GraniteGrok

Woodward is teaching two courses this fall. PSYC 571 is described as an "historical introduction to some of the great psychologists and their classic works." The other course, PSYC 791, is a course that Woodward says he conceived a decade ago called "Psychology and Race."

.

In that course, he says, he introduces his 9/11 theory during a particular class session devoted to the subject of "state terrorism vs. individual terrorism."

.

Woodward said he shows a clip, roughly 10 minutes in length, from a film called "The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw." The film, produced and narrated by Canadian journalist Barrie Zwicker, contends the U.S. government's account of the 9/11 attacks is "the overarching fiction and crime and coverup of our time."

.

In the film, Zwicker claims the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War and the attack on Pearl Harbor "all involved secretly contrived attacks on Americans planned or encouraged by American Presidents."

.

"Many spectacular acts of terrorism are fearsome fakeries carried out by cabals within governments," Zwicker says. "And I mean our own governments."

the ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel is not the end of this conflict, but just the beginning. We can make this one different, lasting. We can make this one work if we move away from our stereotypes and start seeing each other as human beings, and learn to empathize.

Posted by Doug at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (2)

I've done a number of Posts lately (here, here, here, and here; Doug and Ken also have "stuff") dealing with the changing nature of war and is the West keeping up.  I was surfing over at WindsOfChange site where the Armed Liberal has a few comments about a Posting over on Global Guerillas by John Robb (got all that?).

Read the latter post - it sums up a lot of what I have been saying, just differently.  However, I do disagree with the following:

Ultimately, western societies will need to learn to live within the limits of this new framework. It is not possible for us to reverse the clock on this trend.

This basically states that the West has locked itself into the style of war, given the political and marketing problems, that we now find ourselves in.  All of what he states about the type of war above this statement is true. 

However, if it is impossible for the West to change, we are doomed.  And while I realize that some institutions will refuse to remake themselves to meet current conditions (at the macro scale, look at the socialism of the EU and their tight controls on commerce and unwillingness to change the welfare system that is dragging it down so), there are those that will change.

One only has to look at how we fought in Afghanistan vs the style of the Soviets.  The latter fought an old style, pound and ground battlefield narrative.  We "danced" (for the lack of a better term, for I am not a military person) using a new style of waging war with our special ops folks directing the "older" (although much better networked) elements of our pound and ground forces.  While the political outcome can be debated (and I think more positive than negative), the military objectives were certainly met.

We can change.  And must.  Or die.

He goes on to point out three areas that the West should avoid:

* Nation-building as a global social policy.
* Collapsing rogue states.
* Escalation of tension.

If the West goes along with his suggestions, again, we will lose.  The overall problem is that it seems that he thinks that we can only fight within our current paradigm.  I believe, at least within the US, we are seeing a willingness to recognize that the nature of war is changing.  Certainly not all folks, just a few, but I hope that the few that recognize it are the ones that matter.  My personal opinion that with his emphasis on "ligher, better, faster" meme, Rumsfield is one that gets it.  Certainly Tommy Franks "got it", so as long as our political leaders in this area "get it", I have hope.

Meanwhile, back to the Armed Liberal and his response to Robb's article.  He points out near the end of his post:

Robb doesn't believe that we can drop the restraints (as above). I know that we can, and wonder if we will choose to. That's a discussion well worth having.

I agree - that is the nub of the equation.  What neither of them discuss is that aspect that I have - the media part of war has now become much more important.  Nowadays, our MSM is so concerned about being seen as not bowing to our government, they bend over backwards and often appear to be always antagonistic rather than "fair".  On the other hand (and other side), their media folks exploit this problem of our media not supporting "our side" and will do what it takes to get their message out (LIKE OURS DID DURING WWII) and are willing to fake what is necessary to support it (re: the staged photographs set up by Hezbullah that did sway public opinion against Israel).

I am hoping with the resulting "egg-on-your-face" on the part of Reuters and the AP that this "accept what is given to us" will stop.  However, being realistic, I feel that unless our media begins to realize that the war is now being fought as an information / propaganda fashion and that THEY are the combatants that now count, we may lose not matter what the military does.

For as of yet, as a group, they don't realize that they are in a fight. 

Posted by Skip at 8:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I have no idea where or how I stumbled across this article, but it has driven me nuts ever since. There are times that I really have to wonder about some people and just where they come up with this stuff. They just seem to want to take things to the nearest cliff and in the process of throwing it off, keep holding on and go over the edge with it (or is that the other way around?).

That just about sums up this whole idea of "white privilege" - over a cliff. I don't mean to make light of what they are talking about - what is wrong is wrong is wrong, period.  Racism of white on black or black on white , or any other combination of white, black, brown, yellow, red, green with blue polka dots (c'mon, I gotta keep this just a bit light hearted) is wrong.  As I have said here on the Grok before, until we all get to the point of being completely color blind, racism isn't going to go away.  Period.  And there are some people that keep it alive on purpose, and some don't mean to but their attempts to get rid of it invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences and end up keepping it alive.

The former are represented by such "power" or "supremacy" groups such as the Black Panthers, the Ku Klux Klan, the Nation of Islam, and Neo-Nazis.  Without the overt racism that already exists or that they foment, they would be out of business pronto.  Unfortunately, there are also folks that seem to be professionals at this as well.  Even if some may not like it, I put folks like the (Reverends) Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton into this group (I'd do the same with white equivalents but I just am running dry on names while I write this - please let me know if you have some).  No way do I put them into the same category as the above hate groups, but their actions and words do keep racism alive despite their words decrying it.

