State Department's Marie Harf demonstrates her naivete with suggestions on how to defeat Isis

If you haven't heard this story, then here's a link that will sum it up:

Marie Harf on CNN
Marie Harf Criticism

But if you don't want to read/watch that then here is a brief summary: Marie Harf, as the Deputy Spokesperson for the Department of State, has an interview in which she said that (and I'm paraphrasing here) we [the US] can not win this war against Isis with violence alone; that we needed to approach it from a social perspective too. After which she suggests that we find them jobs.
She receives a whole bunch of criticism, to which she responds by having another press conference where she states that we [the US] need to find a way to help these people get jobs or do something else instead of picking up guns. And follows it with telling her critics that such an idea may be "too nuanced for them."

To begin with she's calling us, the people of the United States of America, or at least anyone who disagrees with her, stupid. Take offense! I certainly do.

The concept to me is certainly not too nuanced. You[Harf] are suggesting that we find and enact social reforms to deter people from joining terrorist groups. The mere fact that this is your [the White House's] suggestion demonstrates a massive naivete. People don't join terrorist groups because they are poor, have no jobs, or have no other alternatives. People join terrorist groups out of ideology. People join because the information they read or exposed to create a vision of the world that they can not find fault with. When it's coupled with religion it has a backbone of honor and justice. Having available jobs or a better economy will not make any difference whatsoever.

It's possible (much like cults) the heads of the terrorist organiazation do not believe in the ideology, but as long as the the terrorist organization is successful, why would they leave for such opportunities? Would a king rather work in a mail room?

The solution is OBVIOUS. It was always obvious. The fact that I see the solution instantly, but the President has to hold a conference to "figure it out" is infuriating. I would like the leaders of this nation to be smarter than me.

As I said, the terrorist groups use ideology to recruit members, however most of that ideology is a distortion of the truth or propaganda. If you want to destroy a terrorist group, you kill the "charismatic" leaders and bombard the "sheep" followers with counter-propaganda.
I told the solution was obvious, what's NOT obvious is how to accomplish such a task. But you still have to understand the issues first; you can't just spark "bleeding-heart" rhetoric, with no definitive plan.

And let's not forget why Isis is really doing this....which is......because we are christians and jews, not muslims??

EXACTLY. How can you create counter-propaganda unless you know what the original propaganda is stating?
When muslim extremists crashed plains into the twin towers, I felt, and heard others say, "why did they do this?" Or more appropriately, "What did I do to them, that sparked such a reaction?" Eventually I came across a documentary, The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear. In this documentary, we find out that a small group of extremely religious muslims felt that other muslims weren't true muslims (weren't following the muslim faith as true believers). The started bombing various institutions to "wake them up" to true muslimism, but this did not work. So then they blamed the Western influences (us/U.S.) for tainting the muslim religion.
I don't know if this is Isis' "philosophy," but I don't hear anyone talking about what's motivating them.

Will religious bigotry ever end?
hrmph...probably not.

Gun Control Laws Are Stupid!!

I just heard the Seante shot down a gun control law that would have made background checks more "intense" or something.

I say YAY! Success!

Unfortunately it was rather close. It got 54 votes, but needed 60 votes. Whew, that was close one.

Let me be clear. First of all this desire for more restrictive gun control law(s) is primarily motivated by these rash of teenager/young-adult killing sprees in schools and other public places. These tragedies should instigate a re-evaluation of how we, as a society, create or allow these events to occur.

Gun control has nothing to do with it. For instance the last tragedy I heard about, wherein a psychologically disturbed son, went to the school his mother worked at, and proceeded to shoot children, teachers, and his mother. The guns he used were purchsed by his mother. So a gun law requiring further or more thorough background checks, would have had ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON THIS TRAGEDY. That's right. This gun law will not keep your children safe. Had this law been in place a year ago, there still would be dead children and teachers.

But that's not even the biggest problem with this scenario and gun laws. The biggest problem is attempting to blame the social problems on inanimate objects, instead of on individuals and society. Instead of trying to make guns illegal or more restricted, we should be asking ourselves how these events came into play. For instance in the previously mentioned tragedy, I had heard that the "shooter" had gone to the school because he was extremely upset that his mother would send him to a mental hospital. The very fact that he thought going to a school with a weapon to confront his mother was an appropriate response demonstrates his mental instability. So the better questions aren't "How did he get those weapons? And how can we make that more difficult?", but "Why didn't he get help? Why wasn't he in a mental institution? How did things get so far that these events could happen?"

