20090525
20090425
Obama & the Moral High Ground
Most of Obama's words thus far suggest that he is staking a claim for the Moral High Ground. He has released the torture memos because he believes he is better than the Bush administration in this regard. He is releasing the pictures of "torture" prisoners for the very same reasons. When he was oversea he apologized for past US actions, because he nominally believe the US could have done better, and that under him we will. There are two things to consider here.
First is that if he thinks this will make the US safer or better he is wrong. Those who work toward our destruction do so not because of some reasoning, but some hatred. That we could have been better angers them. That we believe we could be better also angers them. There mere fact that we are different from what they want to be angers them, regardless of how good we are. Staking claim to the Moral High Ground may make things worse for us. It certainly not keeps us safer. Those that seek to compete against us will not treat us better, or help us further our goals. They compete against us because they think they can beat us. Given any opportunity to do so they will certainly try regardless of who has the Moral High Ground.
Second is that if he thinks he can claim the Moral High Ground he is also wrong. This sort of thinking seems rampant to those without practical experience in life, living by concepts they believe the world should operate by rather than the principles the world lives by. This is akin to a rich couple believing their wealth keeps their estate well maintained, rather than understanding that it is still the housekeepers and gardeners' labors over dirt. Or a hospital CEO proclaiming how many lives his hospital saves, without acknowledging it is the doctors and nurses work in soilage and pus. Or a general believing he won the battle rather than the soldiers killing and maiming. The difference between Obama's Moral High Ground and reality is the difference between Ideals and Practice.
At best, his stake for the Moral High Ground only shows his naïveté. What it clearly reveals is his hubris, not his humanity. And through it all, he has also demonstrated willingness to use politics to further himself.
First is that if he thinks this will make the US safer or better he is wrong. Those who work toward our destruction do so not because of some reasoning, but some hatred. That we could have been better angers them. That we believe we could be better also angers them. There mere fact that we are different from what they want to be angers them, regardless of how good we are. Staking claim to the Moral High Ground may make things worse for us. It certainly not keeps us safer. Those that seek to compete against us will not treat us better, or help us further our goals. They compete against us because they think they can beat us. Given any opportunity to do so they will certainly try regardless of who has the Moral High Ground.
Second is that if he thinks he can claim the Moral High Ground he is also wrong. This sort of thinking seems rampant to those without practical experience in life, living by concepts they believe the world should operate by rather than the principles the world lives by. This is akin to a rich couple believing their wealth keeps their estate well maintained, rather than understanding that it is still the housekeepers and gardeners' labors over dirt. Or a hospital CEO proclaiming how many lives his hospital saves, without acknowledging it is the doctors and nurses work in soilage and pus. Or a general believing he won the battle rather than the soldiers killing and maiming. The difference between Obama's Moral High Ground and reality is the difference between Ideals and Practice.
At best, his stake for the Moral High Ground only shows his naïveté. What it clearly reveals is his hubris, not his humanity. And through it all, he has also demonstrated willingness to use politics to further himself.
20090413
Favorite Modern Artists
the TimesOnline is running a poll of favorite modern artists. My top 3 votes are as follows:
Diebenkorn
Kandinsky
Hopper
HT: Powerline
Diebenkorn
Kandinsky
Hopper
HT: Powerline
Tax Day Cometh
I did my taxes yesterday. Two days from now will be tax day, and many will turn out that day for a Tea Party protest. Here is a great summary of what taxes should be like from Bookworm Room:
Principles of Sound Tax Policy
¨ Simplicity. Administrative costs are a loss to society, and complicated taxation undermines voluntary compliance by creating incentives to shelter and disguise income.
¨ Transparency. Tax legislation should be based on sound legislative procedures and careful analysis. A good tax system requires informed taxpayers who understand how tax assessment, collection, and compliance works. There should be open hearings and revenue estimates should be fully explained and replicable.
¨ Neutrality. The fewer economic decisions that are made for tax reasons, the better. The primary purpose of taxes is to raise needed revenue, not to micromanage the economy. The tax system should not favor certain industries, activities, or products.
¨ Stability. When tax laws are in constant flux, long-range financial planning is difficult. Lawmakers should avoid enacting temporary tax laws, including tax holidays and amnesties.
¨ No Retroactivity. As a corollary to the principle of stability, taxpayers should rely with confidence on the law as it exists when contracts are signed and transactions made.
