I sometimes find it difficult to comprehend just how dense politicians (and most dedicated "grown-ups") can be. Ask any second grader what the problem is, and you're far more likely to get a meaningful answer. The kids understand what's wrong, while the adults run around with their heads in anatomically impossible locations. And people wonder why the kids don't listen to the adults???
It seems that the people who live in Iraq are being very uncivil. Well Duhhhhh! ... If someone invaded my country, destroyed the infrastructures, fired the police, disbanded the national armed forces, and did its best to become a benevolent military dictatorship, I'd be a bit uncivil myself! And I might be a bit reluctant to feel as if it were still my country, even if the invaders set up "free elections" and urged everyone to participate.
If conditions continued to treat me like a mushroom -- kept literally in the dark and finding BS to be in greater supply than actual food -- I shouldn't be blamed if I started listening to the local preacher/rabbi/mullah/evangelist-of whatever because I had no one else I could listen to, no other information I could trust as to what was happening, no other guidance as to what I should do. If I see life has become a form of hell, looking to find a way into heaven would be very sane action.
With no police on the streets, and my life-long enemies just down the block appearing to be arming themselves and having frequent meetings with strangers from outside the neighborhood, I would feel more than justified in arming myself (even better than I currently am). A knock on the door in the middle of the night is not likely to be Avon Calling ...
The invader is strong, and uses armed troops to "quell unrest" and "fight guerillas" and "disarm fanatics" ... so my options would appear to be retribution via stealth. Since I cannot or will not leave my homeland, I must fight the enemy(ies?) with what I can improvise. If I accidentally kill others of my nation, I'm simply sending them on to a far better place of eternal heavenly beauties. I seem to recall that, during one of the past wars America fought in, "Kill them all and let God sort them out" was a mantra often chanted. Why should this war be any different?
The problem is that A-group doesn't think deaths of its members is all that accidental when B-group acts out, and B-group is certain that A-group, and maybe C-group allies, are the ones responsible for killing its wives and children. Thus, before long, the invader is no longer the only
enemy. XYZ-group also joins the enemies-list, along with outsider-races U and V.
Given the circumstances, why is it that the benovelant invaders are shocked when a very uncivil war flames up from that type of tinder? How on earth can certain people -- supposedly intelligent enough to govern one of the largest richest nations on said earth -- be suprised when the civilian death rate starts climbing as a result of internal strife?
Enough innocent, and maybe not so innocent but we're not in any position to judge that, lives have been lost. Our wonderful nation, of the unemployed and growing welfare classes and poorly represented citizens, needs to withdraw. Will the politicians allow us to begin the fastest safest withdrawal possible? No! They have this notion that we would be tucking our tail between our legs and admitting defeat; in other words, the politicians cannot stand the truth any more now than before in our history.
I was taught ethics as I grew up; often through the consequences of my screw-ups. One of the things I learned was to "fess up" so screw-ups could be made right, or at least avoided in the future. It is time for all our politicians to 'fess up to the screw up, quit the in-fighting, and do what is necessary to bring our troops home. How Iraq handles genocide and civil war is a matter for Iraq to decide ... and maybe the United Nations, as long as no USA troops are involved. Do I expect the UN to actually do anything meaningful? Sure I do, right after the genocide a bit further south in Africa is stopped, refugees around the world are all given new homes and/or new countries, and children no longer die of starvation and/or exposure right here in the USA.
Our nation has gone from its status of "most envied" to "most hated" in millions of minds. We may never win those people back "to our side," but maybe -- if we withdraw with grace, do what we can through third-parties to give the people back their country in functional form, and vow to keep our soldiers and guns home -- just maybe we can keep the enemies list, which we currently sit upon, from being passed along to more and more people, more and more nations.
The war on terror needs to be fought where it began, here in the USA. Only when we can make our nation one which peoples respect rather than hate, welcome contract with rather than feel envy of, a nation that admits it is far from perfect and "my way or the highway" is particularly unsuited to international relations, only then can we win the war on terror.
As in so many other things, peace must begin at home.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Keep Your "Safety" ...
Somehow, some time in the last few decades, too many people -- particularly politicians -- have forgotten a very important fact:
Freedom has NEVER been SAFE
Freedom has been the opportunity to take risks, to travel a path of one's own design, to chance the outcome of one's own action.
Freedom is something which every healthy child envisions from the point of learning to move on one's own initiative. Children are given parents to teach them that freedom can have consequences, and freedom can be removed by those in power ... in this case the parent(s) or designated caretaker. This impingement of freedoms is always for the sake of the child, to protect and nurture, to keep from harm, to maintain a level of safety.
I am not a child. The majority of people in this country are not children. People migrate illegally and legally to this country in hope of freedom. Those who come to this country for the sake of "safety" are few and far between; lives are risked daily just for the opportunity to make it beyond our borders and become a small part of The United States of America.
I may not be able to do all the things this freedom grants me the right to do, but that does not mean I willingly give up that freedom in those areas or any areas. I do not want someone to protect me in any way which impinges on my Constitutional and societal rights.
If you want safety, true safety, then find a way to get into a nice Federal prison. You'll have room and board, medical care, dental care, free laundry of the clothes provided you and the very sheets you sleep upon. Generally, no one can blow your home up, rob you, or sneak up and kill you when you're not looking.