Guns are inanimate objects; they are tools. Guns do not create crime. The arguement that they make crime easier is valid; however crime will not be eliminated by the elimination of guns. To eliminate crime we have to confront it at it's core, it's roots, it's cause, not it's symptoms.

So why have guns at all? Well you can blame Great Britain for that. When rational discourse failed between the colonists and the British Empire, violence seemed the only solution for justice. As such the founders understood a need for individuals (constituents) to own and maintain defensive weapons were their government to ever revert to a fascist construct. Considering we now live in a nation that is heavily influenced by "the 1 %", lobbyists, corporations (they are NOT people, DAMN IT!!), and other groups with money, plus the fact that we have politicians who are more concerned with being noted in the annals of history as opposed to actually attempting to help our country, I think it is absolutely necessary to put few restrictions on the purchase of guns and for individuals to acquire his/her own personal gun.

So to sum up:
Gun control laws will not protect our children.

FUCK U Gabrielle Giffords!!!!! "so that we can look parents in the face and say: we are trying to keep your children safe."

FUCK U Mayor Bloomberg!!!!  "Children lost and they're gonna die, and the criminals won. I think that's the only ways..ways to phrase it."

Mean People Are Mean Period

If you murder a human, should you go to prison?
If you steal an item, should you pay for its value?
If you scam hundreds of people out of their homes, should you lose your job?
If you lie to a nation about your intentions, should you be held accountable?

Apparently not.

Our society, and by extension, our nation has been attempting to remove all our responsibilities. Soon we will be able to do whatever we want, with no consequences whatsoever. Soon we will be able to kill, pillage, rape, plunder, lie, cheat, and so on, and it wont even be our fault.

The newest fad in "it's not my fault" is the mean gene.
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/18/are-mean-people-born-that-way/?hpt=hp_t3
Apparently scientists are performing experiements to see if there is a gene that is directly correlated to being mean, as opposed to being nice. I don't have a problem with the experiements or the desire to fully understand the human body. "The more knowledge we have as a species, the better!" I say.
No the problem I have is the approach that the article takes. It starts off with the title "Are mean people born that way?" Implying that such a thing would be uncontrollable, like hair color, eye color, skin color, height, breast/penis size, etc. That mean people can not control whether they are mean or not. And then it ends with "So it's probably a little too early for mean people to start using their DNA as a convenient excuse for their bad behavior. But maybe someday..."
WHAT THE FUCK?!
When is it ever o.k. to not control your behavior. We spend the first 20 years of our life LEARNING to control our behavior...and then what? we just stop? After that we can just blame it on the genes?

Let me be clear: Our choices, our actions are always controllable by us. I'm not saying it's always easy, I'm not saying that it's always clear. I'm simply saying that if you are mean to other people, then you should be held accountable for your actions.

What does it mean to "blame your genes" or "excuse your bad behavior"? To me it implies an inability to deviate from one's genetical predispositions. And while you might be able to justify such things in low cognitive creatures, I believe that homo sapiens have reached a cognitive level that allows us to control and alter our behavior, despite our predispositions.

This isn't the first time science/society/government have tried to eliminate our responsibilities for our actions (remember 'fat people have a virus'?), and it wont be the last.

But hopefully that'll just mean that some douche-bag will stupidily push the button and we'll all be dead, cause after all, it wont be his fault! He was just born that way.

10/14/11 - committee on Government Backing Loans to Solyndra

On 10/14/11, a committee/subcommittee interviewed and discussed the government backing of loans to Solyndra. They discussed the matter with two representatives from the Department of Treasury.

I would like to discuss with you the detailed issues regarding this matter. Unfortunately that's not possible. After about 3 hours of listening to these politicians, they have spent more time asking inane questions, arguing with the DoT representatives, and spouting rhetoric to further their political agenda. As such there wasn't much actual information garnered from this subcommittee hearing.

What I can tell you is that the Department of Treasury, while handling the government's money particularly loans, does not decide whether other departments, particularly the Department of Energy, CAN have a loan. The DoT offers advice and recommendations to other departments, but has no power (nor enough information) to deny a loan or to force additional investigations.

However, if I understand the law here, if the loan exceeds $100,000, then whatever department, again Department of Energy in this case, must consult with the Department of Justice before proceeding. The DoTreasury informed the DoEnergy regarding this issue, BUT the DoEnergy never did consult the DoJustice.

My problem is the politicians neither understand, nor seem able to grasp the established procedures between the Dot, the DoJ, the DoE or any other department. I kinda think it's their fucking JOB to know how our government runs. Do you really want someone who doesn't understand how the government runs, to be making more laws?