And then there are those think that it is implicitly in all of us, like the author of this article, Elizabeth Bauchner.  It starts out innocently enough:

Last month, my 7-year-old son and I were in the car when he asked me, "Mom, when you grow up, do you get to do whatever you want, or do other people tell you what to do?"

And she's off and heading towards the cliff from there....

Her next paragraph is where I start to have problems:

It just so happens that I've recently been involved in a great deal of anti-racist work in my community and have been thinking a lot about my privilege as a white person. With that in mind, I tried to answer his question.

At this point, I'll be kind and say that she's just approaching the ramp overreaching the cliff - she hasn't jumped yet.

"That's a very interesting question," I told him. "In some ways, it depends a lot on where you're born, how much money you have and what your skin color is."

Never mind, the left foot is now firmly on the ramp. 

So much for egalitarianism for this group.  I have a hard time thinking of what this mother is burdening this son with at the beginning of his life where Mom and Dad know everything ("they wouldn't lie to me, would they?").  Right from the get-go, there is NOTHING in what she listed that he has any control over that can influence his eventual life's outcome.  What ever happened to education, hard work, perseverance (and a bit of luck)?  She has all but told her son - give up now on the notion that you can influence your own life.  How sad.  And how untrue.

Now for the right leg swings forward:

I went on to explain in age-appropriate terms that our country was actually founded by white colonists who enslaved Africans and either killed Native Americans or moved them onto reservations. White people have been opening doors of opportunity for other whites ever since, I told him.

Yup, she's right.  That's all we've ever been and all we will ever amount to as well.  The folks that started this country were all murdering sons of guns trying to keep everyone else face down in the dirt. Let's start his educational career with nothing about America is good - throw it all in the toilet! That whole deal about a better life for one's family...naw.

Sorry, I lost control - only kidding (sorta)!  Umm, how about two anti-examples - what about the abolitionists and the soldiers from the North that gave their lives in the battle to stop slavery?  How about the idea that FRIENDS open doors for other FRIENDS instead?  Why does she HAVE to be race based? 

He gave me a thoughtful look so I continued, explaining that everyone in life has someone telling them what to do — parents, teachers, spouses, bosses.

Ah!  A normal sounding idea - and one that seems to fit into most folks' reality.  Bring that right leg back to the ground.

I added that throughout history, whites in this country took (and were given) the most educational and financial opportunities available, enabling us to essentially do whatever we want.

"You have a lot of traditional privilege in this society, from your skin color and gender, to the fact that your parents and grandparents are educated, and your family has some money," I explained.

Wrong Skip! Never mind about coming back to earth - she's switched from the single leg jump and is going for the double leg push-off!  She's..........airborne! 

Now, not only has she gone racist from the aspect of skin color (white on white), but also his gender as well.  Is there no hope for anyone else?  Calling Colin Powell!  Calling Condi Rice!  Calling Norm Mineta (er, never mind about the last one). Hey N.O.W., where are you when we need you?

This is just plain absurd.  I just can't get over that she truly believes that race is the predominate measure of success in the US.  Then why is the black middle class still expanding?  Why doesn't she take other factors into account for this (just listen to Bill Cosby!)?

"In that sense, I think you will be able to do whatever you want in life,

 Ah, just what I said in the beginning.  Oh, wait (relief on my face) there's a parachute on her back - she's pulling the rip cord...

but it's my personal opinion that people who have privilege should work to make society more equitable."

...and it comes off in her hand. 

Sheesh - I do not know of anyone that I know that could create a sentence like this.  It would be hard enough for me just to figure out how to do this conjunction in a series of paragraphs and make it sound reasonable, but she tried in one sentence.  And to a seven year old. 

Yes, within parameters, anyone chould be able to do most anything, theoretically.  There are no legal limitations here in the US to prevent anyone from trying anything.  What generally comes to the fore is what is each of us going to with what we have?  I'm never going to play in the NBA (even when I was young enough) and since it took a good sized effort to get through multi-variate calculus, I was never destined to be a theoretical physicist either. But that didn't mean that I couldn't try; it meant that I had the ability to try things and the opportunities to fail.  And then pick myself back up and try to find something that suited me better.

And that is the key - it is not outcome at his age, it is the platform to start with.  Yes, those with family money may have a leg up, but that's life - it isn't fair and all of the good will in the world is not going to change that.  it helps if your families have connections, so life isn't fair that way either. But education DOES make a difference (if you choose the right fields) and perseverence even more. I've known a bunch of folks I grew up that were smarter than I am, with families had more money and more connections than I did, and I've done far better in life when factoring everything in.

It also comes down to not thinking that "privilege" is the basis of success.  Believing that will get you nothing, not even a cup of coffee.  Rather, as opposed to her above statement, are you treating other people (whether they are your skin color or not) nicely? 

It can be as simple as just that.

She goes on to more general things from this discussion about her conversation with her young son (and is now traveling at almost terminal velocity as she hurtles towards the bottom of the cliff):

One way in which I have identified quantifiable financial privilege based on skin color is the fact that my father was able to move to the home of his choice in the late 1960s, which happened to be an all-white neighborhood in the Chicago suburbs. There is no doubt in my mind that African-Americans and other people of color were deliberately kept from purchasing homes in my neighborhood.

And she can prove this how?  One instance doesn't a total proof!

My father's ability to move to that neighborhood and start a new business, get a loan and grow his business through word of mouth all had a lot to do with his skin privilege. Sure, his abilities, his math and mapping skills (he was a land surveyor), and his dedication to working steady hours all played a role -- a big role -- as did the economy throughout the 1970s. But it's mainly because of his skin color that he was able to move so easily throughout the wealthier side of society, make connections and network, and acquire the means to comfortably support his wife and three children.

