Open letter to President Obama's Staff:
You say the President has promised the most transparent administration in history, and the staff is said to be committed to listening to and responding to me.
If that is true, why does the staff use an obtuse method of forced complication through a website in order to send a message to the President?
Is there something wrong with revealing a straightforward e-mail address, or does the staff intentionally use a method by which it can discourage communication?
Monday, November 29, 2010
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Bullying
We hear a lot about bullying these days. Most of it is ridiculous. It becomes absurd, when there is even consideration for government involvement. I caution government representatives to stay out of it. It will lead only to emotional trauma.
To better understand bullying, let's consider what it really is. It is a technique by which a person or group attempts to gain power over another individual or group through threat of violence or other undesirable result. The bully expects that his target subject is then amenable to granting concessions.
Here are some examples of bullying. A fifth grader threatens to punch a fourth grader, unless the fourth-grader gives up his allowance. North Korea threatens to use nuclear weapons and actually uses standard artillery to convince South Korea and the US to make economic concessions. Government threatens the public with dire financial collapse, unless they approve massive bailouts. A male boss threatens a female employee with demotion or firing unless she accedes to his sexual requests.
There are commonalities in all of the above scenes. The first is the desire for power on the part of the bully, as already mentioned. The second involves the person or group being bullied. If that person or group agrees to the bully's demands, a bullying situation is executed. However, if that same person or group does not agree to the bully's demands, a contest develops, in which it is likely that the bully will back down.
The key point is that life is full of bullying situations. Children must be taught to stand up for themselves at some physical risk. And so learning, they then become able to handle more complex bullying situations as adults. Any society which is taught that bullying situations can be alleviated by a higher power, is doomed to destruction. An over-protective parent who comes to the defense of his child in a bullying situation at school, on the sports field, or wherever, is not allowing his child to grow to handle adult problems. In such situations, a parent should be an observer and not interfere with the attempted bullying process. If a child accedes to a bullying request, he learns to pay the penalty. If he does not exceed the learns that he himself has personal power.
This is a situation of personal life in which government, including schools, have no business operating. It is an area that must be reserved for the general public, particularly parents in the teaching of their children. It should be accepted that bullying will never be eliminated. It is a fact of life and people must learn to deal with it.
To better understand bullying, let's consider what it really is. It is a technique by which a person or group attempts to gain power over another individual or group through threat of violence or other undesirable result. The bully expects that his target subject is then amenable to granting concessions.
Here are some examples of bullying. A fifth grader threatens to punch a fourth grader, unless the fourth-grader gives up his allowance. North Korea threatens to use nuclear weapons and actually uses standard artillery to convince South Korea and the US to make economic concessions. Government threatens the public with dire financial collapse, unless they approve massive bailouts. A male boss threatens a female employee with demotion or firing unless she accedes to his sexual requests.
There are commonalities in all of the above scenes. The first is the desire for power on the part of the bully, as already mentioned. The second involves the person or group being bullied. If that person or group agrees to the bully's demands, a bullying situation is executed. However, if that same person or group does not agree to the bully's demands, a contest develops, in which it is likely that the bully will back down.
The key point is that life is full of bullying situations. Children must be taught to stand up for themselves at some physical risk. And so learning, they then become able to handle more complex bullying situations as adults. Any society which is taught that bullying situations can be alleviated by a higher power, is doomed to destruction. An over-protective parent who comes to the defense of his child in a bullying situation at school, on the sports field, or wherever, is not allowing his child to grow to handle adult problems. In such situations, a parent should be an observer and not interfere with the attempted bullying process. If a child accedes to a bullying request, he learns to pay the penalty. If he does not exceed the learns that he himself has personal power.
This is a situation of personal life in which government, including schools, have no business operating. It is an area that must be reserved for the general public, particularly parents in the teaching of their children. It should be accepted that bullying will never be eliminated. It is a fact of life and people must learn to deal with it.