These are the people who represent us, the constituents.

EPA Regulation of Coal Waste

If I understand the issues correctly, the bill referred to as EPA Regulation of Coal Waste, will move the regulation of coal ash from the EPA to the states, in an attempt to prevent the EPA from eventually classifying coal ash as hazardous, which, according to the EPA's own scientific/factual regulations, coal ash does not classify as hazardous/toxic.

The "head" of the bill is Republican Representative John Shimkus, from Illinois.
The opposition is led by Democratic Representative Henry Waxman, from California.

I didn't really find Waxman's criticisms to be legitimate. The biggest concern here is taking away the power of the EPA and passing it to the states. While I agree that a federal institution (the EPA here) ought to be able to peruse, inform, and step in under gross abuses, I think it is more rational to have these local issues dealt with by local government agencies. The federal government should not be stepping into individual waste management institutions. Fuck that.

The other concern brought by the opposition is that coal ash, the waste product of coal energy factories (I believe), is toxic/hazardous. Despite R. Rep. John Shimkus large clear graph that demonstrates, scientifically, that coal ash does not meet the requirements of hazardous material set by the EPA, all the opposing Democrats continued to harp on the hazardous and toxic nature of coal ash.

These Democrats claimed to be the smart party?! Yet they can't grasp a simple, SCIENTIFIC assessment?

So 3-4 Democrats tried to add amendments to the bill. R. Rep John Shimkus opposed these amendments, pointing out that they were redundant. And like sore losers, each Democrat asked for a recorded vote.

(I believe the first Amendment was brought up by R. Rep John Shimkus and was passed)
2nd Amendment is not adopted.
3rd Amendment is not adopted.
4th Amendment is not adopted.
5th Amendment is not adopted.
6th Amendment is not adopted.

So Democratic Representative David Cicilline, from Rhode Island, stands up and makes a flowery speech about how the House of Representatives should be trying to pass legislation to get people back to work, to improve our economy, not on legislation that damages our environment and fails to protect our communities. But it's a pretty empty speech; there's a lot of rhetoric, but little facts, data, or info, mostly just fear-mongering. If he had been there 2 hours ago, he could have heard such facts that completely discounted everything he said, although whether he would have listened is debatable. And just for the record, putting the words "common sense" in front something (like this "common sense amendment") does not make that something "common sense."

Republican Representative Fred Upton, from Michigan, gives a speech opposing Dem Rep. David Cicilline. He tells the history of the bill; he talks of the many proponents of the bill; and he outlines, briefly, how this bill will be helpful. He uses info, data and rationale to support his point of view.

Final Vote on H.R. 2273, Limiting EPA Authority & Giving States Oversight Over Coal Ash
Yeas 267
Nays 144

Special thanks to C-SPAN.

"Well Read" Indeed!

Much earlier in this year, a serious of blogs were discussing the idea of how impossible it is to be "well read" in this day and age, as well as what it means to be "well read".

First Roger Ebert's journal

Second an NPR article by Linda Holmes

Third a blog entry by Signal Watch

Fourth a blog entry by Horus Kemwer

They all have useful and interesting things to say regarding the matter. However, none of them actually touch upon the topic of the purpose of defining someone as "well read." They are all so obsessed with "how to be 'well read'," that they never stop to think about whether it is actually a good thing or not.

I'm sure you're immediate response is "of course it's good to be 'well read.' It means you are in touch with the culture. That you are educated." The Free Dictionary.com defines "well read" as "knowledgeable through having read extensively."

But what you may be ignoring is its qualitative implication. The phrase "well read" is a term used by pretentious elitists to define themselves as more intelligent than others. If you are not 'well read' than your opinion is less valuable than someone who is. Because you have not read these important influential books, you are not educated, not intelligent, not 'worldly'.

The authors listed above are writing about the impossibilty of being 'well read' in an environment where books flood the market like tidal waves; where books from all countries through all ages are accessible with but a few mere clicks of a mouse; where distinguished authors change like seasons in a year. These authors appear to be intelligent rational people, which is probably why they missed the fact that it is not about an accomplishable task, but about a defining of status.

Don't believe me? Let's examine where the phrase originates:

Shakespeare! (surprise.) In his play Henry IV Part 1, Percy Hotspur and Edmund Mortimer are discussing Mortimer's father, Glendower, who has just exited. Hotspur doesn't like Glendower and voices his dislike through a speech about Glendower's tedious references to all sorts of things. He complains of Glendower's constant ramblings of facts and knowledge, so mundane that they are boring beyond patience. He sums up with:

I had rather live

With cheese and garlic in a windmill , far,

Than feed on cates and have him talk to me

In any summer-house in Christendom.

