Senator John McCain has placed an amendment on the current Pentagon spending bill to place some standards on the treatment of prisoners in the custody of the U.S. military.
The Bush Administration says the president would veto it. Why? According to this article, the amendment on the bill would be redundant, so the Bush folks say. So.
So. Apparently, it is needed since an overwhelming majority of the Senate passed the bill with this prisoner treatment amendment. Apparently, the rash of investigations due to prisoner abuse has sparked these legislators to make prisoner treatment laws, likely because the current military laws aren't curbing this prisoner abuse by U.S. soldiers.
Then, the article goes on to say that the Bush folks mention this amendment would hurt the war on terror. Um.... ah.... now how would this prisoner treatment provision, that the administration says is duplicating apparently other laws, hurt the war on terror? If this is only a repeat of other rules, then there should be no worries that it would hamper any action to reduce terror, because we are currently under these repetitive rules.
So. Is there more to these prisoner treatment provisions?
You know, Mr. McCain, this war on terror is not like Vietnam. Nam was a totally different story, according to General Myers, the Iraq War military leader. Myers, also a decorated Vietnam veteran, retorted that the Iraq struggle is "a complex situation that is not well-understood by folks who fought in Vietnam." (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/351237p-299460c.html)
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Bush Speaks Intelligently and Confidently
I know what some of you are thinking. Some are thinking, ah, now you understand why the Republicans voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Others are thinking, is this the same George W. Bush? Yes, it is the same George W. Bush. Is this how I am looking lightly at things? Well. No. I am actually being serious here. I actually saw Bush speak intelligently and confidently. No joke.
Last night, by the wonderful power of C-Span, I got the chance to see the press conference Bush held on the White House lawn. It is completely different to see this press conference over reading transcripts of it.
Much of the interrogation was about the Meirs nomination and the Iraq war. President Bush exhibited his usual exemplary speaking form when he doesn't know what to say. His mannerisms easily show when he is not versed in how to deal with the questions and doesn't have the knowledge or the interest in the subject.
However, one question did spark his interest and his knowledge base. It was about "containing" a flu pandemic in the United States. I want to paste the transcript of the question and Bush's intelligent and well-thought out response for you to read. This was the best, most composed response (in both verbage and presentation) Bush gave yesterday. He sounded like he knew what he was talking about and had thoroughly researched this subject. Read on....
Q Mr. President, you've been thinking a lot about pandemic flu and the risks in the United States if that should occur. I was wondering, Secretary Leavitt has said that first responders in the states and local governments are not prepared for something like that. To what extent are you concerned about that after Katrina and Rita? And is that one of the reasons you're interested in the idea of using defense assets to respond to something as broad and long-lasting as a flu might be?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Thank you for the question. I am concerned about avian flu. I am concerned about what an avian flu outbreak could mean for the United States and the world. I am -- I have thought through the scenarios of what an avian flu outbreak could mean. I tried to get a better handle on what the decision-making process would be by reading Mr. Barry's book on the influenza outbreak in 1918. I would recommend it.
The policy decisions for a President in dealing with an avian flu outbreak are difficult. One example: If we had an outbreak somewhere in the United States, do we not then quarantine that part of the country, and how do you then enforce a quarantine? When -- it's one thing to shut down airplanes; it's another thing to prevent people from coming in to get exposed to the avian flu. And who best to be able to effect a quarantine? One option is the use of a military that's able to plan and move.
And so that's why I put it on the table. I think it's an important debate for Congress to have. I noticed the other day, evidently, some governors didn't like it. I understand that. I was the commander-in-chief of the National Guard, and proudly so, and, frankly, I didn't want the President telling me how to be the commander-in-chief of the Texas Guard. But Congress needs to take a look at circumstances that may need to vest the capacity of the President to move beyond that debate. And one such catastrophe, or one such challenge could be an avian flu outbreak.
Secondly -- wait a minute, this is an important subject. Secondly, during my meetings at the United Nations, not only did I speak about it publicly, I spoke about it privately to as many leaders as I could find, about the need for there to be awareness, one, of the issue; and, two, reporting, rapid reporting to WHO, so that we can deal with a potential pandemic. The reporting needs to be not only on the birds that have fallen ill, but also on tracing the capacity of the virus to go from bird to person, to person. That's when it gets dangerous, when it goes bird-person-person. And we need to know on a real-time basis as quickly as possible, the facts, so that the scientific community, the world scientific community can analyze the facts and begin to deal with it.
