I like the quote that roughly goes 'If you haven't done anything wrong why should you mind us looking over your shoulder?'.
That kind of logic leads one to believe that for the security of the public we should all live in glass houses. After all what have you got to hide?
Well, Wired® has a nifty report on how easy it is for the long arm of the law to reach out and sample any conversation you might have on any electronic device.
It appears that many of the liberties that the American Revolution was fought for to assure it's citizens have finally gone into the shredder all in the name of security.
Ben Franklin made a pointed remark concerning people that are willing to sacrifice liberties for security. Those words are just as applicable today as they were the day Ben uttered them.
It's a pity the people that swear to uphold the constitution of this nation are so willing to sacrifice what many generations of Americans fought and died for with so little regard for the consequenses.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Reality bites
I'm bemused and amused by the reports on the antics of the AG(x2*) and his leash holder when even their own team manages to cause them to slip on the banana peel we like to call reality.
I guess the administration is of the opinion that if you stick to your lies reality will yield the right of way.. kind of like the concept of using affirmations(**).
That or they never read that quote of Lincoln's regarding fooling people!
(* the Attorney General, he who's initials are also AG)
(** a concept endorsed by the New Age community, the belief being that if you create whatever it is in you mind and picture it clearly and then keep on wishing for it that desire will be fulfilled)
I guess the administration is of the opinion that if you stick to your lies reality will yield the right of way.. kind of like the concept of using affirmations(**).
That or they never read that quote of Lincoln's regarding fooling people!
(* the Attorney General, he who's initials are also AG)
(** a concept endorsed by the New Age community, the belief being that if you create whatever it is in you mind and picture it clearly and then keep on wishing for it that desire will be fulfilled)
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Memory check
Back in 1998 Will Smith and Gene Hackman starred in a movie titled Enemy of the State.
Most people that saw the movie thought it was far fetched and would never happen here in the land of the free. Anyone with their ear to the ground knew that the surveilance capabilities were getting close to those portrayed in the movie.
Nine years later this is no longer fiction, the only question that is being debated is how best to integrate it into every facet of 'law enforcement'.
Think I'm a crank just frothing at the mouth? Then have a read over here.
I've said it before elsewhere, Orwell just had the date wrong, otherwise he was scarily prophetic.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.. anyone believe that's what our government is trying to deliver to the public.. or is it all down to the Gross National Product and corporate protectionism now?
Most people that saw the movie thought it was far fetched and would never happen here in the land of the free. Anyone with their ear to the ground knew that the surveilance capabilities were getting close to those portrayed in the movie.
Nine years later this is no longer fiction, the only question that is being debated is how best to integrate it into every facet of 'law enforcement'.
Think I'm a crank just frothing at the mouth? Then have a read over here.
I've said it before elsewhere, Orwell just had the date wrong, otherwise he was scarily prophetic.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.. anyone believe that's what our government is trying to deliver to the public.. or is it all down to the Gross National Product and corporate protectionism now?
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Yes!
Ars Technica tells us the latest tale on the SCO Unix/Linux court battle.
Now if only such rulings would be applied to other bandits this country might actually start to resemble the America we, (alright, most of us), were all taught to believe existed.
Personally, I'm glad to see this nail being driven into this greedy corp's coffin *.
(* pun intended!.. oh suck it up!)
Now if only such rulings would be applied to other bandits this country might actually start to resemble the America we, (alright, most of us), were all taught to believe existed.
Personally, I'm glad to see this nail being driven into this greedy corp's coffin *.
(* pun intended!.. oh suck it up!)
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Friday, August 03, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Truth, Justice & the American way
Here in the U.S. we like to believe that we're a just society and that our law enforcement agencies are 'true blue'. Sadly stories like this one point out the fact that in reality the founding fathers we absolutely correct when the said that the price of liberty was eternal vigilance*.
(*By that, they meant vigilance of the citizenry of their government(s) and it's various branches).
(*By that, they meant vigilance of the citizenry of their government(s) and it's various branches).
Friday, June 01, 2007
Hot air
Good ol' GW is at it again. According to US news outlets his new proposals on global warming marks a major change in policy but in fact he's just blowing hot air again.
Gotta protect those corporate profits, ehh George?
Gotta protect those corporate profits, ehh George?
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
There are improvements!
That's what our fearless leader continues to claim in his press conferences when the issue of Iraq comes up.
But according to the Iraqi people the story appears to be very different.
One of the more glaringly obscured fact in this misadventure is the number of Iraqis who have fled their homes and the reasons they had to flee.
The linked story gives you some insight on a story the main news outlets never seem to touch upon.
When you read these peoples stories of their experiences and see what news on Iraq actually reaches the American public you begin to wonder just what improvements ol' GW is referring to.. I'd like to hear them.
Do they out weigh the ongoing carnage enough to warrant our contiued presence there?
But according to the Iraqi people the story appears to be very different.
One of the more glaringly obscured fact in this misadventure is the number of Iraqis who have fled their homes and the reasons they had to flee.
The linked story gives you some insight on a story the main news outlets never seem to touch upon.