To which Mortimer replies:

In faith, he is a worthy gentleman,

Exceedingly well read, and profited

In strange concealments, valiant as a lion

And as wondrous affable and as bountiful

As mines of India.

hmmm

When first I read this I was unsure of the purpose of the phrase...I needed context.

Once I had read Hotspur's previous comments, I felt certain that Mortimer was giving a back-handed compliment. "Exceedingly well read" If "well read" means to have knowledge from reading extensively, isn't the phrase "exceedingly well read" a little redundant.

But since Glendower, the person they are referring to, is Mortimer's father, it became clear that it was highly unlikely Mortimer would be insulting his father so blatantly. Instead it seems more likely that Mortimer was attempting to excuse his father's behavior by admitting Glendower's faults in a concilatory way.

I still think it supports the idea that being "well read" should not be a badge of honor but a fault to be wary of. Glendower is described, by Hotspur, as talking and talking and talking, about inconsequential topics ("a dragon and a finless fish,").

And to describe oneself as "well read" seems to be an arrogance of self-importance. Because it implies that anything you (the arrogant self-important prick) haven't read isn't worth reading, it discounts the importance of experience. One person might read Moby Dick and find it extremely telling of the human condition; while someone else who read Moby Dick, might see it as boring tripe. What makes a book good and worth remembering is the impact it has on you. However we are all so different and are continuously changing that to make a definitive list of 'must-read' books ignores the purpose of reading....pleasure. In essence the concept of "well read" is meaningless....except as a superficial method of establishing status.

Hmph. I'll tell you this, if you come at me with, "I am 'well read'," you've lost my interest. I am done with you. You are too arrogant to offer any intelligent discourse.

i Look Foward to the End of that.

Fuuuuuuuck me!!!

So at an earl-ish age I realized that people are full of shit. The things that people say, believe in, these motives and actions are based on nothing. Nothing need be rational or logical; we can do whatever we want for whatever reason. Which of course is complete bullshit.

I will NEVER take someone seriously whose sole rationalization for thoughts and actions are because I said so, because I wanted to. It's straight up idiotic. Remember that saying "think before you act"? Know why such a saying came about? Because people just fucking acted!!
"Huh I wonder what this does? So I'll do it." BOOM action
"I want to do this. So I'll do it." BOOM action
Never once thinking "Is this a good idea?" "Will this hurt someone else?" "Do I need to do this?"
You walk into a room. There is strange machinery and bizarre devices littering the room. Light shines brightly from the ceiling, illuminating the glistening metallic instruments. You turn and see one large red circle. As you approach there is a sign above it: 'Do not press.' The large red circle is a glowing red button.
If you did not press the button, you have thought before you acted. Good job.

I'm getting off topic. This is about ME, not people; I'll bitch about their insanity in a different post.

Clearly I had to re-evaluate all my previous notions, that is if all my beliefs were based upon nothing. I believed that if those beliefs were rational, I would arrive at the same conclusions. I didn't (in most cases). I began structuring my entire belief system from the ground up, or as best as I could do. One would have to literally erase one's memory to obliterate the influence of those previous notions.

This difficult process taught me to open my mind. To any porblem there are always many solutions. To each theory there is always more information. no matter where I turned I found that people were making assumptions with insufficient information. I tried to tell me about this, to show them that they shouldn't be so quick to make such declarative statements with what little information they have.
Nobody listened. Out of all the people I have met there has only ever been one person who has listened to me and thought about what I said. Everyone else is so caught up with proving that they are right, that they only think about how to tell you you're wrong. Weirdly I mostly just try to question what they say, NOT tell them they're wrong, yet they act like I am attacking their beliefs (like their god-damn beliefs are soooo irreproachable).

So living in a world full of fools, I became arrogant. I became certain I was right. I became them. I became these people. I don't know how to go back. I don't want to think I'm right all the time. I know it's not true. But how do I fucking deal with people who just blabber bullshit. Every time someone opens their mouth I find myself sectioning out what's probably true and the bullshit (politicians are almost nothing but bullshit, kinda just like lawyers and judges).

FUUUUUUUUUUUCK ME!!!! I don't want to think I'm right, that I'm better. I do not want to be this person. I don't want to be around these lying, delusional, arrogant, naive, ignorant jack-asses. God, I can't wait till it's all over.