Notice please: I said "generally"
Realize please: The only truly safe place would be isolation, no contact with any other human beings, everything controlled by unthinking nonjudgmental machinery and software ... and then you'd better hope there is never a power failure or a sneaky virus or . . .
Are you starting to understand now?
Freedom is something which every healthy child envisions from the point of learning to move on one's own initiative. Children are given parents to teach them that freedom can have consequences, and freedom can be removed by those in power ... in this case the parent(s) or designated caretaker. This impingement of freedoms is always for the sake of the child, to protect and nurture, to keep from harm, to maintain a level of safety.
I am not a child. The majority of people in this country are not children. People migrate illegally and legally to this country in hope of freedom. Those who come to this country for the sake of "safety" are few and far between; lives are risked daily just for the opportunity to make it beyond our borders and become a small part of The United States of America.
I may not be able to do all the things this freedom grants me the right to do, but that does not mean I willingly give up that freedom in those areas or any areas. I do not want someone to protect me in any way which impinges on my Constitutional and societal rights.
If you want safety, true safety, then find a way to get into a nice Federal prison. You'll have room and board, medical care, dental care, free laundry of the clothes provided you and the very sheets you sleep upon. Generally, no one can blow your home up, rob you, or sneak up and kill you when you're not looking.
Notice please: I said "generally"
Realize please: The only truly safe place would be isolation, no contact with any other human beings, everything controlled by unthinking nonjudgmental machinery and software ... and then you'd better hope there is never a power failure or a sneaky virus or . . .
Are you starting to understand now?
Freedom has NEVER been SAFE
Someone like the citizens of Iraq?
Someone like the people in Afghanistan who grow poppy because it pays enough to feed the whole family?
Someone like the victims in Lebanon, being paid to rebuild by "the guys in the black hats"?
As for me, give me liberty ... I'll not ask for the "death" option, because I still have a bit of hope, a hope that this country can survive another two years of being kept so safe everyone lives with hunched backs and constant looking over a shoulder, left and then right, and then front and back, hoping that The Safety Police do not decide to make the world safe from me.
So please Mr. President, go make life safe for someone else!
Someone like the citizens of Iraq?
Someone like the people in Afghanistan who grow poppy because it pays enough to feed the whole family?
Someone like the victims in Lebanon, being paid to rebuild by "the guys in the black hats"?
As for me, give me liberty ... I'll not ask for the "death" option, because I still have a bit of hope, a hope that this country can survive another two years of being kept so safe everyone lives with hunched backs and constant looking over a shoulder, left and then right, and then front and back, hoping that The Safety Police do not decide to make the world safe from me.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
DUMB REIGNS SUPREME!!!
As a disabled American veteran, the following caught my eye:
Published on ZDNet News: June 29, 2006, 12:03 PM PT
I must ask those of you who really understand how computers and software work to understand that I am not addressing this to you. But for today's average computer user, there are facts that the Feds have excluded.
1. A computer can log each time it is turned on; that doesn't mean every computer is set up to do that. It also doesn't mean that the laptop in question was set up to log each access.
2.
(a) A database might be able to log each time it is accessed, but I wouldn't bet that was the norm.
(b) Further, a database can be accessed and read millions of times without any harm being done to it (i.e. it will "remain intact"). That's how they are designed to work, and they'd be pretty worthless if they lost data every time someone read the files!
3.
(a) It is very likely that the database in question was stored on that removable hard drive they are mentioning for the first time. A database that size isn't going to fit on a 20GB internal hard drive, or however big the one in this particular laptop is.
(b) An external hard drive can be plugged into ANY COMPATIBLE COMPUTER, and anything and everything copied from the external hard drive to (an)other hard drive(s) rather quickly and easily.
(c) No external hard drive I am aware of -- or even an internal one transferred to another computer (Oh, did I forget to mention *that* possibility?) -- can log how many times it has been "read" for any reason, including the copying of the entire hard drive's contents.
Given the foregoing technical info, read the news release again.
Then tell me if it is most likely a ploy to relieve the Federal Government of the cost of protecting the credit lives of close to thirty million veterans and active duty personnel included in that database or elsewhere it could be copied from.
Finally, consider whether or not "filtered truth" is truth at all, ever could be, or ever was.
---------------------------------------------------
Reuters Published on ZDNet News: June 29, 2006, 12:03 PM PT
A stolen laptop computer containing sensitive information on more than 26 million U.S. military veterans has been recovered and a preliminary review indicated no data was taken, the FBI and Veterans Affairs Department said on Thursday.
Both the laptop and the external hard drive that were stolen in early May from the home of a VA employee were recovered, federal authorities said in an announcement along with the Montgomery County, Md., Police Department.
"A preliminary review of the equipment by computer forensic teams has determined that the database remains intact and has not been accessed since it was stolen," the agencies said in a statement. "A thorough forensic examination is under way, and the results will be shared as soon as possible."
[Balance omitted]
---------------------------------------------------
Now here is the question up for discussion: Who is dumber? The Federal employees responsible for that press release, or the people who will read it and believe everything is just fine?I must ask those of you who really understand how computers and software work to understand that I am not addressing this to you. But for today's average computer user, there are facts that the Feds have excluded.