When you read these peoples stories of their experiences and see what news on Iraq actually reaches the American public you begin to wonder just what improvements ol' GW is referring to.. I'd like to hear them.
Do they out weigh the ongoing carnage enough to warrant our contiued presence there?
Monday, April 23, 2007
Showdown!
The Dems are sticking to their guns to recall the troops.
But Bush says the Washington politicians shouldn't dictate how to fight the war, they should leave that to the men in uniform.. but wait a cotton pickin' minute there George!...
When and where did Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld get their combat experience what branch of the service were they in? Weren't they the ones that came up with the strategy for the invasion of Iraq?
And didn't one of them say that the Iraqi oil sales would pay for the war and rebuilding? Why are the american tax payers footing the bill to finance this fiasco you and your school chums got us into?
How long did they serve?
Where did you get your military expertise?
Weren't they both part of the political machine?
Aren't you?
I'm just curious as to the reasoning behind all the decision to remain entangled in an increasingly bitter conflict when it's clear that there will be no victory... no 'Mission Accomplished' any time in the next decade.
But Bush says the Washington politicians shouldn't dictate how to fight the war, they should leave that to the men in uniform.. but wait a cotton pickin' minute there George!...
When and where did Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld get their combat experience what branch of the service were they in? Weren't they the ones that came up with the strategy for the invasion of Iraq?
And didn't one of them say that the Iraqi oil sales would pay for the war and rebuilding? Why are the american tax payers footing the bill to finance this fiasco you and your school chums got us into?
How long did they serve?
Where did you get your military expertise?
Weren't they both part of the political machine?
Aren't you?
I'm just curious as to the reasoning behind all the decision to remain entangled in an increasingly bitter conflict when it's clear that there will be no victory... no 'Mission Accomplished' any time in the next decade.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Thoughts on the DOJ debacle
I guess I'm a bit naive or wasn't really thinking about the department of justice as a political machine.
I had always thought that of all the branches of our government those that served they should hold to a higher standard. Apply themselves with honor and uphold the truth above all political considerations.
I had not considered or kept in my mind that the Attorney General is appointed by the president and in the same we he appoints state attorney generals that the president or his advisors favor.
In the past the congress of our nation vetted the AG and so there was the understanding that appointing one that would act as your de facto hatchet man wouldn't make it past them. That all changed when the last congress was sitting.
The checks and balances the people of this country thought or assumed were in place vanished and in turn whatever was deemed good by the administrative branch was deemed good by the legislature.
One of the AG's job is to tell the administrative branch of the government when they cross the line, not to write them a pass that allows them to do whatever they please.
Keep in mind that this AG said that coercive physical interrogations were legal and that the Geneva Convention was not relevant to the 'war on terror'.
Are the opinions rendered by the AG in keeping with our concepts of justice here in the United States? Or were they simply 'get out of jail cards' issued to the administration by the AG? It seems that the more light that is shone on the operations of the current AG, the more it looks like there's an attempt to fix in place a mindset in every state AG office one that follows the dogma issued by the same people that hold to the PNAC core belief systems.
Instead of diversity of opinion: One Opinion and only one philosophy.
Now there are some people in this country that may think a world with a mono-culture would be a great thing but if you look around the one thing you discover in a mono-culture is stagnation and decay. It would be a pity if that were to befall this country.
I had always thought that of all the branches of our government those that served they should hold to a higher standard. Apply themselves with honor and uphold the truth above all political considerations.
I had not considered or kept in my mind that the Attorney General is appointed by the president and in the same we he appoints state attorney generals that the president or his advisors favor.
In the past the congress of our nation vetted the AG and so there was the understanding that appointing one that would act as your de facto hatchet man wouldn't make it past them. That all changed when the last congress was sitting.
The checks and balances the people of this country thought or assumed were in place vanished and in turn whatever was deemed good by the administrative branch was deemed good by the legislature.
One of the AG's job is to tell the administrative branch of the government when they cross the line, not to write them a pass that allows them to do whatever they please.
Keep in mind that this AG said that coercive physical interrogations were legal and that the Geneva Convention was not relevant to the 'war on terror'.
Are the opinions rendered by the AG in keeping with our concepts of justice here in the United States? Or were they simply 'get out of jail cards' issued to the administration by the AG? It seems that the more light that is shone on the operations of the current AG, the more it looks like there's an attempt to fix in place a mindset in every state AG office one that follows the dogma issued by the same people that hold to the PNAC core belief systems.
Instead of diversity of opinion: One Opinion and only one philosophy.
Now there are some people in this country that may think a world with a mono-culture would be a great thing but if you look around the one thing you discover in a mono-culture is stagnation and decay. It would be a pity if that were to befall this country.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
more improvements
Made some changes to Homefires navigation system.
Testing a new chat system, (it remembers your login).
That'll need some more feedback before we choose which we want to keep.
Some other under the hood work has been done. Users may or may not realise it ;)
Testing a new chat system, (it remembers your login).
That'll need some more feedback before we choose which we want to keep.
Some other under the hood work has been done. Users may or may not realise it ;)
Friday, March 16, 2007
Plame testimony follow on.