I am amazed at how quickly she assumes and believes that skin color is the determining factor of her father's success even as she lists all of the actual personal attributes of obtaining success here in the US: smarts, working hard and persevering (and yes, the overall economy helps too - trust me, I've been caught on the downside of an economy).  Did she ever think that perhaps being friendly and nice to people had something to do with making connections (especially in a service industry)?  Doesn't she understand that keeping promises in the work place and delivering a quality service and being reliable to and for customer needs are more important for achieving success than almost anything else?

It was my father's skin color that enabled him to essentially do whatever he wanted, as my son wondered about in the car that day.

I'm wondering too, but it's not the same thing as her son did, I bet.

My goal is not to create a sense of guilt, but a sense of accountability, responsibility and hope.

BLAM!  Rock bottom at ground zero. Terminal speed is now zero.

She certainly did fall down in trying to reach her goal - even a quick read shows guilt all over this article, and she shows how much she wants the rest of us to share and wallow in it.  Sorry, not going to happen here.

We all need to be held accountable for our actions and be responsible for what we do or not do.  However, there is no reason in the world to couple those things to overt or covert racism as she so blithly does.  These attributes just ARE and should just BE.  These are the marks of adults and not just those playing at being such. 

She does get one nod from me - she used the word "hope"!  It is this aspect / drive / emotion that has given rise to almost everything else good in the world - a positive (rather than her more than negative wording) emotion - the hope for better and the drive to reach for it.  Hope gets you out of bed to better yourself, do better for one's family, and then looking outward to friends and country. For once hope is in place, people of any color, background, or outlook can move mountains to achieve what they want.  And even if they fail, they can proudly state that they tried.  And then try again at some new hoped for vision.  And that is how we as individuals improve and society progresses.

I do believe she missed the boat by giving her son a guilt lesson instead of a hope lesson.  For it is the ability to dream of better, to hope for better, and then go out and make it happen that is the lesson of America.  

No, not everyone is going to reach their hope and dream - but most will hit many if not most of them.  Remember, NOTHING in life is a guarantee or a sure bet. But that should NEVER keep us from trying.

I know that to some degree, I've tried to be light hearted, bordering on sarcastic....but only to make what I feel are some valid points. Basically, the overall message that I take away from this article is that we (or is that we whites?) can NEVER be free of racism just because of who we are -  our skin color.  Maybe she does feel that way about her self? If so, I do feel sorry for her for putting herself into a jail of her own making. 

I feel REAL sorry for her son who has to be subjected to this self-guilt indocrination.  Better he be taught to IGNORE skin color rather than be taught to hate his own.  Better he be taught the lesson of HOPE, self-reliance, hard work, and being nice to others than this.

A sorry situation indeed.

Posted by Skip at 8:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

According to the Boston Herald, Romney had authority to inspect the Big Dig all along, and simply chose not to:

Gov. Mitt Romney, while angrily decrying Big Dig mismanagement, long ago washed his hands of the project’s oversight, despite a federal agreement that gave his administration the power to annually ensure the tunnels were properly maintained, documents show. …

Federal records obtained by the Herald show that Big Dig bosses, working in coordination with Romney’s MassHighway Department, have been required yearly to verify proper maintenance of the Interstate 90 Seaport connector where a collapse killed a woman.

Direct oversight over the project was transferred from MassHighway to the Turnpike Authority in 1997, although legislation authorizing the move required MassHighway officials to certify the safety of Big Dig tunnels before they were opened to the public, documents show.

However, instead of using that oversight power, MassHighway, under former acting Gov. Jane M. Swift and later Romney, relinquished oversight to the Pike’s Big Dig project director, Michael Lewis, who signed off for MassHighway on the 2003 opening of the I-90 Seaport connector that later collapsed.

There is enough blame to go around for this monstrosity of urban planning, beginning with former House Speaker Tip O’Neill and including virtually every Bay State politician since. And that includes the resplendent present Governor.

The question remains whether or not that sentiment will stick to the would-be Republican presidential candidate. If it ultimately pans out that he is in any way culpable, even indirectly, his path to the White House could become a tougher road to travel than he might have hoped.

Today's BostonChannel.com reports on the lawsuit filed by the "Big Dig" victim's family and includes this statement by the deceased woman's daughter:

"I think there is not just one person that there is to blame for this. I think what happened had happened a long time ago. People did not do their job properly -- people, construction companies, engineers, everyone that had something to do with the tunnel."

Will it be found that the list includes Mitt Romney? Stay tuned...

Previous post on Environmental "Mitt" here.

Posted by Doug at 12:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

From CNN we get this story about Chevron getting tossed out of Chad:

N'DJAMENA, Chad (Reuters) -- Chad ordered U.S. energy giant Chevron and Malaysia's Petronas on Saturday to leave the country within 24 hours for failing to honor tax obligations, in a move apparently motivated by a desire to earn more from its oil.

"From tomorrow, the representatives of Chevron and Petronas must leave Chad and close their offices," Idriss Deby, president of the central African nation, told a government meeting.

OK, I can understand this - if you don't pay, you don't play.  However, as they say on infomercials - "But wait!  There's more!"

The surprise move followed Chad's decision to create a new national oil company, which it said should become a partner in the country's existing oil-producing consortium, led by U.S. major Exxon Mobil and including Chevron and Petronas.

Landlocked Chad, which began pumping crude in 2003, produces around 160,000-170,000 barrel per day but most of its people remain poor.

At 160K barrels per day, figure round number of $70/barrel, that's $4.01 billion a year.  How much is Chad supposed to get of that amount?

Under the 1988 agreement with the foreign consortium, Chad gets 12.5 percent of the wellhead value of total production, before quality discount and the cost of sending it through the pipeline to Cameroon's Kribi terminal.