1. A computer can log each time it is turned on; that doesn't mean every computer is set up to do that. It also doesn't mean that the laptop in question was set up to log each access.
2.
(a) A database might be able to log each time it is accessed, but I wouldn't bet that was the norm.
(b) Further, a database can be accessed and read millions of times without any harm being done to it (i.e. it will "remain intact"). That's how they are designed to work, and they'd be pretty worthless if they lost data every time someone read the files!
3.
(a) It is very likely that the database in question was stored on that removable hard drive they are mentioning for the first time. A database that size isn't going to fit on a 20GB internal hard drive, or however big the one in this particular laptop is.
(b) An external hard drive can be plugged into ANY COMPATIBLE COMPUTER, and anything and everything copied from the external hard drive to (an)other hard drive(s) rather quickly and easily.
(c) No external hard drive I am aware of -- or even an internal one transferred to another computer (Oh, did I forget to mention *that* possibility?) -- can log how many times it has been "read" for any reason, including the copying of the entire hard drive's contents.
Given the foregoing technical info, read the news release again.
Then tell me if it is most likely a ploy to relieve the Federal Government of the cost of protecting the credit lives of close to thirty million veterans and active duty personnel included in that database or elsewhere it could be copied from.
Finally, consider whether or not "filtered truth" is truth at all, ever could be, or ever was.
Monday, June 05, 2006
A Sure Cure
For decades I've read and heard people say "Why don't you just quit?" It is a term which has been used for everything from nail biting to waging international wars. It is normally said by those who have no idea what they are talking about, little contact with the real world as others see it, and have nothing they can use or abuse -- other than the people around them.
Well, I've decided their question is worth answering in my own way.
I have lived with chronic pain for over two decades, gone from upper middle-class homeowner to one step from ending up homeless on the streets, have had every career I started crumble around me, seen a drunken ex able to live high on the hog while I struggle to keep food in the house, and have consitently lost battles with government agencies that are supposed to be there to help. I've lived with depression that pills don't really help, because I'd be insane if I were not depressed under the circumstances I find myself in. And I've become so tired of the every day, every week, every month struggle to survive. I've also just about given up dreaming and hoping.
Since the struggle, the hope, are the sources of the greatest pain, it just makes sense to just quit. Quit screwing with a budget and struggling to keep bills paid. Quit thinking about "when things get better," because I know that day will never come. Just quit!
It's not as easy as they think. The urge to survive is pretty deeply ingrained, the integrity and responsibility to self and others has been part of me for more than half a century. But I'm tired, so very very tired.
It's too much work to even contemplate suicide, and all the collateral work it would involve. So quitting giving a damn about anything seems to me my only recourse. But who knew that quitting something could be so damn much work? I don't think I have the strength to do it, but I want to so much, am so tired of hurting, so tired of trying, so tired of dreams being smashed, so tired of bad things making things worse at the worst possible moment.
Isn't there any easier way to quit
Well, I've decided their question is worth answering in my own way.
I have lived with chronic pain for over two decades, gone from upper middle-class homeowner to one step from ending up homeless on the streets, have had every career I started crumble around me, seen a drunken ex able to live high on the hog while I struggle to keep food in the house, and have consitently lost battles with government agencies that are supposed to be there to help. I've lived with depression that pills don't really help, because I'd be insane if I were not depressed under the circumstances I find myself in. And I've become so tired of the every day, every week, every month struggle to survive. I've also just about given up dreaming and hoping.
Since the struggle, the hope, are the sources of the greatest pain, it just makes sense to just quit. Quit screwing with a budget and struggling to keep bills paid. Quit thinking about "when things get better," because I know that day will never come. Just quit!
It's not as easy as they think. The urge to survive is pretty deeply ingrained, the integrity and responsibility to self and others has been part of me for more than half a century. But I'm tired, so very very tired.
It's too much work to even contemplate suicide, and all the collateral work it would involve. So quitting giving a damn about anything seems to me my only recourse. But who knew that quitting something could be so damn much work? I don't think I have the strength to do it, but I want to so much, am so tired of hurting, so tired of trying, so tired of dreams being smashed, so tired of bad things making things worse at the worst possible moment.
Isn't there any easier way to quit
Friday, February 10, 2006
Growing Aged
More years ago than I wish to recongize, I was a young student nurse tending people who were most often the poor, the neglected, the old. In particular, I recall a day when it took me over two hours to comb the relatively short hair of one elderly lady. I managed to do it, taking my best care to prevent pain, only with the help of an older nurse who told me the secret was to dampen the hair with rubbing alcohol. Back then I didn't know why, and didn't much care ... now I know that it helps untangle matted hair by dissolving any accumulated oils and softening other foreign matter that could be making the matting worse. I can recall that I could not understand why the woman had allowed herself to reach that point. I did not understand why her caretakers hadn't done better for her.
Back then the only "old" people I knew were my grandparents, both still relatively healthy and active. My grandmother kept a spotless house, and maintained a spotless person in herself. My grandfather always cleaned his hands after working on mechanical things or in the garden, before he even came into the house. And then he would wash up again. That was what I knew of the elderly, the people "old enough to be my grandparents." I honestly knew nothing about how they thought, why they did things or didn't do things, how they felt about anything other than getting through each day quietly, sanely, cleanly. When young I had little concept of any part of the world -- other than China, where children were starving -- being much different at all from the world in which I lived. "Innocense of Youth" had an entirely different meaning then.