Ok, a mess of misdirection by the GOP on whether Ms. Plame was undercover has been hitting the sheets.
Well you can kiss the snow job buh-bye, Melinda Henneberger's report posted over on the Huffington Post from the hearing makes it clear just what the former operatives status was at the time her cover was blown.
You'll need to go down eight paragraphs to get to the meat of the subject, but once you've read through the account there should be no doubt as to the fact that she was in fact undercover.
Something that would have been easy to ascertain by the inner circle.
There's an amazing display of a lack of conscience by the people responsible for this leak. If they had any guts they'd publicly accept responsibility their lack of discretion and foresight and resign.. and turn themselves in for prosecution. But honor isn't something we've seen coming from most 'CEO' types in government lately.. most of the time it's duck and cover and oh yeah, "I can't recall..."
Well you can kiss the snow job buh-bye, Melinda Henneberger's report posted over on the Huffington Post from the hearing makes it clear just what the former operatives status was at the time her cover was blown.
You'll need to go down eight paragraphs to get to the meat of the subject, but once you've read through the account there should be no doubt as to the fact that she was in fact undercover.
Something that would have been easy to ascertain by the inner circle.
There's an amazing display of a lack of conscience by the people responsible for this leak. If they had any guts they'd publicly accept responsibility their lack of discretion and foresight and resign.. and turn themselves in for prosecution. But honor isn't something we've seen coming from most 'CEO' types in government lately.. most of the time it's duck and cover and oh yeah, "I can't recall..."
Memory loss
It's very scarey that we seem to elect people to the highest offices who's memory is hazy when it comes to recalling the genesis of critical policy decisions. Someone should buy them a PDA or the like.
Read the article.
Read the article.
Treason
In the mid 20th Century revealing the identities of one of our undercover intelligence agents was made a capital crime conmensurate with treason.
Fast foward to our present administration and the Plame debacle.
For reasons based on partisan politics a CIA operatives name was leaked to the press in an attempt to undermine her spouses criticism of our incursion in Iraq.
In the process the leak exposed the name of the company that provided the false cover background operatives require for their safety in the field. That in turn exposed all the operatives in the field who were using that company for their cover.
This isn't just about one lone operative.
Think aboout this, anyone else who had their cover blown just had to run for home because someone in the current administration used a ham fisted ill concieved method to smack down a critic of their policy.
But beyond that, the individual or individuals responsible for the leak are getting away with treason.
I guess it's just one more sad example of how well the current administration upholds the laws and constitution of our country. It reminds me of the OJ trial. In personal crimes: got enough money, doesn't make the 'little guy' think he can pull a fast one? You go free. Violate federal law but you're a personal friend of someone at the top of the tree, no problem, you'll be taken care of...
If nothing else I would have hoped that they had a bit more depth of thought on the consequences of their actions.
Today Ms. Plame is testifying before Congress, but will her words bring the culprit(s) to justice?
It seemed pretty clear that the federal prosecutors probe pointed squarely at the WH and more importantly to people in the inner circle. If you were really serious about getting rid of a traitor and you couldn't refine the search beyond three individuals then logic says you remove those three from critical posts if nothing else.
When the current administration ran on the idea that they would be the CEO Administration who knew they meant CEO's like those of WorldCom and Enron?
ps. The excuse being circulated goes that all these people 'knew she was cia, but they didn't know she was undercover'.
Fine, if you want to tell the world you operate in a vacuum and that you can't employ simple logic, go with that story.
So you have us posit that your IQ falls in the 70 to 80 point range. You know that she's with the cia and that doesn't fire a synapse and tell you maybe you should check her status before you blab it to the world? If that didn't happen then you seriously need to hire people better able to think things through to oversee all your command decisions!
Fast foward to our present administration and the Plame debacle.
For reasons based on partisan politics a CIA operatives name was leaked to the press in an attempt to undermine her spouses criticism of our incursion in Iraq.
In the process the leak exposed the name of the company that provided the false cover background operatives require for their safety in the field. That in turn exposed all the operatives in the field who were using that company for their cover.
This isn't just about one lone operative.
Think aboout this, anyone else who had their cover blown just had to run for home because someone in the current administration used a ham fisted ill concieved method to smack down a critic of their policy.
But beyond that, the individual or individuals responsible for the leak are getting away with treason.
I guess it's just one more sad example of how well the current administration upholds the laws and constitution of our country. It reminds me of the OJ trial. In personal crimes: got enough money, doesn't make the 'little guy' think he can pull a fast one? You go free. Violate federal law but you're a personal friend of someone at the top of the tree, no problem, you'll be taken care of...
If nothing else I would have hoped that they had a bit more depth of thought on the consequences of their actions.
Today Ms. Plame is testifying before Congress, but will her words bring the culprit(s) to justice?
It seemed pretty clear that the federal prosecutors probe pointed squarely at the WH and more importantly to people in the inner circle. If you were really serious about getting rid of a traitor and you couldn't refine the search beyond three individuals then logic says you remove those three from critical posts if nothing else.
When the current administration ran on the idea that they would be the CEO Administration who knew they meant CEO's like those of WorldCom and Enron?
ps. The excuse being circulated goes that all these people 'knew she was cia, but they didn't know she was undercover'.