Well, 12.5% comes out to be....$511 million.  Well, if I was supposed to get that amount, I'd be a tad irritable, too, if it wasn't coming into my bank account!  Throw the bums out!

Oh, wait, there's more!

"In less than three years of exploitation the consortium has earned $5 billion for a $3 billion investment. In contrast, Chad has just received crumbs: $588 million, just 12.5 percent."

OK, what am I missing?  The deal is supposed to be 12.5% - it seems like (taking into account rough numbers), things are ok, right?  So what is he complaining about?  The companies put in $3 billion bucks (more than Chad can afford) to get the oil out, get $5 billion in revenues.  At the recently announced numbers of about 10% profitability, that means the nasty oil companies earned about $500,000,000.  Large numbers, but it means that the oil companies have to get this same rate of production, at the same price / barrel, for another 5 years to cover the cost of the infrastructure ($3 bil).

Now the government of Chad is just taking their property. AND THEY WERE EARNING MORE THAN THE OIL COMPANIES WHO WERE DOING THE WORK!

Oh, there's this:

A Transparency International survey last year ranked Chad the world's most corrupt state

Seems to be epidemic in the African continent.  So where's all the money going?  And does he really think that his government can run the oil industry by itself for long (see Mexico and Venezuela for examples).

Oh, there's this - I guess the massive profiteering-at-the-expense-of-the-American-consumers sized profit kinda gets cut a bit too.  Do ya think we'll see this screetched from the News programs for days on end?

If you think so, I got this little plot of land near the Equator...... 

Posted by Skip at 8:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From JunkScience (which quotes a lot of scientific studies) - maybe Global Warming, over the really long haul, isn't quite what we think:

That's interesting... "Facing the prospect of rapid warming" - "DURHAM - Fossil trees in Antarctica show us that climate has changed greatly in the past. Suppose the current warming is just part of a longer trend that we can't do anything about? It is worth looking at what we know about global climate and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the past 10,000 years -- the Holocene. That period includes the entire history of organized human society -- culture, trade, language, money, agriculture and cities. If we care about what happens to humans, we should care about changes that are unusual to our history." (William H. Schlesinger, The News & Observer)

... Bill seems rather concerned about atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, mostly as a possible driver of dramatic warming. Of particular note, however, are points of reference.

"Independent studies of tree rings and ice cores show that despite some unusual periods, such as the Little Ice Age, 1550 to 1850 A.D., the Earth's mean temperature does not appear to have been more than about 1 degree Fahrenheit warmer or cooler than its long-term average of about 59 degrees."

About 59 °F... that's 15 °C or 288.15 K. The National Climatic Data Center assesses the Global Mean Surface Temperature Estimate for the Base Period 1880 to 2004 (Combined Mean Surface Temp.) as 57.0 °F,  that's ~13.9 °C or 287.05 K (14 °C or 287.15 K seems to be rather more common as the mean from which anomalies are estimated). With estimates of Earth's global mean anomaly for 2005 ranging from +0.4 to +0.8 °C (57.9 - 58.6 °F or 287.55 - 287.95 K) the Earth would appear rather cooler than it's recent long-term average as cited by Schlesinger. If it's still below average, despite measurable increase in carbon dioxide, what's all the excitement about?

If this is right, then what we see is weather changing rapidly but climate changing slowly in trends whose timings and mechanisms we are not entirely clear on.  I am fairly convinced that we are in a warming trend.  I am NOT convinced that human activities are the only items behind this trend.  In fact, I'm not at all convinced that we are the major players at all (and I do not base this just on this factiod). 

However, I do believe that for some, environmentalism has become a religion, and like all religious fanatics, will do almost anything to push their agenda (and taken to the extreme, like ELF, are willing to destroy property not their own and harrass / threaten to kill others).

Posted by Skip at 8:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Update 1

I wish I had seen this earlier (H/T: RightWingNews).

Again, does this signal a willingness to assimilate?

================================================== 

When I saw this first at Michelle Malkin's site, my blood pressure meds failed again.

This has gotten zero attention in the MSM. Over the weekend, militant illegal alien activists marched onto a post office station in Maywood, Calif., and replaced the American flag with a Mexican flag while chanting anti-American epithets. Yup, here we go again. Remember this spring? 

I generally don't go right to the gutter, but are these protesters that STUPID? Do they really believe that doing this is going to convince us that we should just give in to their demands?

Or do they think that WE are that stupid?  

Hmmm, given the support that the MSM gives them, the political correctness "give up-ness" that has taken the place of standing up for what is right and wrong, they may truly believe that we are.

Frankly, I hope not... Go read the whole thing here.

As I have gotten older, and hopefully a bit more wise, I have come to appreciate more and more what a special country, what a unique place, America truly is...

Compared in almost any set of measures, the US is still the best country in the world, and I am truly blessed and fortunate to be here.  Our freedoms and our documents that limit (or should be, anyways) the power and reach of government have created a land of wealth, opportunity and capability that has never been seen before in history.  This is not jingoism, not super-nationalism, but just plain, ordinary pride in our country.

Yet, I have also become a bit wiser in that our style of living, our style of government, can be fragile as well.  This grand experiment that is America is exactly still that, an experiment.  As one trained in biology and computer science, I know full well that not all experiments do not go well, even when carefully nutured and looked after.  Things can go wrong, and the bigger experiment, the worse a negative outcome can get.  Because this experiment is so unique, we must be vigilant in maintaining that balance that allows this experiment to continue on for our children and grandchildren. 