¨ Broad Bases and Low Rate. As a corollary to the principle of neutrality, lawmakers should avoid enacting targeted deductions, credits and exclusions. If such tax preferences are few, substantial revenue can be raised with low tax rates. Broad-based taxes can also produce relatively stable tax revenues from year to year.
By Any Other Name
Great article by Joe Queenan at the WSJ today. Here is the start:
The Obama administration has come under intense criticism for replacing the term "war on terror" with the emaciated euphemism "overseas contingency operations," and for referring to individual acts of terror as "man-caused disasters."
This semi-official attempt to disassociate the administration from the fierce rhetoric favored by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney has enraged Americans on both the right and left. Many feel that such vaporous bureaucratese is a self-emasculating action that plunges us into an Orwellian world where words have no emotional connection with the horrors they purport to describe.
Yet, if the intention of the Obama administration is to tone down the confrontational rhetoric being used by our enemies, the effort is already reaping results. This week, in a pronounced shift from its usual theatrical style, the Taliban announced that it will no longer refer to its favorite method of murder as "beheadings," but will henceforth employ the expression "cephalic attrition." "Flayings" -- a barbarously exotic style of execution that has been popular in this part of the world since before the time of Alexander -- will now be described as "unsolicited epidermal reconfigurations." In a similar vein, lopping off captives' arms will now be referred to as "appendage furloughing," while public floggings of teenaged girls will from here on out be spoken of as "metajudicial interfacing."
A Taliban spokesman reached in Pakistan said that the new phrasing was being implemented as a way of eliminating the negative associations triggered by more graphic terminology. "The term 'beheading' has a quasi-medieval undertone that we're trying to get away from," he explained. "The term 'cephalic attrition' brings the Taliban into the 21st century. It's not that we disapprove of beheadings; it's just that the word no longer meshes with the zeitgeist of the era. This is the same reason we have replaced the term 'jihad' with 'booka-bonga-bippo,' which has a more zesty, urban, youthful, 'now' feel. When you're recruiting teenagers to your movement, you don't want them to feel that going on jihad won't leave any time for youthful hijinks."
Central Asia is not the only place where the coarse terminology of the past is being phased out. In Darfur, the words "ethnic cleansing" are no longer in use, either by rebels nor by the government itself. Instead, the practice of targeting a particular tribe or sect or ethnic group for extinction is being called "unconditional demographic redeployment." In much the same spirit, the archaic term "genocide" -- so broad and vague as to be meaningless -- has now been supplanted by "maximum-intensity racial profiling."
20090331
Government & Healthcare
The government is once again making a push to assume a greater role in health care. This move is nominally to provide health care to the millions uninsured. This guise is at best well intentioned ignorance, and at worse a ruse for greater control. Yes there are millions uninsured. Firstly, the vast majority of these people are young health people who do not need insurance. The young and elderly are already covered under Medicaid and Medicare. Secondly, for those uninsured who needs health care, they have access to care as no hospital can turn away a sick patient. True an argument can be made that preventive care to avoid becoming sick is better than being treated once sick, but the data on preventive care remains rather soft. And for preventive care that does make a difference, like screening mammograms, there are plenty of programs that will provide free screenings. But this is where the truth can be found, in that if you are uninsured and needs treatment, you will be laden with a huge bill. The problem of health care in the US is not coverage of the uninsured, the problem of health care in the US is a problem of cost.
Put it another way. Why are there uninsured at all? Because either they choose not to buy health care insurance, or because they cannot afford health care insurance. If they choose not to buy, it is probably because they don't see the need for it. If it is because they cannot afford health care insurance, then this again is certainly the problem of health care cost rather than a problem of uninsured.
Does the high cost of US health care means better health care? Yes and no. We spend an exhorbitant amount of money keeping premature infants and the terminally ill patients alive as long as we can. Frequently we fail, and especially with the terminally ill, we only prolonged their lives by days or weeks rather than years. Is this a smart spending of our health care resources? This aspect deserves a serious conversation in our society and culture. But this is not being discussed because the politicians would much rather talk about providing universal coverage rather than smart spending.