Now I myself am at an age where my children refuse to think I am old, and I feel far older than I ever thought I would. I am an elder. I even have some of the respect and perks granted to elders. But I personally have many days where I'd rather family and friends considered me insane rather than expecting proper behavior suitable to one of my age. If you can't quite follow that thought, just give it time. All of us, if we are lucky, reach that point at some stage in our lives.
Yesterday, as I was recovering from a nasty virus -- which has turned my sleep pattern inside out, weakened my knees, interfered with my breathing and generally made me feel like crap -- I sat down to brush my hair before taking the dogs out for their run. I was shocked at how matted and tangled, the worst "rats nest" ever, my hair was. How was that possible? And that is when I realized that I had begun setting priorities far different from those of my youth.
If my shoulders hurt to lift my arms, if I'm not going out anywhere I can't wear a stocking cap, if I have limited strength to get everything done, it is far easier just to grab my hair and twist it into a bun which is held in place with a big barrette. Who's going to see it? Nobody! Which is more important, the hair or the dogs' need to get out of the house to tend to natural necessities? The dogs! Is doing the dishes more important, or is getting absorbed in a book reading a good story that keeps me from remembering my back hurts and my ears are ringing? Need you ask?
I don't have kids coming over to play in my room, so not having everything in its proper place is not a necessity. Neighbors don't come for tea, so who cares if the (damned) indoor-outdoor carpet in the kitchen needs shampooing? I'm not going anywhere, and my pj's are comfy, why should I put on clothes? No one needs to see in my windows, and I know what what's outside, so why should I take the time to move the drapes and blinds out of the way and scrub the windows? Think of all the other questions and possible answers . . .
I have only so many minutes a day, so many days per week, so many weeks left in which to live my life. Now I have learned that "live" and "life" are truly defined far differently from how I thought it was when I was nine, or ninteen, or thirty-nine.
For me, being challenged to think and exercise my brain is living, not cleaning house. It is not a matter of my not knowing the best/fastest/easiest ways to do domestic cleaning ... I was a professional house cleaner off and on from about age nine until I was over twenty-five. In my time I have used a commercial buffer to shine the waxed floors, used a mangle (that rolling ironing thing) to press everything from sheets to children's fancy clothing, cleaned motel rooms to the point of shine, cleaned sick rooms, wiped walls, cleaned ceilings, shined chrome, cleaned cabinets, used sparkling water and newspaper to shine mirrors in a bar, cleaned and hand rubbed with tung oil the parade rifles for the local Junior ROTC group ... I not only know how to clean, but even have most of the equipment -- from 'shop vac' to a good carpet cleaner from Bissell -- and the appropriate chemicals, soaps, etc.
Knowing how to do something, having the necessary equipment and supplies to do it, doesn't mean doing it -- whatever "it" may be -- is a priority. I'd rather pull weeds in the garden than wash dishes. I'd rather watch Nova than scrub the tub. If I'm doing laundry, you can bet it is done in the background while I do other things I want to do.
If you haven't guessed yet, I'd rather think and write and share, than watch soap operas, sit-coms, or most "awards" shows.
One additional thing I've discovered about growing aged: I keep thinking of more things I want to do, places I want to go, things I'd like to at least try.
And I wonder if I even have enough time to even attempt all of them.
When I was young, 1984 was a book I read; now it is a year in my past, one with turmoils and problems I'd just as soon forget. When I was young, I can remember staring in awe at a favorite teacher as she spoke of seeing Halley's Comet ... and thinking that was a thing far in my future; now Halley's Comet is something I drove out to the desert to watch, my youngest child asleep in the back seat of the car and not caring a whit that this was something that happened only every six decades or so, once a lifetime. When I was young, a woman naturally got married and raised a family, and worked only if necessary; now I know that marriage is not essential to being a woman, children are a mixed blessing, career is not restricted to "old maids" and "those women," and being used by anyone for any reason is just plain not good.
Thankfully, one thing I've acquired as I grow elderly is the ability to *forgive* myself for not being the woman my parents expected me to be. I refuse to feel guilt if I'd rather write my thoughts down than go start baking bread (via machine, now that my shoulders are so trashed even surgery isn't an option). If you are my friend, you are the type of person who is glad to see me, should you visit, and could care less if the proof the dog is shedding lies in clumps upon my old carpet.
My grandparents and parents are all dead, my brother has managed to disown and disinherit me and he can have it as far as I'm concerned (although he'd better watch out if I win the $10 million from PCH), my children are all adults, and the primary person I answer to, as far as who I should be and who I am and who I shall be, is me. And what was important "then" may be of little consequence "now," while some things I never thought of then as being important now are necessary integral parts of my life and how I live it.
One other thing I've become aware of, as I grow aged, is that "the elderly" don't fit any preconceived pattern. Some may well be 'snow birds' while others are world travelers and other still are working on building ecologically friendly homes that use renewable resources at an age where they might have been expected to be concentrating on fishing trips, rug hooking, or rocking on the front porch. The elders do not fit any pattern! The one totally predictable thing about the aged is that same totally predictable thing about the young: They are unpredictable, cannot be classified as a group!