Terrorism Is Alive and Well in the US
How do I know that terrorism is alive and well in the US? Because I can see that it is working. Another terrorist activity has been reported on the news this morning. Mohamed Osman Mohamud attempted to blow-up what he thought was an explosive-packed van during a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, OR. While there failed to be an explosion, it scares the pants off the American public, which is one of the objectives of terrorism and why it is on the national television news.
While there is hardly a day that goes by without some aspect of terrorism being reported either directly and indirectly, this is a significant increase compared to our historical experience. In effect, terrorism is working.
One of the major reasons that terrorism is working is an abuse of compassion on the part of the American public combined with an unrealistic attitude with respect to personal liberties. When a civilian jury in New York finds a terrorist guilty on only one of a large number of charges, it is apparent that there is something wrong with the system. In effect, the American public doesn't like terrorism in any form, but doesn't have the will to do anything about it, because of ambiguous emotional feelings. When the picture of a terrorist is portrayed on TV, most of the public will say, "Isn't he a sweet looking man. He couldn't have done anything like that. I think he is being framed by government."
As you have noted from my previous correspondence, I am normally not a supporter of big government or most of the actions of our present government. However, in its present activities to control terrorism, through infiltration into terrorist societies, electronic scans and pat downs at airports, it is doing a reasonable job, in spite of the fact that it has to fight the American public to do so. The bottom line is that if left to the American public, terrorism will continue to grow and ultimately achieve a status of success which will make the New York 911 situation mild by comparison.
Therefore, we need a new program. First, we need to take the legal prosecution of terrorists out of the hands of American juries. Terrorists are enemy combatants, no matter what their nationality, age, sex, ethnic origin, etc.. As such, they must be prosecuted by military courts, and those military courts must be immune to political pressures coming from the American public. In the prosecution, a new classification of charge must be established. I suggest, "Intent to commit mass murder". We can leave it up to military lawyers to establish definitions, but murder means killing people. Mass means more than one, whether defined or not. Intent means having put into place some physical means by which to accomplish the murder.
When an alleged terrorist is apprehended, he must be tried by a military court within two weeks of the apprehension. The trial must last no longer than two days. If the alleged terrorist is found innocent, he should be immediately released, but continually surveyed by law enforcement authorities. If found guilty, he should be executed within two days of the guilty verdict. There should be no process of appeal nor life prison sentence.
Let's get the ball moving. There should be no public announcement, because we've seen that the public can't be trusted to do the right thing in this matter. Too bad that we have to go through Congress, which already involves a lot of people, but that is our system of government. In World War II, two people decided to build an atomic bomb. President Roosevelt and General Groves. But that was a time of war. Perhaps Congress should start this whole ball rolling by declaring war against terrorism.
While there is hardly a day that goes by without some aspect of terrorism being reported either directly and indirectly, this is a significant increase compared to our historical experience. In effect, terrorism is working.
One of the major reasons that terrorism is working is an abuse of compassion on the part of the American public combined with an unrealistic attitude with respect to personal liberties. When a civilian jury in New York finds a terrorist guilty on only one of a large number of charges, it is apparent that there is something wrong with the system. In effect, the American public doesn't like terrorism in any form, but doesn't have the will to do anything about it, because of ambiguous emotional feelings. When the picture of a terrorist is portrayed on TV, most of the public will say, "Isn't he a sweet looking man. He couldn't have done anything like that. I think he is being framed by government."
As you have noted from my previous correspondence, I am normally not a supporter of big government or most of the actions of our present government. However, in its present activities to control terrorism, through infiltration into terrorist societies, electronic scans and pat downs at airports, it is doing a reasonable job, in spite of the fact that it has to fight the American public to do so. The bottom line is that if left to the American public, terrorism will continue to grow and ultimately achieve a status of success which will make the New York 911 situation mild by comparison.
Therefore, we need a new program. First, we need to take the legal prosecution of terrorists out of the hands of American juries. Terrorists are enemy combatants, no matter what their nationality, age, sex, ethnic origin, etc.. As such, they must be prosecuted by military courts, and those military courts must be immune to political pressures coming from the American public. In the prosecution, a new classification of charge must be established. I suggest, "Intent to commit mass murder". We can leave it up to military lawyers to establish definitions, but murder means killing people. Mass means more than one, whether defined or not. Intent means having put into place some physical means by which to accomplish the murder.
