Tuesday, December 01, 2015

Words of wisdom from Mythbuster Adam Savage at the 2012 Reason Rally

If you're a reasonable person, this brilliant speech will make you cheer!

You can thank me now: I own you. Now go start saving those nice strangers!

Good news: I have appointed myself owner of your body.

I have never met you, and I will probably never meet you, but, for the rest of your life, I decide what you do with your body and when.

First of all, you need to stop eating sugar, added salt, caffeine, alcohol, carbohydrates, and processed foods.

You need to cut back on your meat intake, too.

Then start eating the recommended amounts of vegetables and fruits.

I forbid you to harm yourself by becoming diabetic.

Or fat.

Or by smoking.

Or drinking.

Or driving without your seatbelt on.

Or anything else self-inflicted.

I will not pay for medicine or treatments for anything you inflict on yourself.

In fact, I won't pay for medicine or treatments for you at all.

You're on your own--you got yourself into this mess, so it's up to you to get yourself out.

You start the exercise program I designed for you tomorrow morning, so make sure you start getting eight hours of sleep every night in a fully darkened, quiet room.

And no sex.

Sex is icky.

Sex is evil.

I forbid it.

If you ever have sex, even once, I will shame you.

I will punish you mercilessly.

I will be watching your every move, and I will know your every thought, so don't even think about disobeying me.

I own you, and I need you to be healthy.

I know what you need better than you do.

I only have your best interests at heart.

I don't want you to have any regrets later on about the choices you make today, so I will be enforcing every single one of my rules for you 24/7/365 for the rest of your life.

The next time someone aims a loaded gun at your head and screams what you can and cannot eat and what you can and cannot do with your body, that will be me by proxy.

See how much I care about you?

I am only protecting you.

I am protecting you from yourself.

Now, let's get down to business.

There are other lives you need to save.

I've scheduled you for surgery to have a kidney removed next month so that it can be transplanted into a stranger you may or may not ever meet.

While the doctors have you open, they will take a lung and part of your liver for transplantation, too.

Don't forget to go donate bone marrow, blood, and platelets on your way out of these simple, routine surgeries.

I hope you have cash set aside for these procedures because you're paying for them yourself.

I have also arranged to garnish your wages for the next twenty five years or so to support the nice stranger or three you'll be saving thanks to the organ donation I have mandated for you.

Not counting the time you will serve outside work, unpaid, so that you can care for them (if all of you survive).

They will need round-the-clock care while recovering from the transplants, so plan that into your job schedule.

Remember, these nice strangers deserve all this from you.

They deserver your time, money, and organs more than you do because they are innocent...

and you are

So.

Very.
 
Guilty.

What?

You're afraid that all that surgery will hurt?

Crybaby!

How dare you complain about ten minutes of pain when you'll be saving a life (or three)?

What?

You're afraid that sacrificing all those organs could harm your own health, either now or later in life?

You're afraid you could die on the table?

Suck it up, wuss--it's your RESPONSIBILITY to save those lives!

You can save them; therefore, you are responsible for saving them.

You MUST save them.

Your paltry little life matters less than theirs.

They, whoever they are, are human.

Even the ones who are missing most of their brains are more human than you...even though they would die if they were ever taken off life support.

You are livestock.

Even if the nice strangers die before the doctors harvest your organs...even if we know they won't survive the surgery (or, if they do survive, it won't be for longer than an hour, a day, a few days)...we will transplant your organs into them just the same.

Even if all of you die on the table, it is infinitely better than letting you live your own life without me dictating your most intimate decisions and harvesting whatever parts of you I choose for saving the life or lives of whomever else I choose.

I forbid you any choice.

And before you even ask, it's your RESPONSIBILITY to give the nice strangers (the ones you are responsible for saving) your money and time.

Stop whining and act responsible already!

Sheesh.

(Next time someone gives you crap about abortion, show them this essay. YOUR BODY IS YOUR OWN. MY BODY IS MY OWN. No one but you has the right to make decisions about your body. No one but me has the right to make decisions about my body. You have no right to dictate what I do with my body; I have no right to dictate what you do with your body. Do I really have to draw a picture and connect the dots?
Oh, yeah...apparently, I just did.)

From examiner.com: Democrats are NOT the mass shooters! RIGHT-WINGERS ARE!

The Examiner at examiner.com is not exactly a liberal rag. In the interest of truth-telling, the author below tells us something that we on the left already know: it's the right-wingers who are armed and angry enough to start shooting sprees. Since the publication is right of center, the author disclaims that these domestic terrorists are in fact Republican. But we can all guess for ourselves that they didn't vote for no Obama and that they don't vote for no Democrats.