Now if you'll pardon me, I need to finish getting the snags out of my hair before I go in to start the bread ... I took the last two slices for a pbj breakfast.
Back then the only "old" people I knew were my grandparents, both still relatively healthy and active. My grandmother kept a spotless house, and maintained a spotless person in herself. My grandfather always cleaned his hands after working on mechanical things or in the garden, before he even came into the house. And then he would wash up again. That was what I knew of the elderly, the people "old enough to be my grandparents." I honestly knew nothing about how they thought, why they did things or didn't do things, how they felt about anything other than getting through each day quietly, sanely, cleanly. When young I had little concept of any part of the world -- other than China, where children were starving -- being much different at all from the world in which I lived. "Innocense of Youth" had an entirely different meaning then.
Now I myself am at an age where my children refuse to think I am old, and I feel far older than I ever thought I would. I am an elder. I even have some of the respect and perks granted to elders. But I personally have many days where I'd rather family and friends considered me insane rather than expecting proper behavior suitable to one of my age. If you can't quite follow that thought, just give it time. All of us, if we are lucky, reach that point at some stage in our lives.
Yesterday, as I was recovering from a nasty virus -- which has turned my sleep pattern inside out, weakened my knees, interfered with my breathing and generally made me feel like crap -- I sat down to brush my hair before taking the dogs out for their run. I was shocked at how matted and tangled, the worst "rats nest" ever, my hair was. How was that possible? And that is when I realized that I had begun setting priorities far different from those of my youth.
If my shoulders hurt to lift my arms, if I'm not going out anywhere I can't wear a stocking cap, if I have limited strength to get everything done, it is far easier just to grab my hair and twist it into a bun which is held in place with a big barrette. Who's going to see it? Nobody! Which is more important, the hair or the dogs' need to get out of the house to tend to natural necessities? The dogs! Is doing the dishes more important, or is getting absorbed in a book reading a good story that keeps me from remembering my back hurts and my ears are ringing? Need you ask?
I don't have kids coming over to play in my room, so not having everything in its proper place is not a necessity. Neighbors don't come for tea, so who cares if the (damned) indoor-outdoor carpet in the kitchen needs shampooing? I'm not going anywhere, and my pj's are comfy, why should I put on clothes? No one needs to see in my windows, and I know what what's outside, so why should I take the time to move the drapes and blinds out of the way and scrub the windows? Think of all the other questions and possible answers . . .
I have only so many minutes a day, so many days per week, so many weeks left in which to live my life. Now I have learned that "live" and "life" are truly defined far differently from how I thought it was when I was nine, or ninteen, or thirty-nine.
For me, being challenged to think and exercise my brain is living, not cleaning house. It is not a matter of my not knowing the best/fastest/easiest ways to do domestic cleaning ... I was a professional house cleaner off and on from about age nine until I was over twenty-five. In my time I have used a commercial buffer to shine the waxed floors, used a mangle (that rolling ironing thing) to press everything from sheets to children's fancy clothing, cleaned motel rooms to the point of shine, cleaned sick rooms, wiped walls, cleaned ceilings, shined chrome, cleaned cabinets, used sparkling water and newspaper to shine mirrors in a bar, cleaned and hand rubbed with tung oil the parade rifles for the local Junior ROTC group ... I not only know how to clean, but even have most of the equipment -- from 'shop vac' to a good carpet cleaner from Bissell -- and the appropriate chemicals, soaps, etc.
Knowing how to do something, having the necessary equipment and supplies to do it, doesn't mean doing it -- whatever "it" may be -- is a priority. I'd rather pull weeds in the garden than wash dishes. I'd rather watch Nova than scrub the tub. If I'm doing laundry, you can bet it is done in the background while I do other things I want to do.
If you haven't guessed yet, I'd rather think and write and share, than watch soap operas, sit-coms, or most "awards" shows.
One additional thing I've discovered about growing aged: I keep thinking of more things I want to do, places I want to go, things I'd like to at least try.
And I wonder if I even have enough time to even attempt all of them.
When I was young, 1984 was a book I read; now it is a year in my past, one with turmoils and problems I'd just as soon forget. When I was young, I can remember staring in awe at a favorite teacher as she spoke of seeing Halley's Comet ... and thinking that was a thing far in my future; now Halley's Comet is something I drove out to the desert to watch, my youngest child asleep in the back seat of the car and not caring a whit that this was something that happened only every six decades or so, once a lifetime. When I was young, a woman naturally got married and raised a family, and worked only if necessary; now I know that marriage is not essential to being a woman, children are a mixed blessing, career is not restricted to "old maids" and "those women," and being used by anyone for any reason is just plain not good.
Thankfully, one thing I've acquired as I grow elderly is the ability to *forgive* myself for not being the woman my parents expected me to be. I refuse to feel guilt if I'd rather write my thoughts down than go start baking bread (via machine, now that my shoulders are so trashed even surgery isn't an option). If you are my friend, you are the type of person who is glad to see me, should you visit, and could care less if the proof the dog is shedding lies in clumps upon my old carpet.