That's why I went bananas last spring when I saw the Mexican flag being flown over an upside down Old Glory during the large illegal immigration marches.  I kept on thinking that if these folks are demanding citizenship and the vote from me, yet continue to wave the flag of their homelands and not the American flag, something is not working here.  Add to that all the signs that proclaimed that California et al belonged to them; it was their right!  That's why in the later marches, the PR "goofs" were fixed; the signs were in English and many more American flags were being waved.  Unfortunately for them, we all saw the real intent in the first marches and ignored the PR.

Yup, trash our national symbol, demand something that isn't theirs to demand, and say it all in Spanish!  Go ahead, see how convincing that will be to me.  Now, "take over" a Post Office, replace my flag with yours, and you think I'm going to support you?

Er, wrong thinking, and not a great way to sway those of us who are citizens to your cause.  Trashing my country does not make you my friend much less getting me to vote for your cause.  Marching in large numbers so as to intimidate just tends to get not the angst going but the anger flowing.

This does not show a love of this country, the willingness to really leave and renounce your former homeland and accept this one.  Remember your homeland, yes.  Remember your heritage (as I do my Swedish and Irish ones).

But be willing to assimilate and immigrate the legal way - show that to me, and I will be the first to stick my hand out in greeting.  

Posted by Skip at 9:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

One of the "perks" of business travel is that the hotels that I stay in often will provide free newspapers; generally USA Today comes to the room's door or one can pick up the Wall Street Journal.  It was in the latter that I found this editorial (paid subscription needed) about healthcare in Canada.

It summarizes the full polls / studies that it references (one by Decima Research and the other by the Fraser Institute) with this:

"More than one in three Canadian households has tried and failed to get timely access to at least one health service within the last three months" 

That doesn't sound too promising for we Americans who want everything yesterday, does it?  "But WAIT" (as the infomercials say), "there's MORE!"    From the excerpt of the Fraser Institute:

The Fraser Institute’s fifteenth annual waiting list survey found that Canada-wide waiting times for surgical and other therapeutic treatments fell slightly in 2005, making this the first reduction in the total wait for treatment measured in Canada since 1993.

Well, this is encouraging!  Maybe I was being a bit too hasty (having read about delays in Canada and in the United Kingdom where access to universal / socialized medicine is known to be rationed / regulated). 

Total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, fell from 17.9 weeks in 2004 back to the 17.7 weeks last seen in 2003. This small nationwide improvement in access reflects waiting time decreases in 5 provinces, while concealing increases in waiting time in Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland.

Oh darn!  How long do they wait?

For the mathematically challenged, 17.9 weeks is 125 days while 17.7 weeks is 124 days (think 4 months).  When my doctor said I needed an MRI on Monday, I was in it at the local hospital on Thursday.  There is something to be said for the capitalistic system as applied to healthcare.

Among the provinces, Ontario achieved the shortest total wait in 2005, 16.3 weeks, with Manitoba (16.6 weeks), and Alberta (16.8 weeks) next shortest. Saskatchewan, despite a dramatic 7.8 week reduction in the total wait time, exhibited the longest total wait, 25.5 weeks; the next longest waits were found in New Brunswick (24.5 Weeks) and Newfoundland (22.3 weeks).

I am amazed that ANYONE who is serious about switching our system (which does need help, but obviously not as much as this does!) needs to be cognizant of information like this.  Since the Presidential silly season has begun, the first thing that came to mind was HillaryCare (thankfully a non-starter, TennCare (a disaster that has since shut down for the most part), and the new MassCare (I'm not holding my breath looking for success).

Anyways, back to the editorial's money quote (pun intended):

"At issue here is whether it is better to ration a scarce good using prices, as a free-market system would do, or using time, as is inevitably the case with nationally financed systems."

I guess it will depend on:

• Can you afford it?
• Do you have the luxury of time?

The first means having bucks or insurance; the second means patience.  Which is better for society as a whole?  Ask yourself this question:  if you had real painful ailment (think ruptured disk in your back that would not require emergency care like a broken limb) or a time critical disease ("this tumor / cardiac condition needs attention NOW!"), would you be willing to wait 4 months for treatment to begin?

Posted by Skip at 8:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

WASHINGTON — A congressman said Sunday he would ask the U.S. administration to freeze the $230 million aid package to Lebanon proposed by President Bush until the Lebanese government takes control of its borders with Syria and prevents arms smuggling to Hezbollah guerrillas.

Rep. Tom Lantos, the top Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, spoke after meeting with senior Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Lantos said he told Olmert the U.S. aid package to Lebanon was important, "but that this package should be withheld until the Lebanese government displays responsibility."

"A porous Syrian-Lebanon border will only invite the repetition of Hezbollah attacks in the future. Hezbollah must not be allowed to rearm again," he said.

Posted by Doug at 4:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

TMEW and I ran a daycare center for a while, so when I saw this at TongueTied linking to this story from Australia, I just shook my head:

CHILDCARE workers have been instructed not to use the words "no" and "don't" because it is feared they will stunt a child's development.

The terms "good boy" and "good girl" are also frowned on as they are considered sexist.

The rules -- taught to childcare students -- have angered Australian Family Association campaigners, who say it's another example of out-of-control political correctness.

And that is all it is - political correctness running amok once again.  Kids are going to try EVERYTHING and ANYTHING.  The teachers have to be able to maintain order with their groups - if not, that group can cause utter chaos for the entire center (trust me, we had some teachers that were not up to the job - it takes a VERY special person to do this professionally.  It is NOT baby-sitting and it is NOT just sitting around "playing with the kids".) And while it may not be "educationally correct" to say "NO!", it is sometimes absolutely necessary.

Why?  Think of a two year old getting ready to whack another one.  Kids will do that, even the nice, quiet ones - and some more than others no matter what you do.  A teacher saying NO loud enough can and often will distract the agressor long enough for the teacher to disrupt that event.