Obviously, the best way to deal with a pandemic is to isolate it and keep it isolated in the region in which it begins. As you know, there's been a lot of reporting of different flocks that have fallen ill with the H5N1 virus. And we've also got some cases of the virus being transmitted to person, and we're watching very carefully.
Thirdly, the development of a vaccine -- I've spent time with Tony Fauci on the subject. Obviously, it would be helpful if we had a breakthrough in the capacity to develop a vaccine that would enable us to feel comfortable here at home that not only would first responders be able to be vaccinated, but as many Americans as possible, and people around the world. But, unfortunately, there is a -- we're just not that far down the manufacturing process. And there's a spray, as you know, that can maybe help arrest the spread of the disease, which is in relatively limited supply.
So one of the issues is how do we encourage the manufacturing capacity of the country, and maybe the world, to be prepared to deal with the outbreak of a pandemic. In other words, can we surge enough production to be able to help deal with the issue?
I take this issue very seriously, and I appreciate you bringing it to our attention. The people of the country ought to rest assured that we're doing everything we can: We're watching it, we're careful, we're in communications with the world. I'm not predicting an outbreak; I'm just suggesting to you that we better be thinking about it. And we are. And we're more than thinking about it; we're trying to put plans in place, and one of the plans -- back to where your original question came -- was, if we need to take some significant action, how best to do so. And I think the President ought to have all options on the table to understand what the consequences are, but -- all assets on the table -- not options -- assets on the table to be able to deal with something this significant.
If I were his college speech instructor, I'd give him a solid "A" on this response. No, make that an A+. He composed full sentences, barely stumbling on his thoughts. He outlined his thoughts so the listener could easily comprehend his points. He stood firmly on both feet, with little to no sway. His head remained straight forward and confidently poised, and projected a stance of high interest and knowledge in the subject.
However, he receives "F's" from Professor Jen on the rest of his responses, mostly due to the fact that he did not place himself in the stature of a knowledgeable, confident leader in answering the questions that many felt were the topics of the day. The answers to questions about the Meirs appointment and the Iraq war were short, sentences were rough and sometimes non-existent, bowing to phrases and stumbling over words. His physical stature became slouched and unprofessional, with his body weight leaning to one side and frequently swaying, likely because he is subconsciously trying to regain some form of authority over the subject that his knowledge and interests fail him. Instead of being straight forward, even his mouth shows more of a tendency to one side when he is uneasy about the topic at hand. I even feel uncomfortable watching such a presentation.
Professor Jen says that it is clear George has a genuine interest in the issue of containing populations in the United States with the possibility of using military force to accomplish the task.
Of course, don't forget that there needs to be a good reason to use military force on U.S. citizens, say a flu pandemic or another type of disaster. U.S. Citizens are just terrible about taking care of ourselves in times of crisis, anyway. We need people with guns and imposed martial law, so we can remain civil and don't get out of hand.
Last night, by the wonderful power of C-Span, I got the chance to see the press conference Bush held on the White House lawn. It is completely different to see this press conference over reading transcripts of it.
Much of the interrogation was about the Meirs nomination and the Iraq war. President Bush exhibited his usual exemplary speaking form when he doesn't know what to say. His mannerisms easily show when he is not versed in how to deal with the questions and doesn't have the knowledge or the interest in the subject.
However, one question did spark his interest and his knowledge base. It was about "containing" a flu pandemic in the United States. I want to paste the transcript of the question and Bush's intelligent and well-thought out response for you to read. This was the best, most composed response (in both verbage and presentation) Bush gave yesterday. He sounded like he knew what he was talking about and had thoroughly researched this subject. Read on....
Q Mr. President, you've been thinking a lot about pandemic flu and the risks in the United States if that should occur. I was wondering, Secretary Leavitt has said that first responders in the states and local governments are not prepared for something like that. To what extent are you concerned about that after Katrina and Rita? And is that one of the reasons you're interested in the idea of using defense assets to respond to something as broad and long-lasting as a flu might be?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Thank you for the question. I am concerned about avian flu. I am concerned about what an avian flu outbreak could mean for the United States and the world. I am -- I have thought through the scenarios of what an avian flu outbreak could mean. I tried to get a better handle on what the decision-making process would be by reading Mr. Barry's book on the influenza outbreak in 1918. I would recommend it.