My grandparents and parents are all dead, my brother has managed to disown and disinherit me and he can have it as far as I'm concerned (although he'd better watch out if I win the $10 million from PCH), my children are all adults, and the primary person I answer to, as far as who I should be and who I am and who I shall be, is me. And what was important "then" may be of little consequence "now," while some things I never thought of then as being important now are necessary integral parts of my life and how I live it.
One other thing I've become aware of, as I grow aged, is that "the elderly" don't fit any preconceived pattern. Some may well be 'snow birds' while others are world travelers and other still are working on building ecologically friendly homes that use renewable resources at an age where they might have been expected to be concentrating on fishing trips, rug hooking, or rocking on the front porch. The elders do not fit any pattern! The one totally predictable thing about the aged is that same totally predictable thing about the young: They are unpredictable, cannot be classified as a group!
Now if you'll pardon me, I need to finish getting the snags out of my hair before I go in to start the bread ... I took the last two slices for a pbj breakfast.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Six Degrees of Terrorism
Long known, the "Six Degrees of Separation" hypothesis states that any human knows any other by a 'direct link' chain of no more than five relatives or acquaintances. The theory, attributed to Hungarian writer Frigyes Karinthy from a short story Chains published in 1929, was followed by more serious study of the hypothesis in 1967.1 While the original work was done as an experiment in social psychology,2 some current work is actually dealing with maximizing the speed and connectivity of large communication networks -- including the internet.3
Stated simply, I have five internet correspondents I contact. Each of them has five to assist in finding the sixth person in the link ... and the total levels are six ... me 1 2 3 4 5 target person.
That doesn't seem like much on the surface, but in actuality it shows why Bush and the NSA are thinking they can get away with domestic spying by only "following links from known or suspected terrorists overseas via connections between them and US citizens."
The math might work out this way:
However, I am not limited to 5 or 6 people; I belong to three mailing lists and can thus contact at least 75 people with a single properly routed e-mail. If that number grew expodentially to the sixth power, we're looking at 177,978,515,625 people linked back to me ... that's a "national debt sized" number -- almost 178 Billion.
How many is $178 Billion? Well, here's some data on world population:
The Earth Debate4 ...
World population in 1950: 2.5 billion.
World population in 2000: over 6 billion.
Projected population 2050, with substantially slowed growth: 9.3 billion.
"OK," you say, "we all know that more than half the people would drop the ball, somewhere along the way." I agree, but even with a more realistic 35 people in each link of the chain, the result would still be huge: 1,838,265,625 ... almost two billion! That is one-third of the world's population, which would primarily represent a good portion of the world's adults.
Those figures appear to involve solely the internet, but I'm not working on that presumption. Whereas I might use e-mail to start a chain, many of the links along the way will be via telephone. Admittedly I'm somewhat of a recluse, and not that many numbers are called via my home phone or the three cells in the family plan I subscribe to, but the number would have to be at least ten different contacts per month. And most of those contacts have far more contacts than I or my family. In other words, even based upon our family's limited phone useage, we could be linked to One million people in any month, even if everyone in the chain knew only ten new people to contact.
When you look at it in that manner, it seems rather obvious that "following links to known terrorists to find others in the possible chain of treachery and treason" could involve a tremendous number of plain, ordinary, even patriotic, American citizens. And all without warrants.
Anyone thinking that the government was somehow totally unaware of the "six degrees" concept should be disabused of the notion. Simply read "Knock, Knock, Knocking on Newton's Door" available at http://www.dau.mil/pubs/dam/03_04_2005/war-ma05.pdf (Note: This is an official US Military website.)
There is another aspect of the studies and experiments performed by Dr. Stanley Milgram with which I am certain the President's staff, the CIA, and the military are also familiar. A world-wide controversy began to follow Dr. Milgram when he published, including motion pictures, his findings on a series of experiments on obedience to authority (conducted at Yale University in 1961-1962). The shocking (no pun intended) results were that 65% of his subjects, regular plain everyday people who lived in New Haven, were willing to give apparently harmful electric shocks -- up to 450 volts-- to a begging, crying, protesting victim, simply because an authority figure commanded them to, and despite the fact that the victim had done nothing to deserve such extreme punishment. (The "victim" was an actor who was not actually shocked; this fact was told the subject only at the end of the experiment.) During the experiment itself, the experience was real, powerful, and totally involving for most of the subjects. I've seen the films myself, and while some subjects protested mildly about the pain apparently being doled out, questioning the
authority figure (a scientist in lab coat), the shocks were given over and over, higher and higher voltages.
Almost like torturing prisoners, with authority overriding sanity and personal ethics? As scary as the experiments at a California university which showed plain ol' normal every day students, who were given total control over student "prisoners," became violent, vicious, and almost out of control in less than two weeks? Well, see if you can discover where much of the funding for such experiments has come from over the last five or six decades.
If you'd like to learn more of the background of "Six Degrees of Separation," and what is currently being done to extend studies of this concept, a good starting point is this article
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000D52E0-D89D-1D35-90FB809EC5880000
I found on the Scientific American Website.
For more on Dr. Stanley Milgram go to http://www.stanleymilgram.com
----------------------------------------
1: In 1967, social psychologist Stanley Milgram set up an experiment of test what he called "the small world phenomenon," the idea that every person in the United States is connected by a chain of six people at most.