Certainly this is out of concern of a slippery slope that if we restrict money to be spent for premies and the terminals, we might restrict money spent on other areas of health care as well. And this gets us back to the essential problem of health care, cost. And anyone will tell you that the solution to cost increases is to control cost. Initially cost reduction can be gained through better efficiency and better care process to reduce complications (another direct contributor to cost). However, these cost control gains will never be as much as projected. Many different forms of health care delivery has been tried in the US in the past 20 years, all promising to reduce health care cost. All has provided a few years of cost control only to be followed by rising cost along the previous trajectory. Part of the problem here with government heath care and cost is that the government is never cost effective or sufficiently cost conscientious. Then it will come down to either accepting the increasing cost of health care or reducing service available.
Will the government accept the increase cost of health care? Will the people accept increasing taxation? For a while yes, but only for a while. When the cost of taxation for government health care is too high, what typically would happen next is that services will slowly but surely be restricted. And what we would all end up with would be universal coverage with less health services.
One other consideration. We all get what we paid for. When we pay for our health care directly, service is owed to us. When the government pays for health care, service is owed to the government.
Put it another way. Why are there uninsured at all? Because either they choose not to buy health care insurance, or because they cannot afford health care insurance. If they choose not to buy, it is probably because they don't see the need for it. If it is because they cannot afford health care insurance, then this again is certainly the problem of health care cost rather than a problem of uninsured.
Does the high cost of US health care means better health care? Yes and no. We spend an exhorbitant amount of money keeping premature infants and the terminally ill patients alive as long as we can. Frequently we fail, and especially with the terminally ill, we only prolonged their lives by days or weeks rather than years. Is this a smart spending of our health care resources? This aspect deserves a serious conversation in our society and culture. But this is not being discussed because the politicians would much rather talk about providing universal coverage rather than smart spending.
Certainly this is out of concern of a slippery slope that if we restrict money to be spent for premies and the terminals, we might restrict money spent on other areas of health care as well. And this gets us back to the essential problem of health care, cost. And anyone will tell you that the solution to cost increases is to control cost. Initially cost reduction can be gained through better efficiency and better care process to reduce complications (another direct contributor to cost). However, these cost control gains will never be as much as projected. Many different forms of health care delivery has been tried in the US in the past 20 years, all promising to reduce health care cost. All has provided a few years of cost control only to be followed by rising cost along the previous trajectory. Part of the problem here with government heath care and cost is that the government is never cost effective or sufficiently cost conscientious. Then it will come down to either accepting the increasing cost of health care or reducing service available.
Will the government accept the increase cost of health care? Will the people accept increasing taxation? For a while yes, but only for a while. When the cost of taxation for government health care is too high, what typically would happen next is that services will slowly but surely be restricted. And what we would all end up with would be universal coverage with less health services.
One other consideration. We all get what we paid for. When we pay for our health care directly, service is owed to us. When the government pays for health care, service is owed to the government.
20090323
Green Manufacturing: Subaru
There was an interesting article in the WSJ today on how the US Subaru manufacturing plant has become rather environmentally efficient.
Though I drive a Subaru and in general would buy another one (uncertain whether this is due to the quirkiness factor or the great service i get currently at the dealer) what particularly caught my eye was this particular algorithm below:
That it is not just an act but a whole process, and each steps leads to a better thought, idea, and potential solution.
Subaru of Indiana Automotive Inc., a factory of more than 3,000 workers who make roughly 800 automobiles a day, has pursued green initiatives since its launch 20 years ago in Lafayette, Ind., by Japan's Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd. With employees at every level of the plant looking for ways to save energy, reduce waste and generally make processes more efficient, one measure of its success is a 14% reduction in electricity consumption on a per-car basis since 2000. An even bigger achievement: It has not shipped any waste to a landfill since May 2004.
The authors, skeptical themselves at first, have confirmed the company's claims with their own detailed research. How did Subaru do it? By redesigning numerous plant processes, thus producing less waste and requiring less material as inputs. Since 2000, the company says, it has reduced the amount of waste it generates per vehicle by about 47%. Of the solid waste that the factory still generates, 99.9% is recycled or used by other companies as manufacturing inputs or as raw materials that they process to resell. The remaining 0.1% is hazardous waste that must by law be incinerated by a licensed facility.
Though I drive a Subaru and in general would buy another one (uncertain whether this is due to the quirkiness factor or the great service i get currently at the dealer) what particularly caught my eye was this particular algorithm below:
1. To burn material for energy is better than sending it to a landfill.
2. To recycle it is better than burning it.
3. To reuse material is better than recycling it.
4. To reduce the amount needed is better than reusing it.
5. To eliminate the need for material is better than reducing it.
That it is not just an act but a whole process, and each steps leads to a better thought, idea, and potential solution.