Fine, if you want to tell the world you operate in a vacuum and that you can't employ simple logic, go with that story.
So you have us posit that your IQ falls in the 70 to 80 point range. You know that she's with the cia and that doesn't fire a synapse and tell you maybe you should check her status before you blab it to the world? If that didn't happen then you seriously need to hire people better able to think things through to oversee all your command decisions!
Monday, March 05, 2007
Presto Change-o
I'd say it's pretty obvious that I've changed the template I've been using here on Blogger.
Mostly it's because I was using the old one in the beta blooger and it looked fairly poor compared to how it had looked in the prior iteration. The new iteration uses this drag and drop interface for arranging what goes where on your page.. sort of. Some things you just can't do anymore apparently.. like tweaking the profile using html/css code directly.
Not sure if this is a step foward or not.. I will be trying to modify/customize the current template as soon as I figure out how these 'widgets' that control it work!
Meanwhile life seems to go on.. no one is sure why.
Mostly it's because I was using the old one in the beta blooger and it looked fairly poor compared to how it had looked in the prior iteration. The new iteration uses this drag and drop interface for arranging what goes where on your page.. sort of. Some things you just can't do anymore apparently.. like tweaking the profile using html/css code directly.
Not sure if this is a step foward or not.. I will be trying to modify/customize the current template as soon as I figure out how these 'widgets' that control it work!
Meanwhile life seems to go on.. no one is sure why.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
The Forums
.. over on Homefires have been 'renovated' and perhaps made a bit more 'User friendly'.
Streamlined.. something like that! ;)
Take a look, let me know if there are any additions/changes desired.
Streamlined.. something like that! ;)
Take a look, let me know if there are any additions/changes desired.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Homefires live chat revisited
I've replaced the chat room* system with something much more flexible.. and better looking. I've also posted a brief FAQ in the FAQ's for some pointers for anyone unfamiliar with IRC style chats.
(* The chat rooms shouldn't be confused with the chatbox on the main page. For people unfamiliar with chat rooms they serve as method of instant messaging for anyone/all the people in a chatroom.)
(* The chat rooms shouldn't be confused with the chatbox on the main page. For people unfamiliar with chat rooms they serve as method of instant messaging for anyone/all the people in a chatroom.)
Friday, February 02, 2007
Thursday, February 01, 2007
It gets better!
Wow.. I guess that when the fit hits the shan things move faster. The IPCC report isn't even fully released and the spin doctors are trying to knock it down.
Sadly predictable.
Sadly predictable.
It's global warming!
Correction: News Sources are saying that the IPCC has made statements of the sort I allude to below. At the same time they imply that the IPCC says that humans are responsible. I guess I need to actually get a copy of the report and read it to know exactly what is said. As for the rest of my rant... I leave it there for the doubting thomases to gnaw on!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh my god... A U.N. Panel has presented a report that says they *think* humans may be contributing to global warming!
Picture me shaking my head.
When I was just a lad a panel of respected scientists presented a report saying that they believed that the human race was generating more CO2 than the ecology of the planet could deal with without casing a climatic shift.
That was over thirty years ago.
They went so far as to predict certain changes which would indicate that those shifts were underway.
Fast foward to the 21st Century, many of the indicators that were predicted have come to pass and are with us now.
Low lying inhabited islands in the Indian and Pacific Ocean's have disappeared under the waves causing forced migration of the people living on those islands in the past 10 years. It's not a debatable point it's a known fact.
Paleogeologists and Climatologists have known the general means by which the planet has heated and cooled for decades and with current computer modeling they have an even finer appreciation of what is occuring.
More than 90% of the people involved in research into this global event are convinced that the data points directly at human acitivies as being the cause of the current unprecedented change that the planet is undergoing.
Are there natural events that contribute to global warming?
Certainly, after all this has been going on long before mankind entered the industrial age.
The issue is like that of trying to put more tea into a cup that's already full to the brim. Can the cup hold more tea if it's already full?
Of course not.
Ok, so say that the tea cup is 96% full and we decide that we're going to add another 4% since there's that much more space till the cup is full.
Did we account for the fact that natural events are already adding to the existing volume occupying that cup?
No?... ooops!
Ok, well can we quantify in a general manner how much green house gas is created by human activities?
We can? Oh good! Take that number and then quantify what the average green house gas creation would be if we weren't actively contributing to the cycle. Figure that the amount we contribute adds X load/accelleration to the process where Y would be the normal rate of the cycle. X equals our contribution to 'forcing' the normal process to excede it's usual time frame.
Does it really take that much in the way of brain power to figure out that if you light a fire you are creating heat? What if 6 million people light fires, will the amount of heat in the atmosphere increase?
And what happens when 6+ billion light fires?
Is it normal for 6 billion fires to occur every day 365 days a year?
In simply cooking a meal we change the thermal dynamic of the atmosphere. When we cook three meals a day we increase the amount of 'mechanical heat' available in the world by a knowable factor. But how many people cook with a wood stove, how many still cook using coal? Every action carrys a cost. A simple cause and effect.