The policy decisions for a President in dealing with an avian flu outbreak are difficult. One example: If we had an outbreak somewhere in the United States, do we not then quarantine that part of the country, and how do you then enforce a quarantine? When -- it's one thing to shut down airplanes; it's another thing to prevent people from coming in to get exposed to the avian flu. And who best to be able to effect a quarantine? One option is the use of a military that's able to plan and move.
And so that's why I put it on the table. I think it's an important debate for Congress to have. I noticed the other day, evidently, some governors didn't like it. I understand that. I was the commander-in-chief of the National Guard, and proudly so, and, frankly, I didn't want the President telling me how to be the commander-in-chief of the Texas Guard. But Congress needs to take a look at circumstances that may need to vest the capacity of the President to move beyond that debate. And one such catastrophe, or one such challenge could be an avian flu outbreak.
Secondly -- wait a minute, this is an important subject. Secondly, during my meetings at the United Nations, not only did I speak about it publicly, I spoke about it privately to as many leaders as I could find, about the need for there to be awareness, one, of the issue; and, two, reporting, rapid reporting to WHO, so that we can deal with a potential pandemic. The reporting needs to be not only on the birds that have fallen ill, but also on tracing the capacity of the virus to go from bird to person, to person. That's when it gets dangerous, when it goes bird-person-person. And we need to know on a real-time basis as quickly as possible, the facts, so that the scientific community, the world scientific community can analyze the facts and begin to deal with it.
Obviously, the best way to deal with a pandemic is to isolate it and keep it isolated in the region in which it begins. As you know, there's been a lot of reporting of different flocks that have fallen ill with the H5N1 virus. And we've also got some cases of the virus being transmitted to person, and we're watching very carefully.
Thirdly, the development of a vaccine -- I've spent time with Tony Fauci on the subject. Obviously, it would be helpful if we had a breakthrough in the capacity to develop a vaccine that would enable us to feel comfortable here at home that not only would first responders be able to be vaccinated, but as many Americans as possible, and people around the world. But, unfortunately, there is a -- we're just not that far down the manufacturing process. And there's a spray, as you know, that can maybe help arrest the spread of the disease, which is in relatively limited supply.
So one of the issues is how do we encourage the manufacturing capacity of the country, and maybe the world, to be prepared to deal with the outbreak of a pandemic. In other words, can we surge enough production to be able to help deal with the issue?
I take this issue very seriously, and I appreciate you bringing it to our attention. The people of the country ought to rest assured that we're doing everything we can: We're watching it, we're careful, we're in communications with the world. I'm not predicting an outbreak; I'm just suggesting to you that we better be thinking about it. And we are. And we're more than thinking about it; we're trying to put plans in place, and one of the plans -- back to where your original question came -- was, if we need to take some significant action, how best to do so. And I think the President ought to have all options on the table to understand what the consequences are, but -- all assets on the table -- not options -- assets on the table to be able to deal with something this significant.
If I were his college speech instructor, I'd give him a solid "A" on this response. No, make that an A+. He composed full sentences, barely stumbling on his thoughts. He outlined his thoughts so the listener could easily comprehend his points. He stood firmly on both feet, with little to no sway. His head remained straight forward and confidently poised, and projected a stance of high interest and knowledge in the subject.
However, he receives "F's" from Professor Jen on the rest of his responses, mostly due to the fact that he did not place himself in the stature of a knowledgeable, confident leader in answering the questions that many felt were the topics of the day. The answers to questions about the Meirs appointment and the Iraq war were short, sentences were rough and sometimes non-existent, bowing to phrases and stumbling over words. His physical stature became slouched and unprofessional, with his body weight leaning to one side and frequently swaying, likely because he is subconsciously trying to regain some form of authority over the subject that his knowledge and interests fail him. Instead of being straight forward, even his mouth shows more of a tendency to one side when he is uneasy about the topic at hand. I even feel uncomfortable watching such a presentation.
Professor Jen says that it is clear George has a genuine interest in the issue of containing populations in the United States with the possibility of using military force to accomplish the task.
