GetOffMyLawn

All the indignation over the assassination of Mabhouh, presumably by Mossad rings a false note with me. Mossad would not need to violate Dubai's territory if Dubai didn't allow terrorists to operate there.  Most Arab nations provide a haven for any anti-Israel politician, terrorist, murderer, etc.  In some cases their support is overt and even when not official, the intelligence agencies know of, approve of and sometimes assist these people.  Mossad has made hits in the Middle East, South America and Europe - because the governments there allowed Israel's enemies to train, arm, recruit, finance and effectively wage war against Israel from those countries.
Israel takes its fight to the enemy, wherever he hides.  Hiding in Dubai or Syria is not really different from using civilians as shields, as Hamas did when Israel got fed up with daily mortar and rocket attacks and invaded Gaza. (There are always civilian casualties in war, but hiding behind non-combatants seems to be a common tactic for Hamas, Hezbolla and Taliban)..

More and more these days I read of various laws and policies being put in place around the world ♠to protect people from getting upset.  People are being told that to practice one religion is an insult to other religions.  No celebrating Christmas - the Jews and Muslims might be offended. (Odd that I never heard anyone suggesting that Islamic holidays are anti-Semitic/anti-Christian. Guess it only works if you're the majority). 
If you really want to start something, be an atheist. The minute you open your mouth, you offend everyone!

Where did the idea arise that everyone is legally entitled to never be offended/insulted/upset?

If I ridicule you for being fat, stupid and ugly, you may be insulted, but I'm not legally liable.
If I ridicule you for being Christian/Moslem/Jewish/etc, I get prosecuted.  Ridiculous!

This study links teen psych problems with their mothers smoking during pregnancy - heavier smoking, more psychoses.


I have no issue with the study, just the conclusions.  Statistics may indicate something worth investigating but do not themselves establish a link.  It could well be that the mothers smoked as part of their own psychological issues, heavier smokers in particular. Given that smoking is known to be taboo during pregnancy, the smoking mothers may have less concern about the child's welfare. The higher levels of stress and psychological issues usually associated with smoking and the lack of concern for the children may well be an indication of the way the mothers would behave later.  Maybe the kids developed their problems because their mothers were screwed up enough to smoke while pregnant, not because of the smoking per se.
Either could be the case - but the scientists have not really proven much here.

The recent distuptive behavior during town-hall meetings to discuss government health care issues reminds me of a quote I once ran across, something to the effect that:


"Democracy is the belief in the collective wisdom of a lot of ignorant individuals."

I particularly enjoyed one idiot's comment that the 'government should keep its hands off his Medicare'...

Maybe that's why the Founding Fathers established a Republic instead of a Democracy.  We'd still be a Republic if the elitists hadn't gotten so greedy they pissed off the common people.  Unfortunately, the concept of noblesse oblige seems to be totally missing.

   Interesting point of view in this article  The human body has great flexibility in dealing with threats, often at a very localized level, although each part stays in communication with the rest of the body as appropriate. I agree the 'security bubble' approach will not work long-term. 
  However, I doubt if DHS's local entities have the intelligence, training and mindset to function as well as our various body parts.  If a minimum-wage TSA worker feels the need to frisk a 90-year-old woman in a wheelchair and thinks a 4-year-old is a terrorist because of name similarites, then that worker doesn't seem to using much in the way of intelligence and is certainly not functioning with the flexibility necessary to deal with evolving threats.

   Saw a brief news item about Obama and his wife taking their girls to visit the Lincoln Memorial.  Couldn't help thinking how appropriate it was.

   There has not been a president-elect since Lincoln who had as much pressure to speak out on public issues prior to his inauguration.  Lincoln bit his lip and pretty much  kept his mouth shut, knowing that without the authority of the office, anything he said would likely come back to haunt him.  Obama has done about the same, correctly pointing out that we have 'only one president at a time' and it's not him - yet.