Now toss in the exhaust from hundreds of millions of cars, the exhaust of jet airliners, the methane effluence from the absurdly large number of domesticated food animals we herd, the waste gases from our power generation plants.. the list of things we do that aren't part of what naturally occurs could fill more pages than I care to type.
And the specious argument that since humans are a natural part of the world and therefore everything they do is 'natural' is the same type of logic that said that the Earth was the center of the solar system so don't even go there.
The world most humans participate in is anything but 'natural'. We wouldn't have aluminum foil if we'd stuck to the natural world. Do I want to abandon the technological world I live in? Hell no!
Are there better ways to do the things we do? Yup, but it costs more money to do things the smart way. And that's exactly why people keep hedging on the issue of global warming.
So when I see a report saying that 'probably' we contribute to the party I just have to shake my head.. it seems a good portion of what purportedly were humans are actually members of the Ostrich clan.
In the end the planet will regain it's equalibrium, but we probably won't be around to see that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh my god... A U.N. Panel has presented a report that says they *think* humans may be contributing to global warming!
Picture me shaking my head.
When I was just a lad a panel of respected scientists presented a report saying that they believed that the human race was generating more CO2 than the ecology of the planet could deal with without casing a climatic shift.
That was over thirty years ago.
They went so far as to predict certain changes which would indicate that those shifts were underway.
Fast foward to the 21st Century, many of the indicators that were predicted have come to pass and are with us now.
Low lying inhabited islands in the Indian and Pacific Ocean's have disappeared under the waves causing forced migration of the people living on those islands in the past 10 years. It's not a debatable point it's a known fact.
Paleogeologists and Climatologists have known the general means by which the planet has heated and cooled for decades and with current computer modeling they have an even finer appreciation of what is occuring.
More than 90% of the people involved in research into this global event are convinced that the data points directly at human acitivies as being the cause of the current unprecedented change that the planet is undergoing.
Are there natural events that contribute to global warming?
Certainly, after all this has been going on long before mankind entered the industrial age.
The issue is like that of trying to put more tea into a cup that's already full to the brim. Can the cup hold more tea if it's already full?
Of course not.
Ok, so say that the tea cup is 96% full and we decide that we're going to add another 4% since there's that much more space till the cup is full.
Did we account for the fact that natural events are already adding to the existing volume occupying that cup?
No?... ooops!
Ok, well can we quantify in a general manner how much green house gas is created by human activities?
We can? Oh good! Take that number and then quantify what the average green house gas creation would be if we weren't actively contributing to the cycle. Figure that the amount we contribute adds X load/accelleration to the process where Y would be the normal rate of the cycle. X equals our contribution to 'forcing' the normal process to excede it's usual time frame.
Does it really take that much in the way of brain power to figure out that if you light a fire you are creating heat? What if 6 million people light fires, will the amount of heat in the atmosphere increase?
And what happens when 6+ billion light fires?
Is it normal for 6 billion fires to occur every day 365 days a year?
In simply cooking a meal we change the thermal dynamic of the atmosphere. When we cook three meals a day we increase the amount of 'mechanical heat' available in the world by a knowable factor. But how many people cook with a wood stove, how many still cook using coal? Every action carrys a cost. A simple cause and effect.
Now toss in the exhaust from hundreds of millions of cars, the exhaust of jet airliners, the methane effluence from the absurdly large number of domesticated food animals we herd, the waste gases from our power generation plants.. the list of things we do that aren't part of what naturally occurs could fill more pages than I care to type.
And the specious argument that since humans are a natural part of the world and therefore everything they do is 'natural' is the same type of logic that said that the Earth was the center of the solar system so don't even go there.
The world most humans participate in is anything but 'natural'. We wouldn't have aluminum foil if we'd stuck to the natural world. Do I want to abandon the technological world I live in? Hell no!
Are there better ways to do the things we do? Yup, but it costs more money to do things the smart way. And that's exactly why people keep hedging on the issue of global warming.
So when I see a report saying that 'probably' we contribute to the party I just have to shake my head.. it seems a good portion of what purportedly were humans are actually members of the Ostrich clan.
In the end the planet will regain it's equalibrium, but we probably won't be around to see that.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
People forget
This morning I was rudely awakened by an alarm clock before the sun had cleared the horizon, [set by my honey so she could arise to help her son study.. she had woken up earlier than it was set for and forgotten to shut it off.. but that's not what the title of this piece is referring too].
In the ensuing moments as the forebrain came online I was in close proximity to the boy.. who has the survival instincts of.. something with an extremely short life.
And here's the thing is people forget: We are Primates first, humans by specialization and civilized last.
What's this got to do with anything you wonder. It's simply this: in the 'real world' an adult male primate at best tolerates the offspring of other males. But usually they usually don't tolerate them well at all.
Enter civilization, and the human race developes socialization patterns which depart radically from that of our close cousins.
There are many good reasons for those patterns, for one it allows groups of unrelated males to actually cooperate with one and other and share resources instead of attempting to drive off the other males and seize the best resources for his 'family group'. It allows them to better defend themselves from outside threats to their survival.. like lions and tigers.. and bears.