2: Psychologists Milgram and Travers set up an experiment where individuals in Boston and Omaha were asked to deliver a letter to a target person in Boston, but via an unconventional route. Messages were to be passed solely through a chain of acquaintances. The people starting the chain were were asked to forward the letter to someone they knew on a first-name basis -- and each was asked to do the same -- in an effort to deliver it through as few intermediaries as possible; the 'starters' were told the target's name, age, and occupation. The chains, on those letters which actually reached the target, had a median number of only six people.
3: More recent work on the "six degrees of separation" theory is being applied to network linking, can be found here: http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/newsreleases/articles/20618.php You might find it interesting reading.
4: NOW with Bill Moyers. Science & Health.
http://www.pbs.org/now/science/unpopulation.html
Stated simply, I have five internet correspondents I contact. Each of them has five to assist in finding the sixth person in the link ... and the total levels are six ... me 1 2 3 4 5 target person.
That doesn't seem like much on the surface, but in actuality it shows why Bush and the NSA are thinking they can get away with domestic spying by only "following links from known or suspected terrorists overseas via connections between them and US citizens."
The math might work out this way:
I contact 5 to find #6 6 1 degree of separation
Each of the 6 contacts 5 to find #6 30 2 degrees of separation
Each of the 30 contact 5 to find #6 150 3 degrees of separation
Each of the 150 contact 5 to find #6 750 4 degrees of separation
Each of the 750 contact 5 to find #6 3750 5 degrees of separation
Each of the 3750 contact 5 to find #6 18750 6 degrees of separation
That is a big number ... 23,436 BUT it doesn't add up. If you think about it, you realize that this type of chain is actually applicable to each link in the chain, so the number grows quite a bit bigger, quite a lot faster; it grows "expodentially" 6 to the 6thpower, or 46,656 However, I am not limited to 5 or 6 people; I belong to three mailing lists and can thus contact at least 75 people with a single properly routed e-mail. If that number grew expodentially to the sixth power, we're looking at 177,978,515,625 people linked back to me ... that's a "national debt sized" number -- almost 178 Billion.
How many is $178 Billion? Well, here's some data on world population:
The Earth Debate4 ...
World population in 1950: 2.5 billion.
World population in 2000: over 6 billion.
Projected population 2050, with substantially slowed growth: 9.3 billion.
"OK," you say, "we all know that more than half the people would drop the ball, somewhere along the way." I agree, but even with a more realistic 35 people in each link of the chain, the result would still be huge: 1,838,265,625 ... almost two billion! That is one-third of the world's population, which would primarily represent a good portion of the world's adults.
Those figures appear to involve solely the internet, but I'm not working on that presumption. Whereas I might use e-mail to start a chain, many of the links along the way will be via telephone. Admittedly I'm somewhat of a recluse, and not that many numbers are called via my home phone or the three cells in the family plan I subscribe to, but the number would have to be at least ten different contacts per month. And most of those contacts have far more contacts than I or my family. In other words, even based upon our family's limited phone useage, we could be linked to One million people in any month, even if everyone in the chain knew only ten new people to contact.
When you look at it in that manner, it seems rather obvious that "following links to known terrorists to find others in the possible chain of treachery and treason" could involve a tremendous number of plain, ordinary, even patriotic, American citizens. And all without warrants.
Anyone thinking that the government was somehow totally unaware of the "six degrees" concept should be disabused of the notion. Simply read "Knock, Knock, Knocking on Newton's Door" available at http://www.dau.mil/pubs/dam/03_04_2005/war-ma05.pdf (Note: This is an official US Military website.)
There is another aspect of the studies and experiments performed by Dr. Stanley Milgram with which I am certain the President's staff, the CIA, and the military are also familiar. A world-wide controversy began to follow Dr. Milgram when he published, including motion pictures, his findings on a series of experiments on obedience to authority (conducted at Yale University in 1961-1962). The shocking (no pun intended) results were that 65% of his subjects, regular plain everyday people who lived in New Haven, were willing to give apparently harmful electric shocks -- up to 450 volts-- to a begging, crying, protesting victim, simply because an authority figure commanded them to, and despite the fact that the victim had done nothing to deserve such extreme punishment. (The "victim" was an actor who was not actually shocked; this fact was told the subject only at the end of the experiment.) During the experiment itself, the experience was real, powerful, and totally involving for most of the subjects. I've seen the films myself, and while some subjects protested mildly about the pain apparently being doled out, questioning the
authority figure (a scientist in lab coat), the shocks were given over and over, higher and higher voltages.
Almost like torturing prisoners, with authority overriding sanity and personal ethics? As scary as the experiments at a California university which showed plain ol' normal every day students, who were given total control over student "prisoners," became violent, vicious, and almost out of control in less than two weeks? Well, see if you can discover where much of the funding for such experiments has come from over the last five or six decades.
If you'd like to learn more of the background of "Six Degrees of Separation," and what is currently being done to extend studies of this concept, a good starting point is this article
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000D52E0-D89D-1D35-90FB809EC5880000
I found on the Scientific American Website.
For more on Dr. Stanley Milgram go to http://www.stanleymilgram.com
1: In 1967, social psychologist Stanley Milgram set up an experiment of test what he called "the small world phenomenon," the idea that every person in the United States is connected by a chain of six people at most.