Of course, don't forget that there needs to be a good reason to use military force on U.S. citizens, say a flu pandemic or another type of disaster. U.S. Citizens are just terrible about taking care of ourselves in times of crisis, anyway. We need people with guns and imposed martial law, so we can remain civil and don't get out of hand.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Constructionist Judges?
George W. Bush, in his announcement of Harriet Miers, mentioned something about having "constructionist judges."
Whoooooaaah. Now there's another qualification for judge: construction experience. Does Ms. Miers have any experience in construction work? For the life of me, I just can't see Harriet in a construction hat and wielding a jackhammer. Ok, the jackhammer part, I think I can see that part.
Now, President Bush is not looking for any ordinary constructionist. He wants a strict constructionist. What does that mean? He wants a loud-mouth bossy foreman type?
Bush then goes on to talk about his philosophy on SCOTUS judges. Is strict constructionist the type of judicial philosophy he's talking about? Why didn't he have this same philosophy on the head of FEMA?
Whoooooaaah. Now there's another qualification for judge: construction experience. Does Ms. Miers have any experience in construction work? For the life of me, I just can't see Harriet in a construction hat and wielding a jackhammer. Ok, the jackhammer part, I think I can see that part.
Now, President Bush is not looking for any ordinary constructionist. He wants a strict constructionist. What does that mean? He wants a loud-mouth bossy foreman type?
Bush then goes on to talk about his philosophy on SCOTUS judges. Is strict constructionist the type of judicial philosophy he's talking about? Why didn't he have this same philosophy on the head of FEMA?
Guiding Light of Secret Societies?
Before I was up late last night watching a show on either TLC or Discovery Channel about "Decoding Secret Societies," I was thinking about presenting things on my blog in a lighter light. There's way too many serious blogs out there anyway. We all need a break from the craziness of being too serious. Oh, well... Here I go getting serious.
The show discussed many different secret societies, branching out from the Knights Templar, to Illuminati, Freemasonry, and Yale's Skull and Bones.
When they mentioned the Illuminati, I thought that would be the secret society for me... Lol, bright lights fascinate me. Twinkle, twinkle little star.... Guiding Light.... hey, isn't that a soap opera? Actually, I was thinking that the Illuminati might be the secret society of those who get into calligraphy and illuminated manuscript. I was so wrong.
The main focus in this informative show was less about the common membership, and more about the inner core of these secret societies and the possibility that the inner core is concentrated more "conspiracy theory" type activities than what they lead one to believe. Maybe there's a connection with secret societies and aliens, too?!
The show even brings out symbols of the Illuminati in currency and other symbols that the United States have adopted. The pyramid on the dollar bill is an Illuminati symbol and the words Novus Ordo Seclorum mean "New Secular Order" possibly referring to the "New World Order." (New World Order: Burger, Fries, and Large Coke, super size it.... lol)
Even the two top candidates for the 2004 presidential election were Skull and Bones members:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-10.htm
George W. Bush, along with pappy George H. W. Bush and grand pappy Prescott Bush were Bonesmen; and John Kerry is a Bonesman.
Hmmm.... Was Harriet Miers a secret society elite? (Skull and Bones did not allow female members until 1991.)
Very fascinating. I might have to check into these secret societies even further... Wonder if they have a secret society for those who wonder??? Although wonder is in itself a secret society.
Are you a member of a secret society? Do you have aspirations to rule the world? Or at least change the world? Enquiring minds want to know...
The show discussed many different secret societies, branching out from the Knights Templar, to Illuminati, Freemasonry, and Yale's Skull and Bones.
When they mentioned the Illuminati, I thought that would be the secret society for me... Lol, bright lights fascinate me. Twinkle, twinkle little star.... Guiding Light.... hey, isn't that a soap opera? Actually, I was thinking that the Illuminati might be the secret society of those who get into calligraphy and illuminated manuscript. I was so wrong.
The main focus in this informative show was less about the common membership, and more about the inner core of these secret societies and the possibility that the inner core is concentrated more "conspiracy theory" type activities than what they lead one to believe. Maybe there's a connection with secret societies and aliens, too?!