But people forget about the primate that lurks just below the surface of our civilized society. And what's worse is the methods by which the young in the U.S. learned that an adult male was something you didn't triffle with without unpleasant results have been deemed wrong and 'harmful' to the developement of the young.
Since this point of view has come to dominate society and laws have been enacted to protect children from any form of physical discipline courtesy and respect have become bygone mores in the last three generations.
We now live amongst the 'Entitled Generations', i.e., people who believe at least unconsciously that life owes them whatever their hearts desire, that they have they right to the last slice of cake.
If you'd like to see this demonstrated to you in the real world in the US go to any parking lot at a shopping center and watch people manuever their cars in one when it's particularly busy. Or go shopping in a Costco on a Sunday afternoon.
There's a point to this apparently rambling statement and this is it: If the boy, who is the son of an interloper* had grown up in the same type of society as I did and my father and his father etc, etc. he would have had an instinctual understanding of the fact that if he twits an adult male, (before the adult has had coffee), that he runs the risk of getting backhanded.
(I restrained my instinct, but it got me to thinking about how kids relate to adults these days as opposed to how my and prior generations related to adults, hence this post.)
It's that simple, we're civilized now though so the boy is blithely unaware of his lack social skills and though you can tell someone about their lack they just won't understand it until it smacks them in the face.
Now here's the really cute part: in most of the rest of the world the 'old school' rules still apply.
What does this mean for American males under the age of 50?
Just one word: Conflict.
If you consider that the most 'polite' societies that humans race 'enjoyed' were those where dueling was extant, (i.e. if you insulted someone they could demand an apology or call you out to a duel for reparations to their honor depending on their sensibilities), or were societies where the adult males were all defacto warriors then you can extrapolate why American males are most likely to eventually end up in conflict with males raised in almost any other country.
The American male approaches all societies as if their mores are in synch with those of the US which is seldom the case.
It's only after prolonged exposure to outside cultures that this point of view changes and for some their point of view remains unshakeable even in the face of reality.
I say eventually because initially most people raised to respect others will give you the benefit of a doubt before engaging in conflict unless you cross a cultural taboo. Generally they have a better understanding of conflict and it's consequences having grown up with examples of it in their own lives.
I know there are probably people that will argue that sports like football or soccer or hockey teach children about conflict but I will have to disagree.
Simply put those sports have specific rules which the participants usually know before they engage in them, and for the most part they know that these sports aren't meant to be life threatening.
You knew when your mom disciplined you she might inflict pain.. but there was a line, you knew it instinctively. But if you annoyed her enough she'd utter the dreaded line: "Just wait till your father gets home". Then you knuckled down, then you tried to appease her, hoping she wouldn't tell dad because you really really didn't want the adult male's attention in a disciplinary action.
And you knew this because of personal experience, you didn't just know a thing, you understood it.
When an adult male used physical discipline on you you had no idea where the line was with them. It was damned scarey and you didn't know when it would end. Cold fury, red hot anger, which one would it be?
A person who knows that there's a safety net that protects them from physical repercussion to their actions does not fear discipline. There's just a temporary discomfiture which is short lived, and then they can resume their lives without any serious loss to their amoure proper.
Time-outs work for a 3 year old, they'll still work for a 5 year old. Watch what happens when you apply that to an 8 year old American child. Do I personally like violence? No. But let me give you an example of a disciplinary action issue that's ongoing.
When one of the boy's friends, Jack, comes over they invariably will get into a verbal brawl and the volume will become so great that it can be heard clearly in a room with music playing and the door closed.
They've been admonished on more than 50 occassions that they are not to raise their voices to such levels while in the house. Yesterday Jack came over, and in spite of knowing the 'no shouting in the house' rule they got into it within the first half hour.
I sat them down. I explained once again about the rule. I asked them to tell me why the rule was in place, they both in their own way recited the concept of consideration for others and how it applies in social situations. I then let them go back to what they were supposedly studying together.
Fifteen minutes later they were shouting at each other again. I asked them if I had not just talked to them about this issue, the replied that yes I had. I asked them how much time had lapsed, they said about fifteen minutes. I asked them if there was some reason they could learn things like the concept that 2+2=4 but were unable to grasp the no shouting rule. They shrugged.
If this interaction had taken place when I was a child the interaction would have been very different. The adult male would have asked them to keep it down. They might have forgotten once, The adult male would have warned them that he was going to apply physical discipline to at least one of them if they didn't respect his request.
They probably would have ignored the second request that they don't shout loudly in the house.
The adult male would have have then taken his boy and applied his preferred method of discipline.
The boy would not like it a bit. The adult male would then re-itterate that he expected the boy to 'keep it down' in such a manner that the boy understood that a further infraction would incur a more severe disciplinary action.
The boy would then inform his friend that they had to keep it down and would exert his personal influence to see that the adult male's request was honored.
Was that the way the adult male wanted to interact with his children? Generally no, most men don't enjoy that process.
Were people better behaved because of those interactions, yup.
Sad to say but a bit of corporal punishment was usually the best method of making children at certain ages pay attention and respect the rules of society and later on in life they instinctively followed those rules.