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-idea-that-recent-mass-shooters-are-mostly-registered-democrats-is-a-myth

The idea that recent mass shooters are mostly registered Democrats is a myth

     

Sikh temple shooter Wade Michael Page (definitely not a liberal)
Sikh temple shooter Wade Michael Page (definitely not a liberal)
We the People website

From WaPo: Picketty thinks income inequality may be to blame for ISIS

Personally, I think the Bush-Cheney junta is to blame for ISIS, since they created the power vacuum that gave ISIS its foothold.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/30/why-inequality-is-to-blame-for-the-rise-of-the-islamic-state/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_isiswonkblog-11am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

This might be the most controversial theory for what’s behind the rise of ISIS

A year after his 700-page opus "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" stormed to the top of America's best-seller lists, Thomas Piketty is out with a new argument about income inequality. It may prove more controversial than his book, which continues to generate debate in political and economic circles.

The new argument, which Piketty spelled out recently in the French newspaper Le Monde, is this: Inequality is a major driver of Middle Eastern terrorism, including the Islamic State attacks on Paris earlier this month — and Western nations have themselves largely to blame for that inequality.

Piketty writes that the Middle East's political and social system has been made fragile by the high concentration of oil wealth into a few countries with relatively little population. If you look at the region between Egypt and Iran — which includes Syria — you find several oil monarchies controlling between 60 and 70 percent of wealth, while housing just a bit more than 10 percent of the 300 million people living in that area. (Piketty does not specify which countries he's talking about, but judging from a study he co-authored last year on Middle East inequality, it appears he means Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, Bahrain and Oman. By his numbers, they accounted for 16 percent of the region's population in 2012 and almost 60 percent of its gross domestic product.)

Where does the Islamic State get its funding?

The Islamic State is one of the most well-funded terrorist organizations in the world. So where does it get its money? (Jorge Ribas/The Washington Post)

This concentration of so much wealth in countries with so small a share of the population, he says, makes the region "the most unequal on the planet."

Within those monarchies, he continues, a small slice of people controls most of the wealth, while a large — including women and refugees — are kept in a state of "semi-slavery." Those economic conditions, he says, have become justifications for jihadists, along with the casualties of a series of wars in the region perpetuated by Western powers.

His list starts with the first Gulf War, which he says resulted in allied forces returning oil "to the emirs." Though he does not spend much space connecting those ideas, the clear implication is that economic deprivation and the horrors of wars that benefited only a select few of the region's residents have, mixed together, become what he calls a "powder keg" for terrorism across the region.

Piketty is particularly scathing when he blames the inequality of the region, and the persistence of oil monarchies that perpetuate it, on the West: "These are the regimes that are militarily and politically supported by Western powers, all too happy to get some crumbs to fund their [soccer] clubs or sell some weapons. No wonder our lessons in social justice and democracy find little welcome among Middle Eastern youth."

Terrorism that is rooted in inequality, Piketty continues, is best combated economically.

To gain credibility with those who do not share in the region's wealth, Western countries should demonstrate that they are more concerned with the social development of the region than they are with their own financial interests and relationships with ruling families. The way to do this, he says, is to ensure that Middle eastern oil money funds "regional development," including far more education.

He concludes by looking inward, at France, decrying its discrimination in the hiring of immigrants and the high unemployment levels among those populations. He says Europe must turn away from "austerity" and reinvigorate its model of integration and job creation, and notes that the continent accepted a net 1 million immigrants per year before the financial crisis.

The argument has not gained much notice in the United States thus far. It rests on some controversial principles, not the least of which is the question of how unequal the Middle East is compared to the rest of the world — a problem rooted in the region's poor quality of economic statistics. In his paper last year, Piketty and a co-author concluded inequality was in fact quite high.

"Under plausible assumptions," the paper states in its abstract, "the top 10% income share (for the Middle East) could be well over 60%, and the top 1% share might exceed 25% (vs. 20% in the United States, 11% in Western Europe, and 17% in South Africa)."

Top 1 percent income share, 2012

Under a "high inequality" model by the economists Facundo Alvaredo and Thomas Piketty, inequality in the Middle East exceeds even the United States.

(Editor's note: see the original article for the statistics)

Those would, indeed, be jarring levels. They are the high end of the scenarios Piketty lays out in the paper. Whether they are a root cause of the Islamic State is a debate that is very likely just beginning.

Jim Tankersley covers economic policy for The Post. He's from Oregon, and he misses it.

