend its personal treasure to alleviate these conditions since it may not be judged by some “in American’s self interest”? Who decides?

What is “America’s interest” in the world?
Who decides? Who cares? Who or what is a measure of this “interest”?

When is it right for America to declare “war”?

These questions MUST BE ANSWERED!!
America, as a country, has to have a “roadmap” so we all know what we are supposed to do.
Without a “roadmap” we DON”T have a nation!

Government - #101 - #32 - What Kind of America will it be?

(After the election, that is!!)

Suppose 48% of the people who vote are “against”, and 52% of the people who vote are “for”; what are the people who are “against” suppose to do?
Will we see riots, demonstrations, parades?
If only 100% of the vote represents only 30% of the people entitled to vote, how many people does this really represent?
If all the people who are entitled to vote represent 60% of the entire population of the U.S. (which is something around 250,000,000 people), what do these other people do?
Are these “other people” or the “70% of the people entitled to vote” supposed to just “go along” or what?

What kind of America will it be?

Are these “people” unmotivated, lazy, or “don’t care” ?
“These” could easily represent 150,000,000 people!!!! ... a vast majority!!
What do we feel “they” will do?
What do we feel “they” should do?

Do “they” just “go along”?
Suppose “they” don’t agree with different views of the winner?
Suppose “they” can’t agree amongst themselves?

What kind of America will it be?

What will the outcome be?
Can “we” effect the outcome? .... How? (be specific!)
Is the fact that the voters and listeners to the media will not allow a nuclear solution in spite of the inhuman killing by a group which wants to “rule the world” (or at least intimidate the world for some other purpose) enough to pull the effective “teeth” out of our ability to stem this tide of inhumanity and irrational thought, what then is the solution?
Does this mean we go on “as is” forever?
Is the fear of so-called “collateral damage” eliminate the mass destruction of areas of the world that appear to offer inhumanity and irrational thoughts as a threat to the survival of our America?

Does the so-called “collateral damage” include the newly educated younger generation? How about their mothers who joyfully appreciate their martyrdoms or accept payments on their behalf?

Do we really care about the criticisms of the rest of the world who does not wish to join us in our fears?
Should we really care about these criticisms? .... Is our decision as to what is threatening to us to be decided alone? ..... only in concert with others? ...... only by so-called “world opinion”?

Who decides these things for America?
What of the dissent in America? ... What should “they” do?

What kind of America will it be?

Government - #101 - #26- Are we a “nation” or have we become just a “collection”?

Let’s start with definitions!

By “Nation” the author means a specific geographical location that has boundaries. It is populated by a group of people who are personally bound by written laws, regulations, and a written master plan. These so-called “rules of society” are basically accepted but can be changed from time to time by a preset “judicial procedure”.

By “a Collection” the author refers to the same geographical description that is populated by “groups” of people who are NOT bounded by, and do not recognize or accept, the existing “rules of society”. They prefer to live by their personal choices or former ethnic ideas and “rules of society”.

The “Collection” idea is promoted in part by the name of “ethnic diversity”. The question naturally arises “Who or what can rule a society that is NOT bounded by anything? If you don’t like the word “rule” may the Author suggest the words “guided by”? If there are no “rules”, what creates “order” instead of “anarchy or the rule of the most physically powerful”?
So far, we have opted for “the rule of law” instead of “rule by the most physically powerful”.

We have the Martha thing, the Enron thing, the Gay rights’ thing, the WMD thing, the Liberal versus the Conservative thing, exporting jobs, etc., etc. But no one seems to recognize the critical difference between a “Nation” and the “Collection” principle. These “other things” pale in comparison to the determination of just what we are now and what we may become!

Has the “written word” become so challenged, so complicated, that it has lost its significance, its meaning, its importance? Do the people who are NOT bounded by the “written rules of society” reject the ideas or do they simply not understand their meaning? Do they simply have different ideas? It is on the answers to these questions the idea of being a “Nation” balances!

As the written word becomes less important, physical violence will takeover the resolution of differences.

True leadership had better spend its time on influencing the importance of words and defining these written words... in all issues. Name calling, criticism and challenging only help to diffuse the very importance of words in our present society. If leadership does not take an active roll, who can? Do we look forward to a future of anarchy and physical violence?

Again, as the written word becomes less important, physical violence will takeover the resolution of differences.

But ..... “I can’t do anything about it!” ..... “I just want to survive ....leave me alone!” ..... “You’re giving me a headache!” .... “I don’t even speak English much less understand what you are talking about!”

It doesn’t look good for a “Nation”!!




Here are some obvious questions........

1. How do we encourage the less interested, less informed, less motivated to become more interested in our Nation and its laws and regulations? It is just as obvious that Brittany Spears, the Survivors and MTV are the more desired by the 18 to 48 year olds. To heck with Homeland Security, the future of this Democracy, the financial strength of this country, the National debt, etc., etc. They want entertainment. They’re not interested in “ideas”! Again.... How do we encourage the less interested, less informed, less motivated to become more interested in our Nation and its laws and regulations?

2.

Government - #101 - #31 - What is the “real” problem now?

What the “real” world faces......

We have two basic ideas. One is the idea that “equality among human beings and freedom and liberty” is the way the world should be developing. The second idea is that a religious view, a “theocracy”, is the way the world should be moving.

Unfortunately these two views are in conflict.