And not using "Boy" or "Girl"?  Er, what are they - Its? 

A Gold Coast childcare worker, who did not want to be named, said staff were told to use alternatives like "stop" to discipline a child so "we don't stunt a child's mental growth".

Foolishness.  Kids need boundaries and  if used properly, the word "no" sets boundaries.  Just like "yes" can set boundaries as well.

 Australian Family Association state secretary Angelique Barr said: "I think people are always looking for new rules to bring in to justify their jobs. 

A hint - she's not talking about the daycare workers either.  While I owned the center, I knew right from the get go that there was no way I could do what my teachers did. 

When it comes right down to it, there is the theoretical educational philosophies and there is the  "we're in the middle of it, not you Professor" common sense that has to meet somewhere in the middle.  Given what I have seen, and some of the behaviors that have to be changed around (or endured), I'd give the nod to those actually doing the work.

Posted by Skip at 8:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm just hearing about this now...remember the story of Rosa Parks?  Well, here we go again - what a dope!  This time, Ms. Davis (a white school bus driver in Shreveport, LA)  reportedly told some black kids that they had to sit in the back of the bus as the front was for the white kids.

The NAACP is up in arms about it, and I think rightfully so. There is no reason that this should be happening nowadays. Generally, I am skeptical about overt racism being reported for the simple reason that any attempt to do would be quickly be found out, and the person or group committing this crime had to be rather simple-minded. I guess I get a twofer in this story.

Often, I believe, that when race is brought to the forefront and used as a club, it is generally a time to turn over and go back to sleep. One such example is the alleged Duke rape case of the mostly white lacrosse players assaulting a black stripper to “dance” for them. The morality part of this aside (and I think it was wrong for this activity to happen regardless of the races involved). What seems to be coming out in the blogs and MSM is that the case appears to be so full of holes and the stories just from the alleged victim so contradictory, the charge of “race” seems to be collapsing on its face. I really do take Dr. King's words to heart that until we ALL stop seeing race, racism will continue to be there.

However, not so here in this case. If turns out to be true, I hope they throw the book at Ms. Davis. I certainly am very interested to see how the whining and dodging is going to be tried in this case (e.g., lawyers stretching or manufacturing a “reality”).

(H/T: Neal Boortz) 

Posted by Skip at 8:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Hume: Yes, and what an appealing faith these thugs must believe Islam is, that conversions have to be effected at the point of a gun.

And what of the argument that all of the ills and troubles that beset the Palestinian people, that lead them to terrorism, are the cause of what they endlessly refer to as the illegal Israeli occupation.

Consider the latest rounds of trouble in Gaza and Lebanon, two places from which Israel has withdrawn.

It has been noted that not for one day after the Israeli pullout from Gaza did the rocket attacks that came from Gaza ever stop. We’re not dealing here with something that is susceptible to a political resolution of the kind of which the State Department and many a president has dreamed.

We’re dealing here with a lawless enemy whose goal far transcends any side-by-side, two-state solution. That isn’t going to do it. We’re dealing with a terrorist, gangland-style enemy, which I think it’s fair to conclude, and this episode only further illustrates it, must be defeated.

Brit Hume is a rare journalist who really seems to "get it" and has an ability to lay it in front of his viewers in an understandable way. Skip and I have both posted many observations on this topic. Go to the "War with Islamofascists" category by clicking here. Go directly here and here for some of our favorites...

Posted by Doug at 9:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

All I can say is that, along with many others, that I am in the shape physically I promised myself that I'd never be in, and that I am thankful to the Good Lord above (and my Mom's genes) that my hair has turned grey and not loose.  But when I read this (H/T: GeekPress), I could feel the slump in my shoulders get just a bit more pronounced:

Beloit College's Mindset List for the Class of 2010.

1.     The Soviet Union has never existed and therefore is about as scary as the student union. 
2.     They have known only two presidents.
6.     There has always been only one Germany.
7.    They have never heard anyone actually "ring it up" on a cash register.    
19.     "Google" has always been a verb.
22.     Mr. Rogers, not Walter Cronkite, has always been the most trusted man in America.
36.    They have rarely mailed anything using a stamp.
37.     Brides have always worn white for a first, second, or third wedding.
56.     They have never put their money in a "Savings & Loan."
75.     Professional athletes have always competed in the Olympics. 

Go read the whole list here. Then start shopping for a plastic surgeon.....

Posted by Skip at 8:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

(H/T: Lucianne)

The South Bend Tribune is reporting this story about the first day at school at Morton High School:

HAMMOND (AP) — Fed up with inappropriate outfits, the principal at a high school suspended 128 students on the first day of school as part of a crackdown on dress code violators.

Wednesday’s one-day suspensions came minutes after doors opened at northwestern Indiana’s Morton High School and affected more than 10 percent of the 1,200 students.

The offending attire — including baggy pants, low-cut shirts, tank tops and graphic T-shirts — are banned from classrooms. Students were also cited for cell phone use. 

Hey, didn't anyone get the message?  Or, as it seems to be when some authority figure lays down the law, those affected didn't think anything of it?  However, the story continues in a vein that I was sure was going to follow:

That didn’t stop parents from complaining about the punishments.

Yup, parents.  Let's give them a chance and see if they have any valid claims....

“This takes their first day and makes it traumatic,” said Bridget Lane, whose daughter was suspended for wearing a tank top and layered clothing. “I agree with putting some fear into the kids, but I think this was way too hard-nosed.”