2: Psychologists Milgram and Travers set up an experiment where individuals in Boston and Omaha were asked to deliver a letter to a target person in Boston, but via an unconventional route. Messages were to be passed solely through a chain of acquaintances. The people starting the chain were were asked to forward the letter to someone they knew on a first-name basis -- and each was asked to do the same -- in an effort to deliver it through as few intermediaries as possible; the 'starters' were told the target's name, age, and occupation. The chains, on those letters which actually reached the target, had a median number of only six people.
3: More recent work on the "six degrees of separation" theory is being applied to network linking, can be found here: http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/newsreleases/articles/20618.php You might find it interesting reading.
4: NOW with Bill Moyers. Science & Health.
http://www.pbs.org/now/science/unpopulation.html
Announcement of Coming Distractions ...
Six Degrees of Separation --
An exploration of the distance/difference between Controlling Evil Terrorism and Domestic Espionage Against Americans (complete with footnotes)
Growing Aged --
Realizations acquired, youthful questions answered, as to "how can" and "why on earth wouldn't" persons who are no-longer-middle-aged behave in a manner totally puzzling to the younger generation
An exploration of the distance/difference between Controlling Evil Terrorism and Domestic Espionage Against Americans (complete with footnotes)
Growing Aged --
Realizations acquired, youthful questions answered, as to "how can" and "why on earth wouldn't" persons who are no-longer-middle-aged behave in a manner totally puzzling to the younger generation
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Unemployment Drops .. ??
Oh boy! DW World News reports US Stock Market is up with the announcement that unemployment in the USA has dropped to 4.9% ...
Great? Not exactly. How do you think the Feds get those figures? Well, they get them from the states. And how do the states get those figures? They get them from whatever they call their unemployment office.
And how does the unemployment office determine a drop in unemployment?
The only way they can count is by counting the number of persons collecting unemployment payments, plus the number of people not collecting but still using their "job placement assistance." Sound like pretty accurate figures used to measure unemployment, right?
Not exactly.
-- Many people who are unemployed cannot qualify to collect benefits.
-- Those who do collect benefits can do so for only a limited period of time; at some point their benefits end, regardless of whether or not they have found work.
-- Job hunting assistance at most state unemployment offices are a pure joke, not suitable for 75-80% of the unemployed.
-- Those who sign up for job hunting help often give up on what 's available, even though they still need work.
Numbers don't lie ... but the people who put the numbers together can lie, and do lie, if solely by omission.
There is another reason why "unemployment" figures don't reflect the true economy: They do not reflect the under-employed, nor those who fall outside the box by daring to be homeless. [Please read the latter statement with cynical tone of voice.]
Perhaps the best way to judge the economic health of the peoples of this nation would be to use different bench marks. How about the number of families that have to go to a free food bank to have two meals a day? Maybe the people who go to free clothing store, or get their clothes from the trash of others? Does anyone bother to count the people living in parks, under bridge abutments, beneath freeway interchanges? And another figure that is totally disregarded are those who are disabled and struggling to survive on a meager disability payment from one source or another? Should not all of them be counted?
Finally, when someone says that over one hundred thousand new jobs were created last month, why don't they bother to say that most of the jobs are seasonal and the workers hired will soon return to the ranks of the uncounted unemployed?
A survey I took recently asked me whether all the news programs out there were too much, or if I liked having the data available. I answered I wanted information. They didn't have a box to tick which said I realized that I still had to look behind the news for the facts.
Great? Not exactly. How do you think the Feds get those figures? Well, they get them from the states. And how do the states get those figures? They get them from whatever they call their unemployment office.
And how does the unemployment office determine a drop in unemployment?
The only way they can count is by counting the number of persons collecting unemployment payments, plus the number of people not collecting but still using their "job placement assistance." Sound like pretty accurate figures used to measure unemployment, right?
Not exactly.
-- Many people who are unemployed cannot qualify to collect benefits.
-- Those who do collect benefits can do so for only a limited period of time; at some point their benefits end, regardless of whether or not they have found work.
-- Job hunting assistance at most state unemployment offices are a pure joke, not suitable for 75-80% of the unemployed.
-- Those who sign up for job hunting help often give up on what 's available, even though they still need work.
Numbers don't lie ... but the people who put the numbers together can lie, and do lie, if solely by omission.
There is another reason why "unemployment" figures don't reflect the true economy: They do not reflect the under-employed, nor those who fall outside the box by daring to be homeless. [Please read the latter statement with cynical tone of voice.]
Perhaps the best way to judge the economic health of the peoples of this nation would be to use different bench marks. How about the number of families that have to go to a free food bank to have two meals a day? Maybe the people who go to free clothing store, or get their clothes from the trash of others? Does anyone bother to count the people living in parks, under bridge abutments, beneath freeway interchanges? And another figure that is totally disregarded are those who are disabled and struggling to survive on a meager disability payment from one source or another? Should not all of them be counted?
Finally, when someone says that over one hundred thousand new jobs were created last month, why don't they bother to say that most of the jobs are seasonal and the workers hired will soon return to the ranks of the uncounted unemployed?
A survey I took recently asked me whether all the news programs out there were too much, or if I liked having the data available. I answered I wanted information. They didn't have a box to tick which said I realized that I still had to look behind the news for the facts.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)