An insight has just struck me, so please allow me the hubris of of naming the following Grant’s Law:

No matter how much bandwidth is devoted to delivering new information, it will always be limited by what the receiving mind is willing to accept which challenges prior beliefs.

Technorati Tags: commentary, opinion

This whole “Able Danger” thing seems to be wheels within wheels, and I am not connected enough to untangle the satire, nor the disinformation, from the reality.

There is a recent post at Baldilocks, the author whom is someone I trust to sort the propaganda from the BS when it comes to matters concerning the military, that if I read it at face value, seems to indicate that there is at the least something unusual going on.

I cannot believe that anyone in any capacity in the government of the United States honestly had a reasonable idea of the plans for the attacks on September 11, 2001, and I am compelled to believe that as is the case I have observed all too often in far, far too many situations, if information was available, it was lost in the cluster-fuck that any large organization makes of vital data.

Why do you think the term “cluster-fuck” was invented?

The question remains, however: Where do we go from here?

I stand by my analysis that we as a people and a nation have over-reacted to the attacks on September 11, 2001. The threat represented to the United States by the Wahabist-based terrorist organizations is far, far less than that posed by the Soviet Union not all that long ago, a menace which was truly existential, or the challenge that is soon to be presented by China, which will consist of both an existential, military threat along with an economic challenge that the former Soviet Union would never have been able to mount.

We will not be able to spend China to death as we did the Russian-based Soviet Union.

Again, I repeat, we need to keep our eyes on the real threat to our long term pre-eminence and even, dare I say it, survival.

The math, while horrifying, leads to only one conclusion.

Do the math yourself, after your own research.

Technorati Tags: Able Danger, China, commentary, terrorism, War on Terror

How does one quote sufficiently from a post to convey the idea therein, encouraging people to go “read the whole thing” as the blog-cliche goes, while not over-quoting to avoid either ruining the impact of the recommended post or discouraging readers to click on the link and take the time to read?

I don’t know the answer to that question, but the long quote below is intended to encourage you to read the entire post I recommend.

At Because We Have Thumbs, Sarah the Penguin writes:

We have people evacuated from New Orleans in the homes and churches of over half of the states in the union. From all of the news reports, blogs and first hand stories from people who work with evacuees everyday, there is simply no evidence to support these claims of disgusting behavior on such a large scale.

…But it triggered something in my mind.

We all know that this type of behavior exists within the low income communities.

But it is even more pervasive in the highest class in America.

“Trust Fund Babies� and “Welfare Crack Heads� share the same DNA.

Paris Hilton behaves more like the people described in these e-mails than the people who sleep on the cots in our shelters tonight.

I’m not defending the behavior, I’m just pointing out that it’s not limited to those who depend on welfare and charity and it has absolutely nothing to do with race, class or culture.

How can you not be disgusted at those who will blame the poor their own poverty and neglect to scold those who squander the wealth they did not earn? Bigotry is rampant in our society but it has seeped into the cracks and no longer sits openly on the surface.

When someone expresses concern for those who live in poverty, they are automatically branded as a “liberal�, which means they must also be against the war in Iraq and therefore they are a traitor and must be rebuked before they can spout any more lies.

The same is true for anyone who suggests that increasing taxes to pay for more welfare programs is bad for the economy is tagged as a “greedy republican� and must be shouted down in public for their crimes.

As is noted in the category for this post, I recommend reading this post, and as always I recommend thinking before reacting with what your knee-jerk inclines you to do.

Technorati Tags: humanity, hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, poverty, human nature, recommended reading

Even though I’m sure to the average viewer the site I discovered today, Encyclopedia Astronautica, is completely innocuous, for me it has a tinge of sadness and regret, that of opportunities foregone and the spirit of hope and discovery lost.

Technorati Tags: recommended reading, science, science & technology, science and technology, technology

People ask for criticism, but they only want praise.
   -W. Somerset Maugham

Technorati Tags: quotes

I have always been suspicious of the agenda of the Republican Party, regardless of their proclaimed agenda of representing “conservative values”.

The problem I have had is that the “conservative values” that they claim to represent have not been in alignment with the pro-business policies they have promoted when in office.

There is a difference between being “libertarian” and “capitalist” versus “pro-business”. The first (two) consist of a belief in the free market while also striving to preserve the liberties and rights of individuals over that of non-persons such as corporations, the second is the promotion of business even if it is at the expense of the liberties and rights of the individual.

In other words, “pro-business” is NOT truly conservative by the definition I thought was prevalent in the United States.

I believed “conservative” stood for small government, less spending by the federal government, less interference by the federal government in local affairs (the opposite of the No Child Left Behind Act), and more individual freedoms (the opposite of the USA PATRIOT Act, advocated for both renewal and expansion by the current, nominally Republican administration).

Hence my question: Who exactly does the GOP represent?

It certainly doesn’t seem to be the values of the conservatives as I understand them.

In many ways, I am a nominal “conservative”.

I support the right to keep and bear arms (within certain limits, I do feel that some limitations are necessary, such as registration of weapons along the lines of bazookas and others that go far beyond the capabilities understood by the founders), I believe that government handouts are NOT the best way to alleviate poverty, but I also believe that there is an obligation to help those whom have not been taught good methodologies for making personal decisions (I just don’t have a universal prescription on how to help them), and I do believe that ultimately, with rights come grave responsibilities that we neglect at our peril, as we are learning now.

Is my view of “conservative” in the United States so out of whack?

If not, who does the GOP represent?

Technorati Tags: commentary, opinion, politics