   Another parallel with Lincoln is that both were elected when the country was under major stress: Lincoln from the collapsing American political system;  Obama from the collapsing  American economic system - and both will inherit an office full of troubles.  At least Lincoln didn't have to worry about the world at large, at that time we were not spreading ourselves, our youth and our resources all over the world, which complicates Obama's situation.  On the other hand, Obama - unlike Lincoln - is pretty much free to choose his cabinet officers, without worrying too much about political consideratons.   

   When the going gets tough, as it will in coming months, President Obama may take solace in the thought that Lincoln was widely expected to fail, by both the Southerners who hated him and thought he would go too far and by many Northerners who felt he would not go far enough.  Lincoln succeeded mostly because he came into office with an agenda to which he was very deeply committed and he subordinated everything to achieving that goal.  He had to learn a great deal very quickly - and he learned everything except how to give up.  The country and the world are much the better for his stubborn persistence. There are a surprising number of other similarities in their circumstances and the men themselves.

  I always considered myself lucky to have experienced the tenure of FDR, Truman and JFK and wished I could have experienced Lincoln.  I think Obama's tenure will be equally memorable. I look forward to reading the historians 20 years from now when it dawns on them we may well have another Lincoln in our midst.

Every so often, an item comes along that speaks for itself...

Four times today, I came across news items concerning various governmental agencies - TSA, FBI, state and local police - doing something which invaded the privacy of the public.  Aside from the expected conspiracy nuts, and the usual whatchagonnado? folks, several commented to the effect that 'if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear."  The naivety of this is mind-boggling.   I would point out Voltaire's comment that it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. Looking at the government's track record, one cannot feel very optimistic about the government (or those adminstering it)  not being wrong a lot of the time.  Realize that the definition of right/wrong is made by a human being, with an agenda which does not necessarily include your welfare. At the very least, all that innocent information is subject to inadvertent loss if not outright theft.  And if the government - or some individual with governmental power - decides to misuse that information, you really can't do anything about it, can you? The safest thing is to establish policies that eliminate unnecessary invasions of privacy - and enforce those policies vigorously and harshly..

The current furor over Caroline Kennedy's seeking the Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton would be amusing if there wasn't an ugly undertone to the opposition. CK is at least as qualified as Hillary was when she ran and won. The anti-Kennedy crowd is just that - anti-Kennedy.  Period.   They accuse her of trading on the family name, saying that if her name was Jones, she wouldn't be in the running.  Odd that no one says that about Andrew Cuomo.

She does not need to apologize for being a Kennedy or for wanting to continue their record of public service.  Damn few of her critics (except the extreme rightwing nutjobs) slander JFK or Robert, but they do try to smear her with Ted's shortcomings (even admitting to those, he's been a good Senator in generall).

If God came down from on high and we found out His last name was Kennedy, the critics would still bitch and moan about Him.  Too often, people condemn anyone who has money and/or power and/or influence, without even stopping to think if their objections are supported by facts.  They are simply prejudiced against anyone with her background - unless it's one of their own.

Leave her alone or base your objections on rational grounds instead of bigotry.

My guess is that if appointed, she will serve well and get elected next around. 

It is  obvious that the economy, the war in Iraq, the healhtcare mess and other mistakes of the past several years do have to be dealt with and will require a lot of time and attention on the part of Obama and Congress.
The one item that seems conspicuous in its absence from the Democrats' agenda is repeal or modification of the Patriot Act and associated infringements on personal privacy and liberty. 
These were pushed by the Neocons as the answer to 9/11 and the Democrats cravenly acquiesced.  One might hope such acquiescence was because they were fighing a losing battle. Now, with a Democratic White House and majority in both the House and Senate, they don't have that excuse.  The opposition to the curtailment of our privacy and freedom has been led by the far Left and the Libertarians, but it affects us all. It is time for legislation that will protect us from external enemies without enslaving us to our own bureaucrats.

What is it about Republican VP candidates?  I have been following the progress of Sarah Palin over the political landscape recently and I have to tell you I have NEVER seen anyone over the age of seven who is so completely clueless.  Dan Quayle was woefully ignorant but I don't necessarily think he was stupid. Sarah Palin is equally ignorant and may well be downright stupid - she is so scatterbrained it's really hard to tell.