Well, the score for me goes Principal-1, Parent-0!  Boo-hoo, "traumatic" she says.  What was she expecting, a whack on the bottom and tell her to not do it again?  Oops, I raised the specter of spanking in schools (hmmm, it could have a positive impact [pun intended]).  If she wants traumatic, that's what would have happened if one of mine got thrown out for not following a simple rule.

Look, if anything, the parents should be supportive of installing ANY kind of discipline.  And discipline means setting expectations (the school did send out notices in July) and ensuring that the expectations are met (via visual observations in this case), and punishment if the expectations are not met (the suspensions).  Doing anything other than what the school did would show that authority figures are to be mocked and that rules mean nothing.

Here, and over at GilfordGrok (our "local" blog), I take the local Educational-Industrial Complex to task every time I think they deserve it.  This time, the local school deserves kudos for coming up with a common sense policy and then enforcing it.

“I’d be supportive if half the school was sent home, because 99 percent will get the message our schools are for education,” board president Rebecca Ward said. “They don’t need to come in thinking they’re posing for a fashion magazine.”  

Good for the school board!  The students have to learn that actions and decisions have consequences. 

Now, I only have one question - do the teachers and administration have a dress code for professionals that they have to abide by?

Posted by Skip at 8:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There is a woman (and I will NOT use the word 'lady" here) that is holed up in the Adalberto United Methodist Church in the Chicago area by the name of Elvira Arellano.  Why?  She is not only an illegal rights activist, she herself is an illegal that has already been deported once from this country.  Although unmarried, she has a seven year old son that is an American citizen as he was born out of wedlock here in the US.  And yes, I point this out for a reason.

While we talked about this on The Advocates radio show this morning, I first read about it in the paper while coming out to San Diego.  I have to say one thing for the Chicago SunTimes - they are showing multiple facets to the story.  While sitting at O'Hair Airport, I read this commentary by Mary Mitchell.  Her point was that although Arellano was trying to connect her situation to the event of Rosa Parks not giving up her seat to move to the back of the bus, Ms. Mitchell correctly points out that Ms. Parks did not break any laws (although I believe she was arrested). 

Not quite the case with Arellano.  From that story:

Arellano is not a victim of an unjust system. She crossed into the U.S. from Mexico in 1997, obtained a fake ID and was caught at the border and returned home. Three days later, she sneaked back into the country and made her way to Washington state, where she managed to get a driver's license. She met her son's father and gave birth to her son in 1998 [note - not married -Skip]. Two years later, Arellano moved to Chicago and again managed to get a fake ID -- a Social Security card -- and landed a job as a cleaning lady at O'Hare Airport. Three years after that, she was caught and pleaded guilty to working under a false Social Security number.

So now you know the back story.  She even got an extension for her deportation - U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez and U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin ...both men stepped in in 2003 and secured a one-year extension from deportation on Arellano's behalf. They secured another one-year extension in 2004 and again in 2005

OK, if they want to delay it, I'm sorta OK with it (alright, I'm not at all - but they have the power or pull to get it done) as it is a delay and not an amnesty call.

Now to the other commentary - this is so wrong on so many levels that I am about to explode. 

The other commentary (see here) is by Sue Ontiveros.  She is all in a twitter about this case, but I figured out real quick that she and I do not see eye to eye on this:

Since I first heard about Arellano, the undocumented worker who has taken sanctuary in Adalberto United Methodist Church to avoid deportation to Mexico. 

Let the spin start here.  I can read the rest of the story knowing that Ms. Ontiveros is sympathetic to those that break the law.  In fact, while she does acknowledge the fact that Arellano illegally crossed the border twice, she does the literary version of sweeping it under the rug.  So what has me so steamed up?  This:

What about the rights of her 7-year-old son, Saul, who is an American citizen? We should be concerned about his rights. You start trampling on the rights of one citizen, and where does it end? 

Let's skip the Responsibility part and go right to the Rights part, shall we? It just seems so typical for those of a liberal bent (and I certainly see more Liberals excusing illegal behavior more than I do Conservatives).  And this is what this is all about - the responsibility to respect and obey the law.  Or the lack thereof.

I am in the camp that says if you come here illegally and then have a child, that child should not become a US citizen.  Lots of other countries enforce it that way, and I think that this one should change its laws in this area as well (and if you look at it, the current law does have the wiggle room to be interpreted such this could be true).  Be that as it may, he is a citizen.  Right now, no one is questioning his rights.  No one is threatening to take his citizenship away (and given how the law is right now, he should be grandfathered even if it is changed).  So what's the problem?

So I was glad to see that a petition is being filed in federal court to vacate her deportation.

No, Ms. Ontiveros should not be glad.  She is aiding and abetting someone who has already been convicted of a crime.  This illegal broke the law multiple times (e.g., illegally crossed over the border twice, gave false testimony to obtain and use a fake ID, moved around the country illegally [no visa], broke the SS laws by illegally using someone else's SS number, and is defying a deportation order).  Given her status as an illegal and her socio-economic status as a cleaning lady probably means that she, as an illegal, was gaming the "safety net" to boot, costing legal taxpayers money. 

The petition says that because Arellano and Saul have no other family members in the United States who could take care of the 7-year-old if she were deported, what will happen is the United States will be deporting a U.S. citizen, too

Here's where the spin continues.   And here is where Ms. Ontiveros wants to forget one of the most basic laws there is:  actions and decisions have consequences.  Often, wrong and bad decisions are going to involved innocents.  No matter how you look at it, Arellano, as a parent, has made illegal decisions that have adversly affected her son.  Ms Ontiveros expects us, using pure, raw, emotion to make her case, to throw in the towel and let Arellano off without even a token hand slap. 