20090316
Media Political Distraction
There has been alot of noise in the media of late pertaining to Republicans or Conservative personas. By this I mean the White House vs Rush deal, the Steele vs Rush deal, the Steele & abortion/nazi deal, the Megan McCain vs Ann Coulter vs Laura Inghram deal. None of these things matter now or in the long run.
I think Republicans and Conservatives need to stop reacting to the Democrat/Progressive agitators. We should all remember that the Liberals control the mainstream media. All this is meant to distract the voters from the Obama agenda and incompetencies.
I think Republicans and Conservatives need to stop reacting to the Democrat/Progressive agitators. We should all remember that the Liberals control the mainstream media. All this is meant to distract the voters from the Obama agenda and incompetencies.
20090312
20090223
20090213
Senator vs Secretary
Several prominent politicians have given up their Senator status in exchange for positions as Secretary in Obama's Cabinet. I do not understand this as I view it a step down. As a Senator, you are serving the people of your state directly. As a Cabinet Secretary, you are serving the President of the US. Firstly, since I assume most politicians are ego driven, I would have thought being a Senator a more independent and prestigious position. Secondly being in public service I would have thought serving the people directly would be better than serving an individual, even the PotUS. Finally, as a political career move, what have past Secretaries risen to become?
20090209
Reject the Stimulus Package as is
Having listened to Obama on TV encouraging support for the Stimulus package, I have to come out fully against it. He is clearly fear mongering of economic collapse, and thus some action is better than inaction. He never fully explain why the stimulus would create jobs rather than works.
And he is clearly the opposite of W. He speaks a lot but doesn't really say much. No efficiency of words.
Update: sign the petition at NoStimulus
And he is clearly the opposite of W. He speaks a lot but doesn't really say much. No efficiency of words.
Update: sign the petition at NoStimulus
Economic Stimulus: Work vs. Job
This exchange between Steele & Stephanopoulos highlights something that has been adequately addressed by the media's discussion regarding Obama-Democrat's "stimulus/pork package."
When the government spends money on short term projects, such as construction, work is created but not jobs. A job is something is stead work, something you can go to the bank with and use to get credit for a house or a car. A work is a temporary arrangement where you get paid for a limited duration, whether it be picking crops in the field or building a bridge. Any stimulus spending should keep this difference in mind.
The more I think about it, the less it make sense for the Government to spend money as a stimulus. Firstly, it takes money from taxes to spend, and in the process serves as the middle men. Be certain that the money it collects and the money doled out is not one for one. Secondly, the Government consistently acts in the short term, without sufficient thought to long term consequences. The government emphasis on works rather than jobs is a clear example of this. Thirdly, the taxpayer is in a much better position through his or her interaction with out capitalistic economy to direct spending dollars to what he, she, and the community needs as a whole. Fourthly, the increased in government spending for any stimulus package will only drive the deficit up, further limiting the availability of credits to the economy while increasing foreign ownership of our economy.
As such, the government stimulus should primarily be in the form of tax cuts. This will also have the added benefit of forcing the government to trim its budget. The primary spending of the government should be directed toward national defense.
The only stimulus spending at this point that makes sense to me are grants for research (both scientific, industrial and economic) that will lay the foundation for further discoveries.
HT: Right Wing Sparkle
When the government spends money on short term projects, such as construction, work is created but not jobs. A job is something is stead work, something you can go to the bank with and use to get credit for a house or a car. A work is a temporary arrangement where you get paid for a limited duration, whether it be picking crops in the field or building a bridge. Any stimulus spending should keep this difference in mind.
The more I think about it, the less it make sense for the Government to spend money as a stimulus. Firstly, it takes money from taxes to spend, and in the process serves as the middle men. Be certain that the money it collects and the money doled out is not one for one. Secondly, the Government consistently acts in the short term, without sufficient thought to long term consequences. The government emphasis on works rather than jobs is a clear example of this. Thirdly, the taxpayer is in a much better position through his or her interaction with out capitalistic economy to direct spending dollars to what he, she, and the community needs as a whole. Fourthly, the increased in government spending for any stimulus package will only drive the deficit up, further limiting the availability of credits to the economy while increasing foreign ownership of our economy.
As such, the government stimulus should primarily be in the form of tax cuts. This will also have the added benefit of forcing the government to trim its budget. The primary spending of the government should be directed toward national defense.
