It might be time to recognize ISIS is a national government. I know you think I am off the deep end, but read to the end before you call for the men in white coats to come and get me. ISIS has held and defended significant territory in what used to be Syria, Iraq and Libya for some time and should be recognized as such.
Now, once we make this formal and legal recognition, we must also deal with the fact that they have taken credit for an attack on American soil in which 50 unarmed civilian Americans were killed without military reason for the target. This places ISIS, our newly recognized nation, in a worse position than Japan in 1941. Japan's attack was a surprise, and arguable unprovoked attack while we weren't yet at war with them, but it was against an entirely military government. Once we recognize ISIS as a nation, we can recognize the Orlando attack as what it was, the military attack of a foreign government on unarmed US civilians.
As such, I propose two bills be written and brought before congress concurrently; one to recognize ISIS as a sovereign nation in light of their long term control of significant territory, and a second to declare war on that newly formed territory in response to their act of war, an act that violates international rules of war, in Orlando this past weekend.
My readers know me as anti-war because of how I speak out against the Iraq war and the Afghan war, but the fact is, I have never been anti-war in general. I am anti those wars because of the reasons for which they were fought, the manner in which they have been fought, and the lack of care given to our veterans when they get home. I will support the war I am suggesting here if it is fought in the following manner.
1) Fight to win. None of the strategies used in any US war back to and including Korea are acceptable. This is a full on war.
2) No ground troops until we receive an unconditional surrender from the heads of ISIS. This war should be entirely drones, bombing runs and missiles, as much as we possibly can deliver, until the enemy fully surrenders or until literally none of them are left.
3) Civilians will never be the intended target of any military strike, however we recognize reluctantly that necessary destruction of strategic military targets sometimes effects civilians. This will not be considered reason enough to avoid militarily strategic targets.
4) Refugees of the area, as well as surrendering troops will be given proper quarter in neighboring countries that agree to house them. If no neighboring country agrees, land currently occupied by ISIS will be taken by overwhelming force and used to build proper quarter for refugees and prisoners of war.
5) Once unconditional surrender is received from the enemy, the lands previously occupied by ISIS are divided as territories of the US and any allies that fight along side of us (France, England, Canada, Australia, you are all invited to join in). These territories will remain under the protection and governance of their captors until such time as they show long term stability (see post-war occupied Germany).
6) All US troops assigned to this war, and previous wars, and their families WILL RECEIVE ALL CARE AND BENEFITS NECESSARY to recover from the effects of that war, regardless of the cost.
I hate war. I don't want war. But war has been brought here. We do have to recognize the culpability of the Bush administration's destabilization of Iraq and Afghanistan in bring about ISIS, and we do have to recognize the culpability of the Obama administration, and particularly Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in allowing ISIS to gain strength in Iraq, Syria and Libya, and those facts should be taken into consideration in choosing our nation's next leaders, but the fact is, ISIS is responsible directly for what they have done in the US, and the US needs to respond to stop them, and to set and example for the rest of the world of how foreign attack on US citizens are handled. If we do not, the end may be near.
Monday, June 13, 2016
Friday, May 13, 2016
Dear US Church: Stop Expecting the Government to Be Your Friend
The church in the United States has some problems: declining church attendance, severely reduced evangelism efforts, and high divorces rates (though not as high as many think) to name a few. There have been countless articles and blog posts over the last several decades attempting to point at why we have all of these problems, but it seems that all of the logically based analyses have one thing in common, their diagnosis of the church as having misplaced its priorities.
The Bible is clear that the way to grow closer to God and to accomplish His will is through prayer, Bible Study and evangelism. But, so much of the time, money and intellectual effort of Christians in the United States today is spent on advocating for one political candidate or another, it is no wonder that we don't spend the kind of time on prayer, Bible study, and evangelism that the apostles and the early church fathers did. The question then becomes, is there any reason to believe that all of this effort being put into making a more christian-like government will really advance Gods causes?
We have a New Testament full of examples and a nearly 2000 year church history to answer that question with resounding "NO". Notice the Apostle Paul. His interactions with government were always for one or both of two purposes: 1) to try to get the government to leave him alone so he could preach, and 2) to try to evangelize leaders in front of whom he was on trial. That was it. No lobbying for or against gay rights; no lobbying for or against certain governmental spending programs or military campaigns, just the gospel.
A couple of hundred years later, an emperor got saved and a partnership between the church and the government was created. What did this lead to? The Dark Ages. 1000 years of lack of progress in the world both humanly and for the gospel. The problem is, when the church ties itself to human institutions, the human institutions always distract the church from its real purpose toward those of the world. The purpose of any human government is by definition, the earthly kingdom. Human government's priority will always be the here and now, the world and human interest. Spiritual concerns will always take a back seat in an organization whose main purpose is the earth and time.
So, why do Christians become so fascinated and distracted by government? It seems the hope is that the church can use the government to get people to behave the "way they should". But is that what Christ called us to do? “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Yes, we are to teach them to obey the commandments, but our method is through discipleship, not through the government's sword. Jesus said "All authority in heaven and on earth" had been given to Him. We do not need authority from government. We need the blood, the words and the love of Christ. That is all the power we need.