Arellano is responsible for her decision. The hard, cold fact is that Arellano and her son do not have to be split up.  I am quite sure that if the deportation hearing goes the way it should, they would allow and pay the cost of sending Saul back to Mexico with his mom; this would not be a deportation but an act of kindness.  Or, he would become the ward of US.

What Ms. Ontiveros fails to mention that even if he accompanies his mom back to Mexico, he loses no rights.  He still remains an American citizen, with all rights and responsibilities thereof. 

Because that is exactly what we'll be seeing: an American citizen forced to leave the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. A child will have to choose between mom and his country of birth, the United States. That's homeland security? I don't think so 

This is NOT deporting Saul.  And NO, the child, being a minor, cannot chose in this case - his mother will have that responsibility (if a judge does not take it away from her).  And again, ignoring the rule of law for the never-never land of ruled by emotion is just plain wrong.  Frankly, he should go with his mom - any anger he should have should be aimed not at the US but at his mom who put him into this situation willingly.  She knew the odds and she knew the consequences; she ignored the former and now has to pay the latter.  And YES IT IS, homeland security - illegals are just that and by definition, should not be here.

Saul and Elvira Arellano are just the public faces of a situation that is a reality in many homes across the United States...These are American children who, just like Citizen Saul, worry every day that Mom or Dad or both parents will be plucked away from them just like that. This, in the country that loves to drape itself in "family values." Where is the value of ripping American citizens away from their parents?

Pure numbers does not make it right.  Just as we saw huge crowds protesting to be declared legal and to be able to vote, we have legal processes to follow.  Until the law is changed, it should be followed.  I take quite the exception to the last sentence above - NO ONE IS RIPPING KIDS AWAY FROM PARENTS! And again, let's be honest and truthful here, it IS the fault of the parents to have put in this situation knowing what might happen.

Again, for the slow among you that disagree with me - the parents are responsible for this sad situation, not US law.  If the parents are upstanding and love their kids, they will take their kids, go back to where they came from, and come back LEGALLY.  It may take a long time to get the proper paperwork and approvals done and done right, but it will help that their offspring are citizens.  And when they come back LEGALLY, I will be most happy to shake their hands and truly welcome them to America.

Until then, we cannot ignore and dismiss illegal activity for the sake of the innocents. For if we do in this case, why not in all other areas as well?

For every comfortable U.S. citizen who tells me that, I wonder, how would you react if you and your family were so poor and hungry and just to the north there were jobs to end that misery? Desperate people do desperate things, especially with opportunity so close they can almost touch it.

Sorry, I may sound like a broken record, but just because desperate people are desperate, that doesn't make it OK or legal.  Life is cruel and life is cold - that is the nature of life.  Yes, we can make it better for some (not all), but ignoring our laws is not going to make it better for them - just worse for the rest of us.  Allowing this to happen will not thaw my heart - it will just harden it   especially since sympathizers keep hitting us over the heads with stories just like this - at some point, I got tired of people doing just what they wanted to do - and the rest of us end up paying for it one way or another.

We are a nation ruled by laws.  Thankfully, not by emotion (although I am beginning to wonder).

Posted by Skip at 5:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Relations between the United States and France had cooled in the aftermath of World War I. A number of issues had driven the former allies apart, including:

• residual tensions from hard bargaining and perceived double-dealing at Versailles;
• the continuing effort of the U.S. to collect the full amount of war debts incurred by hard-pressed France;
• the embarrassment felt by France because of being assigned a lesser naval role at the Washington Conference (1921);
• the recent failure, regretted by both nations, of the Geneva Conference (1927).

An effort was made by French foreign minister Aristide Briand to warm-up relations between the two former allies. Columbia University professor James T. Shotwell met with Briand in France and suggested that a bilateral treaty be negotiated that would outlaw war between the two nations. Briand seized this idea and presented it in an open letter to the American people.

The Coolidge government, at least initially, was not interested in having its hand forced in diplomatic matters and offered no response. A few weeks later, Columbia President Nicholas Murray Butler sounded the same theme in a letter published in The New York Times. The press in New York and elsewhere began a drumbeat calling for the “outlawry of war.”

Even back then, the news media and their ideological comrades in acedemia espoused silly, utopian notions that failed in the face of reality.

Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg was lukewarm to the idea, but at least gave formal recognition to Briand’s proposal. Meanwhile, public sentiment continued to build. A leader in this effort was Senator William E. Borah of Idaho, who secured the support of the National Grange; its petitions supporting the proposed agreement contained more than two million signatures and increased the pressure on the government. Kellogg began to see advantages in such an agreement, but insisted that the concept be expanded to encompass many nations.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact provided for outlawing war as an “an instrument of national policy,” and was further notable for the following:

• No enforcement mechanism was provided for changing the behavior of warring signatories.
• The agreement was interpreted by most of the signatories to permit “defensive” war.
• No expiration date was provided.
• No provision existed for amending the agreement was included.

Despite these shortcomings, the pact was signed in August 1928 by 15 nations. In the following months, more than 60 countries joined in this renunciation of war.

The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee studied the matter and issued a report that maintained that the pact did not impair the nation’s ability to act to protect the Monroe Doctrine. Having cleared that hurdle, the full Senate voted 85 to one for ratification. Despite the lopsided tally, little true enthusiasm existed for the highly idealistic agreement. Other nations followed the U.S. lead by ratifying the treaty, but reserving the right to act to protect their special interests.

Events of the 1930s demonstrated the total inability of treaties to halt expansionist nations from making war on their neighbors, proving the skeptics to have been correct. Most damaging perhaps for the United States was that the Kellogg-Briand Pact may have induced some in positions of authority to delay action in the face of aggression, hoping in vain that the terms of the agreement would be honored.

Times never change. Only the names and dates.

Posted by Doug at 2:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)