The show even brings out symbols of the Illuminati in currency and other symbols that the United States have adopted. The pyramid on the dollar bill is an Illuminati symbol and the words Novus Ordo Seclorum mean "New Secular Order" possibly referring to the "New World Order." (New World Order: Burger, Fries, and Large Coke, super size it.... lol)
Even the two top candidates for the 2004 presidential election were Skull and Bones members:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-10.htm
George W. Bush, along with pappy George H. W. Bush and grand pappy Prescott Bush were Bonesmen; and John Kerry is a Bonesman.
Hmmm.... Was Harriet Miers a secret society elite? (Skull and Bones did not allow female members until 1991.)
Very fascinating. I might have to check into these secret societies even further... Wonder if they have a secret society for those who wonder??? Although wonder is in itself a secret society.
Are you a member of a secret society? Do you have aspirations to rule the world? Or at least change the world? Enquiring minds want to know...
Monday, October 03, 2005
High Level Job Looking for Individual With No Direct Experience
High Level J0b: Looking for Individual With No Direct Experience...
...Just make sure the boss knows you.
You want to know why companies, especially governments, are really inefficient, and broadly ineffective? I think the above lines speak for themselves.
Some call it cronyism. When people get hired not for their skills, expertise or experience, but because they are in an elite inner sanctum. Those who don't get hired, of course, get the same buh-bye line, "you just don't have the experience we are looking for." While the person who does get the job, most of the time has little to no direct experience.
Then, people: customers, clients, co-workers, CEO and others wonder why the company/government isn't working well. That's what happens when one is hired for their connections and not their experience and skills.
All that talk about midwestern ethics is true, many in the midwest are hard working individuals. Many times the hardest workers are the ones at the bottom of the todem pole. And there is a reason for that. It's just about synonymous with rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
It's not as much about working hard as it is about working smart. If you want to move up in the world, it is about connections and showing your best off, if you will, not all the time but at the right times. The Bush Administration exemplifies this standard.
This is why the Democratic Party is so stagnant at this time. They are like the hardworking peons, I mean people. They are the ones who stand make results for those they serve. However, the higher ups (right now the Republicans) are the ones who may talk the talk, but do very little to make an impact for those they serve, except when they do it best and then they talk that up, a lot. And they may even take credit for the work of the peons, which is most of the time. Take note.
The only place hardworking, honest people are paid and rewarded appropriately for their work is, hopefully, in heaven. Don't expect it here on earth.
So, what do you value as an employer? What do you value as an employee? What is the worth of your company/government based on? How do you translate that worth to your employees/co-workers? Does your employees/employer think the same way? Think of these things next time you hire/vote someone to a post in your company/government, or take a job somewhere.
...Just make sure the boss knows you.
You want to know why companies, especially governments, are really inefficient, and broadly ineffective? I think the above lines speak for themselves.
Some call it cronyism. When people get hired not for their skills, expertise or experience, but because they are in an elite inner sanctum. Those who don't get hired, of course, get the same buh-bye line, "you just don't have the experience we are looking for." While the person who does get the job, most of the time has little to no direct experience.
Then, people: customers, clients, co-workers, CEO and others wonder why the company/government isn't working well. That's what happens when one is hired for their connections and not their experience and skills.
All that talk about midwestern ethics is true, many in the midwest are hard working individuals. Many times the hardest workers are the ones at the bottom of the todem pole. And there is a reason for that. It's just about synonymous with rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
It's not as much about working hard as it is about working smart. If you want to move up in the world, it is about connections and showing your best off, if you will, not all the time but at the right times. The Bush Administration exemplifies this standard.
This is why the Democratic Party is so stagnant at this time. They are like the hardworking peons, I mean people. They are the ones who stand make results for those they serve. However, the higher ups (right now the Republicans) are the ones who may talk the talk, but do very little to make an impact for those they serve, except when they do it best and then they talk that up, a lot. And they may even take credit for the work of the peons, which is most of the time. Take note.
The only place hardworking, honest people are paid and rewarded appropriately for their work is, hopefully, in heaven. Don't expect it here on earth.
So, what do you value as an employer? What do you value as an employee? What is the worth of your company/government based on? How do you translate that worth to your employees/co-workers? Does your employees/employer think the same way? Think of these things next time you hire/vote someone to a post in your company/government, or take a job somewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