So, how does this play out. First, Christians, stop trying to get the public schools to educate your children in a godly way. That is not what they exist for. State school exist to perpetuate the state's earthly kingdom and its goals. They will never put God first. It is not what they are there for. It is YOUR job to educate your children in a godly manner. For some, this may mean sending their kids to public schools and supplementing that instruction with home and church education. But as our culture deteriorates, it will be necessary for more and more Christian parents to abandon our educational partnership with the state and either place our children in private schools or educate them through a home schooling co-op we can start through our church. Now that the federal government has integrated the gender of locker rooms and bathrooms, this is a safety issue as well as an education issue.
Will it do any good for us to lobby to get the government to change its minds and make our schools more christian-like? perhaps, but how much better spent would that time, effort and money be on prayer, Bible study, evangelism, and the teaching of our own kids.
The Bible is clear that the way to grow closer to God and to accomplish His will is through prayer, Bible Study and evangelism. But, so much of the time, money and intellectual effort of Christians in the United States today is spent on advocating for one political candidate or another, it is no wonder that we don't spend the kind of time on prayer, Bible study, and evangelism that the apostles and the early church fathers did. The question then becomes, is there any reason to believe that all of this effort being put into making a more christian-like government will really advance Gods causes?
We have a New Testament full of examples and a nearly 2000 year church history to answer that question with resounding "NO". Notice the Apostle Paul. His interactions with government were always for one or both of two purposes: 1) to try to get the government to leave him alone so he could preach, and 2) to try to evangelize leaders in front of whom he was on trial. That was it. No lobbying for or against gay rights; no lobbying for or against certain governmental spending programs or military campaigns, just the gospel.
A couple of hundred years later, an emperor got saved and a partnership between the church and the government was created. What did this lead to? The Dark Ages. 1000 years of lack of progress in the world both humanly and for the gospel. The problem is, when the church ties itself to human institutions, the human institutions always distract the church from its real purpose toward those of the world. The purpose of any human government is by definition, the earthly kingdom. Human government's priority will always be the here and now, the world and human interest. Spiritual concerns will always take a back seat in an organization whose main purpose is the earth and time.
So, why do Christians become so fascinated and distracted by government? It seems the hope is that the church can use the government to get people to behave the "way they should". But is that what Christ called us to do? “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Yes, we are to teach them to obey the commandments, but our method is through discipleship, not through the government's sword. Jesus said "All authority in heaven and on earth" had been given to Him. We do not need authority from government. We need the blood, the words and the love of Christ. That is all the power we need.
So, how does this play out. First, Christians, stop trying to get the public schools to educate your children in a godly way. That is not what they exist for. State school exist to perpetuate the state's earthly kingdom and its goals. They will never put God first. It is not what they are there for. It is YOUR job to educate your children in a godly manner. For some, this may mean sending their kids to public schools and supplementing that instruction with home and church education. But as our culture deteriorates, it will be necessary for more and more Christian parents to abandon our educational partnership with the state and either place our children in private schools or educate them through a home schooling co-op we can start through our church. Now that the federal government has integrated the gender of locker rooms and bathrooms, this is a safety issue as well as an education issue.
Will it do any good for us to lobby to get the government to change its minds and make our schools more christian-like? perhaps, but how much better spent would that time, effort and money be on prayer, Bible study, evangelism, and the teaching of our own kids.
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
How the Participation Trophy Gave Us Donald Trump
In modern society, a lot of cynical, grumpy old men like me blame a lot of different things on "the participation trophy crowd", but hear me out:
The main idea behind participation trophies to to instill in children a sense that participating in a process is its own reward. The young person gets a trophy at the end of a sport season for attending practices and games often enough to avoid getting thrown off the team. The lesson being taught is this: Just showing up for an event is enough effort to deserve to receive a shiny object as a reward.
I see this idea manifest itself often in my teaching career. Quite often, students are flabbergasted that they do not receive a passing, or even good grade in my courses because they have attended regularly and turned in all the assignments. It matters little to them that the assignments they turned in were poorly done and their exams showed no proficiency in science. "I came to class every day and did my homework. That should be good enough for a 'C'".
Apply this same logic to voting. We see advertisements on every form of media encouraging people to "get out the vote". Those who have received participation trophies all their lives see it as an obligation to do the bare minimum in participating in our Republic. To them, the bare minimum is to take whatever "knowledge" they have accidentally gleaned from commercials that come on during their favorite reality programs and use that to decide which candidate to vote for. Just like in their little league sports careers, there is no sense of motivation for excellence. "If I go and vote, I have done my duty and I will get a sticker". They feel no need study history as a lens through which to evaluate the possible intended and unintended consequences of the policies advocated by whomever the TV has told them to vote for. They don't see a reason to research the actual careers and voting records of the candidates to see if they match the rhetoric of their campaigns, or to see if their character is such that we would even have them over to dinner, let alone have them govern our once great republic.