The only stimulus spending at this point that makes sense to me are grants for research (both scientific, industrial and economic) that will lay the foundation for further discoveries.
HT: Right Wing Sparkle
20090208
Government Bailout & Executive Pay Cap
I am all for the government imposing a cap on executive compensations with regard to salary, bonuses, and buy-outs. Firstly, it only applies to companies accepting government buy-outs and thus the government has a responsibility to see to it that the money is well spent and not wasted. This occurs in most other circumstances of government financial supports whether it be NIH research grants or federal moneys to states. Federal money should always come with restrictions. Secondly, and perhaps even more important, I hope this executive compensation restriction is such that the vast majority of large companies, those that are "too big to fail" would think twice about asking for federal hand-outs. I rather them take a chance on failure. I think this would be better for the companies, the economy, and the tax payers. Now small companies might be tempted to take government money but since our economy is built on the back of small and medium companies, I am fine with this.
20090126
Government & the Economy
I recognize that in difficult economic times, the public expect the government to act. And it would be appropriate for the government to act but clearly not all actions are beneficial.
Firstly, bailing out any commercial entities because they are "too big to fail" is just ridiculous. Spending money, even tax payer money, should be seen as an economic investment for success. Investing money in failing companies is just absurd. I understand the reason is to minimize job lost but in this is a horrible way to achieve this. When you give money to large companies, the company executives are more likely to see the money than the average worker. The government would be better off increasing the money available to unemployment than to give it to failing companies. In addition, by bailing out failing companies, their legacy actions for continued failure delay their necessary demise so that other, smaller companies with better vision and ability can rise. If anything, it should be the ascendant companies that receive federal funds (in terms of tax breaks rather than hand-outs) rather than the descendant companies.
Secondly, the best way to stimulate the economy is to get more money into the economy for circulation. I believe that this is best achieved by giving more money to the tax payers hand. This can be done as either a tax rebate or as unemployment benefits. The individuals are the one best position to decide how to spend money, not the government, and especially not failing companies that are too big to fail.
Thirdly, if the government feels that it is necessary to direct some of the spending themselves, the money would be best spent toward projects that is not likely to cause dependency. Infrastructure projects, while they may be both necessary and desirable, will require long term commitment for upkeep and maintenance. I suggest a combination of small business grants in new scientific or technology fields, as well as education grants as scholarships for students and research grants.
Firstly, bailing out any commercial entities because they are "too big to fail" is just ridiculous. Spending money, even tax payer money, should be seen as an economic investment for success. Investing money in failing companies is just absurd. I understand the reason is to minimize job lost but in this is a horrible way to achieve this. When you give money to large companies, the company executives are more likely to see the money than the average worker. The government would be better off increasing the money available to unemployment than to give it to failing companies. In addition, by bailing out failing companies, their legacy actions for continued failure delay their necessary demise so that other, smaller companies with better vision and ability can rise. If anything, it should be the ascendant companies that receive federal funds (in terms of tax breaks rather than hand-outs) rather than the descendant companies.
Secondly, the best way to stimulate the economy is to get more money into the economy for circulation. I believe that this is best achieved by giving more money to the tax payers hand. This can be done as either a tax rebate or as unemployment benefits. The individuals are the one best position to decide how to spend money, not the government, and especially not failing companies that are too big to fail.
Thirdly, if the government feels that it is necessary to direct some of the spending themselves, the money would be best spent toward projects that is not likely to cause dependency. Infrastructure projects, while they may be both necessary and desirable, will require long term commitment for upkeep and maintenance. I suggest a combination of small business grants in new scientific or technology fields, as well as education grants as scholarships for students and research grants.
20090121
20090120
Thank You President George W. Bush
I believe History will treat you much kinder than your contemporaries have.
Best wishes for your future.
Update: Others are doing it as well here:
20090114
Gaza: Israel vs Hamas
Israel must not relent from elimnating Hamas from Gaza. Victory is militarily possible because Gaza can be blockaded, isolated and surrounded. To allow Hamas to survive will only strengthen it in the long run. Whether Israel can and will do so remains to be seen. Powerline has addition thoughts.
Once Hamas is destroyed Israel must remain and occupy Gaza (as the US did with Iraq). Israel must help the surviving Palestinians rebuild its governmental and social infrastructure. Since The Palestinians have suffered from the inept management under Hamas, there is a sliver of a chance once Hamas is gone, and with Israeli help, Gaza can be rebuilt as a future politically and economically viable Palestinian state. Israel must not give Gaza to Fatah. Fatah is thoroughly corrupt and corruption is the death of any political society. Fortunately there aren't much Fatah left in Gaza thanks to Hamas.