Well! Those lefty liberals at Defense One don't think Hillary's ISIS plan sucks.

(I'm joking, of course. "Defense One" is hardly a liberal rag.)

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/11/measure-clintons-plan-isis-against-lessons-iraq/124017/

Measure Clinton’s Plan for ISIS Against the Lessons of Iraq

A former Army division commander views the candidate’s proposed strategy through a McChrystal lens.
Last week, Hillary Clinton became the first of the 2016 presidential hopefuls to articulate an approach to fighting ISIS in enough substance and detail to merit serious analysis. Unfortunately, most of the subsequent commentary has focused on the wrong question (“How different is this strategy from the one we are currently pursuing?”). In military circles, there is a semi-facetious expression about the two kinds of strategy: the ones that might work and those that definitely won’t. What serious observers should be debating is which of the two types Secretary Clinton has put forward.

There is no crystal ball that can reliably predict the effectiveness of a proposed strategy. What can be useful, though, is assessing its merits using the lessons from and principles that guided an earlier, similar effort.

It is generally acknowledged that in the final stages of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Gen. Stanley McChrystal led a successful counterterrorism operation against Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). When he speaks publicly about that fight, McChrystal focuses on four key principles. First, he says, a successful counterterrorist effort demands a broad, multifunctional, interconnected group of players and agencies — “a network to defeat a network.” Second, he notes that a strategy that relies on eliminating the leaders of terrorist organizations may bring near-term gains but is doomed to fail in the long run. Experience shows that leaders who are eliminated will be replaced. Incapacitating a terrorist group requires striking at more fundamental parts of the organization. Which leads to the third lesson: getting “after the people who get things done.” Perhaps more critical to a decentralized terrorist group than its leaders are the members who keep the ranks of the front-line fighters and operatives full, provide them with supplies, make sure they are well-financed, and the like. As opposed to a strategy based on decapitation, attacking and destroying their support base through a wide variety of means is more crippling to a terrorist group and has a more lasting effect. Finally, and most fundamentally, McChrystal notes that it is essential to attack the ideas that make a terrorist group attractive to those who might want to join it. In the end, undermining the appeal of an ideology that justifies terrorism is critical to defeating an organization built on an ideological foundation.

How does Secretary Clinton’s announced strategy to fight ISIS stand up in light of these lessons?

In sum, pretty well. The key points of her presentation and other comments she has made about the fight against radical jihadism track very nicely with General McChrystal’s advice and cautions. Her approach is fundamentally based on the notion that it takes a network to fight a network. The call for a continued effort to be more inclusive to strengthen and broaden the coalition—more international partners, additional support from U.S. and other agencies especially in the realm of intelligence, and mechanisms to better coordinate and integrate the contributions of the players in such a network—mirrors exactly the successful techniques honed by McChrystal and JSOC as part of their counterterrorism operations in the latter half of last decade.
And this expanded network will be an integral part of supporting a campaign with increasingly broader, and potentially more effective, objectives. At the Council on Foreign Relations, Secretary Clinton stated explicitly that one of the main pillars of her strategy would be to “disrupt and dismantle the growing terrorist infrastructure that facilitates the flow of fighters, financing, arms, and propaganda” that have become critical to the success of ISIS. Her remarks clearly are informed by the principle that a successful strategy must go beyond discrete strikes against “high value targets.”

Perhaps most importantly, the Clinton strategy includes lines of effort to undermine the “idea” that ISIS is using to build strength and support. At the core of that idea is the assertion that the West has launched a crusade against the Muslim world, especially Sunni Islam. The war in Syria is used as evidence of this assertion. In the ISIS narrative, the international coalition has been formed to conduct operations to perpetuate the rule of a brutal regime and enable the large-scale massacre of various Sunni peoples.

In her remarks, Secretary Clinton puts forth specific and concrete proposals to undermine these contentions. She proposes a more robust effort to protect people who are suffering from the effects of this war—both intended and unintended—regardless of nationality, religion, or sect. And her strategy proposes measures that are designed to give “new leverage” to diplomatic efforts that will be informed by previous successful efforts that have brought “seemingly intractable multi-sectarian civil wars” to an end.

In short, Secretary Clinton’s strategy to defeat ISIS, when tested against the principles that underpin a generally acknowledged successful counterterrorism campaign, would suggest at least that it “might work.” At a minimum, those who might disagree now have a concrete, well-grounded proposal on the table to discuss and respond to.

Read more about the victims of the Planned Parenthood domestic terrorist

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/victims-planned-parenthood-attack-kearre-stewart-jennifer-markovsky/