Funnily enough a poll of the 50 most successful executives in business say that the corporal punishment they recieved as children was pivotal in making them better people and influenced their path to success.
I suppose we could try appling the school forms of discipline like you shall write one thousands times "I shall not...."
That'll work...... yeah. More likely there'd be an injunction on that for the possibility of inducing carpal tunnel syndrome.
Ok, enough on this topic..
(* It's a long story.. she's was mine.. she left, we're back together.. and in between 'stuff' happened.)
In the ensuing moments as the forebrain came online I was in close proximity to the boy.. who has the survival instincts of.. something with an extremely short life.
And here's the thing is people forget: We are Primates first, humans by specialization and civilized last.
What's this got to do with anything you wonder. It's simply this: in the 'real world' an adult male primate at best tolerates the offspring of other males. But usually they usually don't tolerate them well at all.
Enter civilization, and the human race developes socialization patterns which depart radically from that of our close cousins.
There are many good reasons for those patterns, for one it allows groups of unrelated males to actually cooperate with one and other and share resources instead of attempting to drive off the other males and seize the best resources for his 'family group'. It allows them to better defend themselves from outside threats to their survival.. like lions and tigers.. and bears.
But people forget about the primate that lurks just below the surface of our civilized society. And what's worse is the methods by which the young in the U.S. learned that an adult male was something you didn't triffle with without unpleasant results have been deemed wrong and 'harmful' to the developement of the young.
Since this point of view has come to dominate society and laws have been enacted to protect children from any form of physical discipline courtesy and respect have become bygone mores in the last three generations.
We now live amongst the 'Entitled Generations', i.e., people who believe at least unconsciously that life owes them whatever their hearts desire, that they have they right to the last slice of cake.
If you'd like to see this demonstrated to you in the real world in the US go to any parking lot at a shopping center and watch people manuever their cars in one when it's particularly busy. Or go shopping in a Costco on a Sunday afternoon.
There's a point to this apparently rambling statement and this is it: If the boy, who is the son of an interloper* had grown up in the same type of society as I did and my father and his father etc, etc. he would have had an instinctual understanding of the fact that if he twits an adult male, (before the adult has had coffee), that he runs the risk of getting backhanded.
(I restrained my instinct, but it got me to thinking about how kids relate to adults these days as opposed to how my and prior generations related to adults, hence this post.)
It's that simple, we're civilized now though so the boy is blithely unaware of his lack social skills and though you can tell someone about their lack they just won't understand it until it smacks them in the face.
Now here's the really cute part: in most of the rest of the world the 'old school' rules still apply.
What does this mean for American males under the age of 50?
Just one word: Conflict.
If you consider that the most 'polite' societies that humans race 'enjoyed' were those where dueling was extant, (i.e. if you insulted someone they could demand an apology or call you out to a duel for reparations to their honor depending on their sensibilities), or were societies where the adult males were all defacto warriors then you can extrapolate why American males are most likely to eventually end up in conflict with males raised in almost any other country.
The American male approaches all societies as if their mores are in synch with those of the US which is seldom the case.
It's only after prolonged exposure to outside cultures that this point of view changes and for some their point of view remains unshakeable even in the face of reality.
I say eventually because initially most people raised to respect others will give you the benefit of a doubt before engaging in conflict unless you cross a cultural taboo. Generally they have a better understanding of conflict and it's consequences having grown up with examples of it in their own lives.
I know there are probably people that will argue that sports like football or soccer or hockey teach children about conflict but I will have to disagree.
Simply put those sports have specific rules which the participants usually know before they engage in them, and for the most part they know that these sports aren't meant to be life threatening.
You knew when your mom disciplined you she might inflict pain.. but there was a line, you knew it instinctively. But if you annoyed her enough she'd utter the dreaded line: "Just wait till your father gets home". Then you knuckled down, then you tried to appease her, hoping she wouldn't tell dad because you really really didn't want the adult male's attention in a disciplinary action.
And you knew this because of personal experience, you didn't just know a thing, you understood it.
When an adult male used physical discipline on you you had no idea where the line was with them. It was damned scarey and you didn't know when it would end. Cold fury, red hot anger, which one would it be?
A person who knows that there's a safety net that protects them from physical repercussion to their actions does not fear discipline. There's just a temporary discomfiture which is short lived, and then they can resume their lives without any serious loss to their amoure proper.
Time-outs work for a 3 year old, they'll still work for a 5 year old. Watch what happens when you apply that to an 8 year old American child. Do I personally like violence? No. But let me give you an example of a disciplinary action issue that's ongoing.
When one of the boy's friends, Jack, comes over they invariably will get into a verbal brawl and the volume will become so great that it can be heard clearly in a room with music playing and the door closed.
They've been admonished on more than 50 occassions that they are not to raise their voices to such levels while in the house. Yesterday Jack came over, and in spite of knowing the 'no shouting in the house' rule they got into it within the first half hour.
I sat them down. I explained once again about the rule. I asked them to tell me why the rule was in place, they both in their own way recited the concept of consideration for others and how it applies in social situations. I then let them go back to what they were supposedly studying together.