In fact, she seems to be so out of it that I wonder if she really ran Alaska or if she wasn't just a puppet for some powerbrokers - or her husband.

'WE WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE FOR THE WAY IN WHICH POLITICIANS ARE REPRESENTED IN THIS PROGRAMME. IT WAS NEVER OUR INTENTION TO IMPLY THAT POLITICIANS ARE WEAK-KNEED, POLITICAL TIME-SERVERS WHO ARE CONCERNED MORE WITH THEIR PERSONAL VENDETTAS AND PRIVATE POWER STRUGGLES THAN THE PROBLEMS OF GOVERNMENT, NOR TO SUGGEST AT ANY POINT THAT THEY SACRIFICE THEIR CREDIBILITY BY DENYING FREE DEBATE ON VITAL MATTERS IN THE MISTAKEN IMPRESSION THAT PARTY UNITY COMES BEFORE THE WELL-BEING OF THE PEOPLE THEY SUPPOSEDLY REPRESENT NOR TO IMPLY AT ANY STAGE THAT THEY ARE SQUABBLING LITTLE TOADIES WITHOUT AN OUNCE OF CONCERN FOR THE VITAL SOCIAL PROBLEMS OF TODAY. NOR INDEED DO WE INTEND THAT VIEWERS SHOULD CONSIDER THEM AS CRABBY ULCEROUS LITTLE SELF-SEEKING VERMIN WITH FURRY LEGS AND AN EXCESSIVE ADDICTION TO ALCOHOL AND CERTAIN EXPLICIT SEXUAL PRACTICES WHICH SOME PEOPLE MIGHT FIND OFFENSIVE. WE ARE SORRY IF THIS IMPRESSION HAS COME ACROSS. 

- Monty Python Episode 32 -

Another example of an establisment creating make-work for itself. Unfortunately, the mother in this example was evidently herself a victim of the last generations' incompetent teaching.

And as for the concepts-before-procedure argument, she quipped: "Would you want to go to a doctor who's learned about the concepts but never done the surgery? Would you want your doctor to say, 'I had the right idea when I removed your appendix, though I took out the wrong one?' "

Thus, when a parent is asked to multiply 88 by 5, we'll do it with pen and paper, multiplying 8 by 5 and carrying over the 4, etc. But a child today might reason that 5 is half of 10, and 88 times 10 is 880, so 88 times 5 is half of that, 440 -- poof, no pen, no paper.

Many of us discovered such shortcuts on our own.  49x49 = (50x50) - 50 - 49.  Been doing this sort of calculation as long as I can remember (and that's a long time) and well before the educational establishment stumbled onto the process. 


The ignorance  is not limited to math. 90% of the latest generation is abysmally ignorant of anything except social skills, which is probably because their lives are largely social interaction. It no longer surprises me to find people who think New Mexico is a foreign country, Europe is a place in France, Afghanistan is in South America and the American Revolutionary War was fought in 1914.  I would estimate that 80-90 of the population beyond school age have not read a book in the last year and 90% of those who do read, read only garbage. Serious writing such as  good fiction, poetry, drama, science, history etc - non-fiction in general are beyond the interest of most people. I suspect many of them would be more interested if they were more capable, if they hadn't been short-changed by the educational establishment during their school years.

I received a better education than my kids, and their education was better than my grandchildren's - and my parents' education was better than mine. Education used to be highly valued in this country, but things begin to go downhill, probably mid-1900s. The slide really accelerated with the civil rights movement, particularly when that progressed beyond racial issues to more general issues.

It has become politically incorrect to demand anything of students. Today, the 'No Child Left Behind' program has degenerated into a 'No Child Allowed To Get Ahead', reducing all education the the lowest level, the least competent children.  It is an attempt to establish equality by fiat, to simply declare that everyone is equal in every regard, without thinking of the meaning of what is being proclaimed or which areas are subject to equality and which are not.  Indeed, most modern inovations in the educational process seem to suffer from a decided lack of intelligent planning and be mostly examples of well-intententioned but ill-thought-out ideas.