The first idea brings with it an ever changing direction... perhaps some unwanted sex, violence, entertainment, ways of dress, continuous public harangues and arguments, and other issues the “other” world does not have to deal with.
The second “theocratic” ideal is written in a book and although it is interpreted and “proposed” by various so-called leaders (omens, sheiks, warlords and mullahs) it is not “one” idea but is as many ideas as there are “interpreters”.
If the “winner’ in this war is the “theocratic” idea, you must change your views or be killed. You are an “infidel” AND MUST BE ELIMINATED. There is little place for conflict against the “book” because opposition is unknown. No sex, no freedom, no human rights and no attempt at “freedom”.... just by the “book”!
If the winner is so-called “democracy”, there will be an ever changing of “values”, an unknown direction,

Here is the choice!
Do you want to kiss a blanket and prey five times a day and be ruled by “interpreters”, but have a written “predictable” future.
Or, do you want an unknown future and be ruled by ever changing “values”, but feel more “free”.

This is now the world we live in!
The so-called war is an attempt to choose, by force, a certain way on the rest of the world. Is there an alternative? Is the force of war the only way?
Can you “negotiate”, can you “reason” with an already written “theocracy”?

In frustration, have we gone to a war?

There are plenty sides to this dilemma. Before you choose sides, see the alternatives on both sides, then and only then can you can choose wisely.

(Democrats, Republicans, Gays, money, women’s rights, gangs, crime, MTV, Liberals, Conservatives, etc. are only time wasters. The “real” issue is your choice of the way you wish to live!!!)

Government - #101 - #30 - What Bush has failed to do!

Bush has failed to adequately make America believe “WE ARE AT WAR”! ..........
These people want to kill us!
They are not interested in negotiations
We must kill them before they kill us!
This WAR it’s not way over there! .... an ocean away..... It’s here and everywhere!
We can’t talk our way out of this! We can’t “negotiate”!
“WE ARE AT WAR”!

Our elected leaders must make the majority of America realize the seriousness of our position. We cannot deal effectively with those of us who have no use for logic or reason. We just have to let them be. God forbid if these “non-thinkers” are ever the “majority”! If so, this writing has no place to go. America must “give up”! We must lose our constitution, our standard of living, and all the so-called freedoms we now enjoy. We will change our country into something else.

Now, let’s talk about “those new pictures”! (The naked Iraqi prisoners)
What is the price of an American life compared to the horrible embarrassment of Iraqi prisoners?
If you get information that saves American lives from ambushes and attacks in time, what is embarrassment compared to killing?
If they want to kill us. How do we defend ourselves?
If we need information, how do we get it in a timely fashion from those that want to kill us?
We did not rape, torture a-la-Saddahm, or kill a-la-Saddahm. We made it uncomfortable,.... sleep derivation, bright lights, no clothes, etc., but we did not kill or maim. How come this is not publicly announced. True, what we did do is inhuman; but to a degree! How do you get timely information to save American lives? “What is the successful alternative”?

PLEASE answer this question. “What should we do instead of what we did?”
What is the price of an American life compared to the horrible “embarrassment” of Iraqi prisoners?

You simply cannot talk your way out of this specific question! Don’t add another subject. Don’t change the subject! Just answer the specific question!

The use of opinion, change the subject, add another issue, etc. only advertise your reluctance or inability to answer the question!

The lack of reason and logic in most conversation remains the single cause of “dropping out”, of “turning off”! People who need differing information to check their own beliefs or buttress their present beliefs are too few. These few people want to consider different facts. They want to use their logic and reason capabilities. They are aware of the human brain and its power. The “Diehards” areNOT interested in sharing or engaging in constructive conversation, just “telling”!

What is the ultimate good of placing the blame? (Legally you must, but “ultimately”?)
What we now need are “the successful alternatives”!
What should we do now?

Government - #101 - #29 - Some critical questions as of April 19, 2004 - #3 of #3

#101 - #29 - Some critical questions as of April 19, 2004 - #3 of #3


1. Question: What did you think of the Woodward interview on 60 Minutes? Did it change your mind?
Comments: Did you think that Woodward dealt in “facts” or “third party” chit chat?
Did you think that Woodward gained or lost “credibility” in the broadcast?
Did you think the broadcast and interview technique was tilted or was it straight news?
Did you think the money from the current sales of the book were an issue?
Did you think 60 Minutes lost or gained “credibility” in the performance of the interview?
What was your reaction to the statements in opposition made the next day by “formidable” figures in the White House? Was it all lies or propaganda? Do you believe the people highest in the Government?
BT: Many opinions are expressed about this program. Did the program or the White House statements in opposition change anybody’s mind? Was this program important in any respect? Is this just another “word game” of “I gotcha’”?

2. Question: Are there any specific proposals or are there just criticisms and defensive statements?
Comments: Is all the “oral static” in the media just “oral static” (noise) or are there any specific proposals?
Are “We must do more!”, or, “We must internationalize more!”, or, “We must be less imperial!” specific proposals? Is this the rhetoric that can produce change?
Are general conclusions now being made based on pure “oral static” (noise)?
Does the general public care whether they hear “oral static” or “specific proposals”?
Does the general public know or care about the difference?
BT: I, personally, do not think enough of the general voting or speaking public know or care about the differences between “constructive dialogue” and “oral static”. I believe that reason and logic are generally lost in this society. I, personally, believe that “opinions” have become substitutes for “facts”. I do not believe we are able to get “facts”.

3. Question: Suppose you do not believe anything you hear or see publicly. You are just “fed up”!
Comments: Where are you supposed to get accurate information?
Who determines whether the information is really truthful or not?
If you have more than one side, will the “truth” vary?
If you believe something is “true”, does that make it so?
Is there a “cure” for this problem?
BT: If you leave “room” in your conversation for a different point of view of the “truth”, you are engaged in an “exchange of views” rather than an argument. “Leaving room for” does not mean you have no convictions. It merely means that you maintain a certain point of view and you allow others to have theirs. Again, you “exchange” views. You are informed why another has a different view. Again, you are just “informed”. That does not mean you have to change. It merely means “you are informed of a different view”.



Again .... “What’s the Successful Alternative?”