The best chance for a viable Palestinian state is the eradication of Hamas from Gaza.
Once Hamas is destroyed Israel must remain and occupy Gaza (as the US did with Iraq). Israel must help the surviving Palestinians rebuild its governmental and social infrastructure. Since The Palestinians have suffered from the inept management under Hamas, there is a sliver of a chance once Hamas is gone, and with Israeli help, Gaza can be rebuilt as a future politically and economically viable Palestinian state. Israel must not give Gaza to Fatah. Fatah is thoroughly corrupt and corruption is the death of any political society. Fortunately there aren't much Fatah left in Gaza thanks to Hamas.
The best chance for a viable Palestinian state is the eradication of Hamas from Gaza.
20090112
Surviving Horror
This is not meant as a serious post but it does not mean the contents are without application to real life. . In my household we have been on a horror movie bent of late. The perpetrators have been monsters and humans, supernatural and too natural. I have thus decided (like the book on preparing for the Zombie apocalypse) have decided to generate a survival directive for surviving horror (movies).
1. Do not deviate from the original travel plan. This is typically how you are placed within a horror situation to begin with. As a corollary to this directive is that you must travel well armed. No, bullets may not slow spirits, but there are plenty of flesh causing horrors out there that will indeed bleed.
2. Once in horror situations, be prepared to use deadly force. I am not advocating first strike/pre-emption. But if you find the body (or blood stained suggestions of one) of a travel buddy, then all restraint against the use of deadly force should be suspended immediately. Naturally, if you are armed and are at risk of becoming the first victim of the group, by all means pre-empt.
3. Stick together. United you stand, divided you will die. Stragglers will be picked off. Do not investigate anything or anywhere on your own. Do not even go to the bathroom on your own. I recommend a minimum of 3 persons per activity. Say you are going to the bathroom. One person does the business, one keep an eye out in the room, one in the doorway (leave it open) and keep an eye out in the hall/outside. You should also keep 3 for each watch sleep. Teamwork is essential for survival. This would suggest that the size of your over all team should be six, grouped into threes.
4. Believe your friends. When your friend reports seeing something too crazy to be true, take it on face value as being true. No potential threat should be dismissed, every potential intel should be considered. Your enemy cannot be underestimated. Never assume your enemy follows the same code of behaviour as you do, adhere to the same moral code as most might. A corollary of this is that if you yourself saw something too crazy to believe you must tell others of it without fear of dismissal or ridicule. Distrust breaks down the team effectiveness and cohesiveness.
5. Have a plan for actions. Do not wait to be victims. Your plan of actions should be firstly security and ensure survival of the team. Your plan of actions should be secondly about escaping from the current horror situation. This has to be the order rather than the reverse. You will die without the team, there can be no escape alone. Note that all good plans require knowing what the sequence of actions will be (stepwise progression works best) as well as alternative options. No plans, regardless of how good, will be effective without buy-ins from the team. And the combination of action plans + team require defined role for each team members.
6. Have faith. Believing in a higher power/purpose may not save you from a lunatic, but it may against un-natural forces. Even against the mundane, having faith that you will survive provides a positive goal to enact and accomplish your plan of actions. Faith cannot be under-estimated. If you don't already believe, consider starting to believe (there are no atheist in foxholes). A corollary to this is that if you do not already believe, while others do, do not dismiss their faith, instead trust them, trust their faith (see #4 above).
7. Do not believe there is a traitor among you. Doing so will tear the team apart and doom you. If there is a traitor among you then you are doomed already, but no point speeding things up by breaking up your most important resource, your fellow team members. If the evidence become incontroversial that a person is a traitor, and some team members have already died from betrayal, eliminate the traitor. Use deadly force if necessary. Under no circumstances should you continue travel with the traitor as a captive. He/she will certainly seek to escape bondage while with you and cause harm to your team. While not the best of options, leaving the traitor behind bound and silenced may be an alternative. Know though that if found by your enemy, the traitor will certainly act against you. Why is having a traitor means you are likely doomed? Because the team has already been weakened and fractured by the traitor as well as the process of rooting out the traitor. However, you can at least take solace in the fact that nobody likes a traitor, and that in all likelihood the enemy will eliminate the traitor themselves once his/her usefulness has expired.