Fifteen minutes later they were shouting at each other again. I asked them if I had not just talked to them about this issue, the replied that yes I had. I asked them how much time had lapsed, they said about fifteen minutes. I asked them if there was some reason they could learn things like the concept that 2+2=4 but were unable to grasp the no shouting rule. They shrugged.
If this interaction had taken place when I was a child the interaction would have been very different. The adult male would have asked them to keep it down. They might have forgotten once, The adult male would have warned them that he was going to apply physical discipline to at least one of them if they didn't respect his request.
They probably would have ignored the second request that they don't shout loudly in the house.
The adult male would have have then taken his boy and applied his preferred method of discipline.
The boy would not like it a bit. The adult male would then re-itterate that he expected the boy to 'keep it down' in such a manner that the boy understood that a further infraction would incur a more severe disciplinary action.
The boy would then inform his friend that they had to keep it down and would exert his personal influence to see that the adult male's request was honored.
Was that the way the adult male wanted to interact with his children? Generally no, most men don't enjoy that process.
Were people better behaved because of those interactions, yup.
Sad to say but a bit of corporal punishment was usually the best method of making children at certain ages pay attention and respect the rules of society and later on in life they instinctively followed those rules.
Funnily enough a poll of the 50 most successful executives in business say that the corporal punishment they recieved as children was pivotal in making them better people and influenced their path to success.
I suppose we could try appling the school forms of discipline like you shall write one thousands times "I shall not...."
That'll work...... yeah. More likely there'd be an injunction on that for the possibility of inducing carpal tunnel syndrome.
Ok, enough on this topic..
(* It's a long story.. she's was mine.. she left, we're back together.. and in between 'stuff' happened.)
Monday, January 29, 2007
Sounding
Homefires now features a flash based streaming music system. It's member access only.
So far it seems to be low latency, low bandwidth a nice change from most streaming applications.
Mind you it's only had two users on it simultaneously, so that impression may change. ;)
I'm really liking the e107 CMS package. :)
So far it seems to be low latency, low bandwidth a nice change from most streaming applications.
Mind you it's only had two users on it simultaneously, so that impression may change. ;)
I'm really liking the e107 CMS package. :)
Thursday, January 18, 2007
And so it goes..
GW is just bullheaded.. has got to be.. I mean all the top people, (excepting the inner most circle of cronies), practically begged him not to put more troops on the line.
And off he goes and declaims that this is the winning strategy.. that he didn't want to announce before the mid term elections for fear it might affect the outcome.
Mmmm, yeah, I can see how if a republican president announced upping troop levels for a vastly unpopular war, (ignoring the fact that every excuse given for going in was disproven), might have an affect.
As it stood the republican party lost their strangle hold on the congress. I guess that what our dear leader feared was that the people would have turned out even more g.o.p. members of the house and senate to pasture.
And I just love the 'snow' job that the WH press secratary did on the idea that opposing raising the troop levels would 'give aid' to the terrorists. Firstly, the leaders of those people come from a part of the world that invented writing.. and algebra fer crissake.. you have to be asleep with you head in the sand to think that they can't read between the lines of what has already been broadcast far and wide.
It would be nice if some of the yahoos in the inner circus.. I mean circle would read up on how well other external nations faired in maintaining control over that region.. hint, check into the methods the Ottoman Empired employed?.. oops you can't do that any more can you.. and that means using the Mongols techniques are out the window too.. I suppose the English.. but no they didn't have much luck there either.
The fact of the matter is that you can't force democracy on people who are as intractable as the people in the middle east are, and if you try you'll draw back a bloody stump where the hand you had was that you tried to use on them.
They feud.. they've feuded for centuries. And now they have a new partner they can hate and feud with too.
Smooth move.
And off he goes and declaims that this is the winning strategy.. that he didn't want to announce before the mid term elections for fear it might affect the outcome.
Mmmm, yeah, I can see how if a republican president announced upping troop levels for a vastly unpopular war, (ignoring the fact that every excuse given for going in was disproven), might have an affect.
As it stood the republican party lost their strangle hold on the congress. I guess that what our dear leader feared was that the people would have turned out even more g.o.p. members of the house and senate to pasture.
And I just love the 'snow' job that the WH press secratary did on the idea that opposing raising the troop levels would 'give aid' to the terrorists. Firstly, the leaders of those people come from a part of the world that invented writing.. and algebra fer crissake.. you have to be asleep with you head in the sand to think that they can't read between the lines of what has already been broadcast far and wide.
It would be nice if some of the yahoos in the inner circus.. I mean circle would read up on how well other external nations faired in maintaining control over that region.. hint, check into the methods the Ottoman Empired employed?.. oops you can't do that any more can you.. and that means using the Mongols techniques are out the window too.. I suppose the English.. but no they didn't have much luck there either.
The fact of the matter is that you can't force democracy on people who are as intractable as the people in the middle east are, and if you try you'll draw back a bloody stump where the hand you had was that you tried to use on them.
They feud.. they've feuded for centuries. And now they have a new partner they can hate and feud with too.
Smooth move.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)