When an alleged terrorist is apprehended, he must be tried by a military court within two weeks of the apprehension. The trial must last no longer than two days. If the alleged terrorist is found innocent, he should be immediately released, but continually surveyed by law enforcement authorities. If found guilty, he should be executed within two days of the guilty verdict. There should be no process of appeal nor life prison sentence.
Let's get the ball moving. There should be no public announcement, because we've seen that the public can't be trusted to do the right thing in this matter. Too bad that we have to go through Congress, which already involves a lot of people, but that is our system of government. In World War II, two people decided to build an atomic bomb. President Roosevelt and General Groves. But that was a time of war. Perhaps Congress should start this whole ball rolling by declaring war against terrorism.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Hit Terrorism Hard at the Source
E-Mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
I read your latest newsletter.
We agree that terrorism is a threat to the US population. It will likely continue forever. Similar to viral contamination, it cannot be eliminated. It must be continually controlled.
We need to reduce terrorism activity. One of the most urgent aspects is now to reduce activities in Yemen. To accomplish this, we need to stop pussyfooting around with the Yemen government, which has already proven that it is either incapable or has no interest in eliminating terrorist bases within its borders. You do this by telling the Yemen government that they have a certain time in which to achieve specified results, or you will act independently, probably with bombs and missiles rather than ground forces. Are you doing anything along these lines with respect to petitioning our State Department and Military or are you just writing about it in newsletters to voters?
I voted "no" on your question of the week concerning whether I am willing to pay more for shipping. I also note that 65% of the responders voted "yes". I believe they did so on the presumption that terrorism from foreign sources cannot be controlled at the source, but must be controlled at the borders of the US. From my previous paragraph, you will note that I disagree completely with that premise. Control them at the source!!
It appears that you are a shu-in for reelection in today's voting. May I also remind you that the Tea Party is supporting Republicans on a conditional basis. Tea Party representatives have said that Republicans are "on trial".
We now must go back to the old "saw". You have heard from the public that we are opposed to "the unprecedented levels of government spending and debt. The rapidly growing federal bureaucracy and harmful new EPA regulations were also common conversation topics. Many of you are hoping that Congress will pass much-needed tax relief for working families and small businesses before the end of the year." I notice again that you give no indication of what you actually plan to do about it, other than perhaps sympathize.
I read your latest newsletter.
We agree that terrorism is a threat to the US population. It will likely continue forever. Similar to viral contamination, it cannot be eliminated. It must be continually controlled.
We need to reduce terrorism activity. One of the most urgent aspects is now to reduce activities in Yemen. To accomplish this, we need to stop pussyfooting around with the Yemen government, which has already proven that it is either incapable or has no interest in eliminating terrorist bases within its borders. You do this by telling the Yemen government that they have a certain time in which to achieve specified results, or you will act independently, probably with bombs and missiles rather than ground forces. Are you doing anything along these lines with respect to petitioning our State Department and Military or are you just writing about it in newsletters to voters?
I voted "no" on your question of the week concerning whether I am willing to pay more for shipping. I also note that 65% of the responders voted "yes". I believe they did so on the presumption that terrorism from foreign sources cannot be controlled at the source, but must be controlled at the borders of the US. From my previous paragraph, you will note that I disagree completely with that premise. Control them at the source!!
It appears that you are a shu-in for reelection in today's voting. May I also remind you that the Tea Party is supporting Republicans on a conditional basis. Tea Party representatives have said that Republicans are "on trial".
We now must go back to the old "saw". You have heard from the public that we are opposed to "the unprecedented levels of government spending and debt. The rapidly growing federal bureaucracy and harmful new EPA regulations were also common conversation topics. Many of you are hoping that Congress will pass much-needed tax relief for working families and small businesses before the end of the year." I notice again that you give no indication of what you actually plan to do about it, other than perhaps sympathize.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