1. Do not deviate from the original travel plan. This is typically how you are placed within a horror situation to begin with. As a corollary to this directive is that you must travel well armed. No, bullets may not slow spirits, but there are plenty of flesh causing horrors out there that will indeed bleed.
2. Once in horror situations, be prepared to use deadly force. I am not advocating first strike/pre-emption. But if you find the body (or blood stained suggestions of one) of a travel buddy, then all restraint against the use of deadly force should be suspended immediately. Naturally, if you are armed and are at risk of becoming the first victim of the group, by all means pre-empt.
3. Stick together. United you stand, divided you will die. Stragglers will be picked off. Do not investigate anything or anywhere on your own. Do not even go to the bathroom on your own. I recommend a minimum of 3 persons per activity. Say you are going to the bathroom. One person does the business, one keep an eye out in the room, one in the doorway (leave it open) and keep an eye out in the hall/outside. You should also keep 3 for each watch sleep. Teamwork is essential for survival. This would suggest that the size of your over all team should be six, grouped into threes.
4. Believe your friends. When your friend reports seeing something too crazy to be true, take it on face value as being true. No potential threat should be dismissed, every potential intel should be considered. Your enemy cannot be underestimated. Never assume your enemy follows the same code of behaviour as you do, adhere to the same moral code as most might. A corollary of this is that if you yourself saw something too crazy to believe you must tell others of it without fear of dismissal or ridicule. Distrust breaks down the team effectiveness and cohesiveness.
5. Have a plan for actions. Do not wait to be victims. Your plan of actions should be firstly security and ensure survival of the team. Your plan of actions should be secondly about escaping from the current horror situation. This has to be the order rather than the reverse. You will die without the team, there can be no escape alone. Note that all good plans require knowing what the sequence of actions will be (stepwise progression works best) as well as alternative options. No plans, regardless of how good, will be effective without buy-ins from the team. And the combination of action plans + team require defined role for each team members.
6. Have faith. Believing in a higher power/purpose may not save you from a lunatic, but it may against un-natural forces. Even against the mundane, having faith that you will survive provides a positive goal to enact and accomplish your plan of actions. Faith cannot be under-estimated. If you don't already believe, consider starting to believe (there are no atheist in foxholes). A corollary to this is that if you do not already believe, while others do, do not dismiss their faith, instead trust them, trust their faith (see #4 above).
7. Do not believe there is a traitor among you. Doing so will tear the team apart and doom you. If there is a traitor among you then you are doomed already, but no point speeding things up by breaking up your most important resource, your fellow team members. If the evidence become incontroversial that a person is a traitor, and some team members have already died from betrayal, eliminate the traitor. Use deadly force if necessary. Under no circumstances should you continue travel with the traitor as a captive. He/she will certainly seek to escape bondage while with you and cause harm to your team. While not the best of options, leaving the traitor behind bound and silenced may be an alternative. Know though that if found by your enemy, the traitor will certainly act against you. Why is having a traitor means you are likely doomed? Because the team has already been weakened and fractured by the traitor as well as the process of rooting out the traitor. However, you can at least take solace in the fact that nobody likes a traitor, and that in all likelihood the enemy will eliminate the traitor themselves once his/her usefulness has expired.
20081229
Gaza: Israel vs. Hamas & Iran
I am not sure what Israel hope to accomplish against Hamas in Gaza with the current conflict. Israel surely do not want a repeat of the last Lebannon war. Then, it might have tactically weakened Hezbolla but the resultant military stalemate became a political loss of Israel. I am not just sure that Israel can take out Hamas even if Israel take over Gaza. Certainly this does not mean it is worth the effort to inflict massive damage on Hamas.
What is more potentially interesting is that Israel may be, through the attack against Hamas, may actually provoking Iran, Hamas' major backer, into some sort of response. A military response by Iran would certainly justify an Israeli attack against Iranian nuclear program.
All this is happening just before Bush leave office (a more supportive PotUS for Israel) and potentially laying the ground works for an Obama administration support.
What is more potentially interesting is that Israel may be, through the attack against Hamas, may actually provoking Iran, Hamas' major backer, into some sort of response. A military response by Iran would certainly justify an Israeli attack against Iranian nuclear program.
All this is happening just before Bush leave office (a more supportive PotUS for Israel) and potentially laying the ground works for an Obama administration support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)