I recently got into a conversation with a friend in which I remarked that spontaneity was greatly over-rated. She disagreed, rather strongly, which set me to wondering if I might be mistaken (Hey! It's possible).

    As an example of the downside of spontaneity, I told her the following story:

I was walking on Central Park West, a haven in NYC of old, established wealth.  A cab was waiting at an apartment building and the doorman was escorting two women to the cab, a lady in her 80's or thereabouts and one about collage age.  They resembled each other closely enough that I surmised they were grandmother and granddaughter.

The old lady had a dog on a leash.  It was the smallest dog I have ever seen, not much bigger than two fists.

Just as I got within a few feet of them all, the cabbie asked, "How much does that dog weigh, lady?"

The old woman replied, "About 11 ounces."

Much to everyone's surprise (even mine),  I blurted out, "Hell! I've had farts that weighed more than that."

The old lady, the cabbie, the doorman and I all stopped dead in our tracks for about 2 seconds before I scurried on down the street, leaving the granddaughter rolling on the sidewalk laughing.

Spontaneity is not all it's cracked up to be.

    Viacom's original request for the source code of Google's search engine indicates to me that they are simply using the court system as a weapon, since that code has absolutely nothing to do with their allegations of copyright infringment and they know it is critical to Google. They just figure to frighten Google into giving up.

    As far as the Youtube logs are concerned, I am puzzled. What gives them the right to access such information, 99% of which is unrelated to their case. In theory, they could discover I watched a video of your first skydive, and what's that to them?  Actually, since I am networked, they could not see if the video was watched by me, my wife or my son - or anyone else accessing the Internet thru my router.

   If I did watch a video to which they own the copyright and which was uploaded illegally, they should go after the person who uploaded it, rather than the viewers, who may not even know it was uploaded illegally.

  If I establish a domain/website, I - not the hosting company - am responsible for what it contains. The hosting company may remove my site under legal orders and this seems to me a proper arrangement. Youtube et al have, in my mind, taken improper advantage of that legal permissiveness by distancing themselves too much from what is posted. They should be a little more proactive.

   The same issue extends to the Internet in general. The upside of  'democratizing' the spread of information to everyone is that more information is available., The downside is that control is lost and much of the information put online is mistaken (at best) or illegal (at worst).

    What it really boils down to is that Youtube and similar sites need a way to 'vet' what is uploaded so assure the uploaded data is not illegal or improper. The problem with that approach is that it means the websites would need an army of employees through which all uploads must pass. This would seriously delay uploads and probably turn off a lot of people who use it to display videos (and they would upload to sites without such controls), which would mean the site would be less valuable to viewers and hence get fewer 'hits', with revenue dropping accordingly.

  The question is what level of control - if any - should a website have over its content and at what cost? Should any website simply allow the general public to post whatever they like without supervision? The misuse of Myspace and other social networking sites is a problem they are trying to grapple with, so far unsuccessfully.

  While I think Viacom and similar copyright owners have a right to protect their intellectual property (I am a writer myself, so copyright is important to me), I don't like the way they went about it in this case.  While I think Youtube offers a useful service to both posters and the general publie, I don't think they run their site properly.

  All such public sites will take down illegal/improper material when requested by the law or the real owners of the material. It's a question of how promptly this occurs. Viacom and others want it done instantly and the hosts cannot (currently) do it unless they are notified of specific violations and allowed time to remove the improper posts. Youtube and others have found a cash cow and don't want to dent their profits by the costs required to properly monitor and control their content. 

  The judge in this case should have read something like 'Technology for Dummies' before making his ruling. The only part of the Youtube logs that Viacom should have access to is the logs of uploads, not the logs of viewing. And a review of these logs should be done by court-regulated neutral party, so that Viacom only gets the information related to uploads of their property. Other uploads are none of their damn business, and if you think a company like Viacom - or any big corporation for that matter - would not misuse all that the information in the logs, you are naive. At the very least they could sell the demographic information to marketers.