Here is the reality. The participant in ANY endeavor who does not give significant thought, time and effort to that endeavor provides a NEGATIVE value to the community associated with that endeavor. Having someone on a sports team who does not put full effort into training, practices and games brings the quality of the sport down. The league would be better served by cutting under preforming players and reducing the number of teams in the league if need be. That way, the remaining players could enjoy a higher quality version of their sport, and the cut players would be motivated to work harder and get ready to be a better player next year if they decide to pursue the sport.
The same is true in the classroom. Students who "show up" for college and do little else draw precious and scarce educational resources away from those who really want to better understand the universe, or the arts, or history or whatever focus a student may enjoy. If colleges were much quicker to remove under performing students, the remaining students could get a much more clearly and sharply presented education, and the removed students would know to step up their effort before attempting another university or college.
By the same token, people who vote without seriously looking at the issues facing our country and the history of those issues allow for people of low character and dubious policies to rise to power. Please Americans, I want you to vote, but only if you are spending multiple hours reading multiple traditional and non-traditional sources about the main issues of these elections and the histories and characters of those running for office. Feel free to include non-traditional candidates ("third" parties) when you see finally see clearly what dolts have risen to the tops of the major parties. Voters not willing to do this kind of work in their decision making do not deserve a sticker for voting. In fact, they deserve a dunce cap, and even worse, they deserve the candidates they are getting.
The main idea behind participation trophies to to instill in children a sense that participating in a process is its own reward. The young person gets a trophy at the end of a sport season for attending practices and games often enough to avoid getting thrown off the team. The lesson being taught is this: Just showing up for an event is enough effort to deserve to receive a shiny object as a reward.
I see this idea manifest itself often in my teaching career. Quite often, students are flabbergasted that they do not receive a passing, or even good grade in my courses because they have attended regularly and turned in all the assignments. It matters little to them that the assignments they turned in were poorly done and their exams showed no proficiency in science. "I came to class every day and did my homework. That should be good enough for a 'C'".
Apply this same logic to voting. We see advertisements on every form of media encouraging people to "get out the vote". Those who have received participation trophies all their lives see it as an obligation to do the bare minimum in participating in our Republic. To them, the bare minimum is to take whatever "knowledge" they have accidentally gleaned from commercials that come on during their favorite reality programs and use that to decide which candidate to vote for. Just like in their little league sports careers, there is no sense of motivation for excellence. "If I go and vote, I have done my duty and I will get a sticker". They feel no need study history as a lens through which to evaluate the possible intended and unintended consequences of the policies advocated by whomever the TV has told them to vote for. They don't see a reason to research the actual careers and voting records of the candidates to see if they match the rhetoric of their campaigns, or to see if their character is such that we would even have them over to dinner, let alone have them govern our once great republic.
Here is the reality. The participant in ANY endeavor who does not give significant thought, time and effort to that endeavor provides a NEGATIVE value to the community associated with that endeavor. Having someone on a sports team who does not put full effort into training, practices and games brings the quality of the sport down. The league would be better served by cutting under preforming players and reducing the number of teams in the league if need be. That way, the remaining players could enjoy a higher quality version of their sport, and the cut players would be motivated to work harder and get ready to be a better player next year if they decide to pursue the sport.
The same is true in the classroom. Students who "show up" for college and do little else draw precious and scarce educational resources away from those who really want to better understand the universe, or the arts, or history or whatever focus a student may enjoy. If colleges were much quicker to remove under performing students, the remaining students could get a much more clearly and sharply presented education, and the removed students would know to step up their effort before attempting another university or college.
By the same token, people who vote without seriously looking at the issues facing our country and the history of those issues allow for people of low character and dubious policies to rise to power. Please Americans, I want you to vote, but only if you are spending multiple hours reading multiple traditional and non-traditional sources about the main issues of these elections and the histories and characters of those running for office. Feel free to include non-traditional candidates ("third" parties) when you see finally see clearly what dolts have risen to the tops of the major parties. Voters not willing to do this kind of work in their decision making do not deserve a sticker for voting. In fact, they deserve a dunce cap, and even worse, they deserve the candidates they are getting.
Sunday, March 20, 2016
Stop Using This to Defend Planned Parenthood
Over and Over again, I read defenders of Planned Parenthood stating "abortions aren't the only thing they do. They do other things that are good, so we shouldn't cancel their funding". You really REALLY have to stop that. It is insulting to your intelligence and to the intelligence of everyone reading it.
Adolf Hitler did a lot of things in Germany. He didn't "only" kill Jews. He had a lot of great programs to reduce crime, get youth off the streets and stimulate the economy. Does that mean we should have funded him during the 1930s? No, because the murders he committed outweighed anything he might have done that might have been called "good". He had to be eliminated.
Before you accuse me of hyperbole, let's look at the numbers. The crime for which Adolf Hitler is most famous is the murder of approximately six million Jewish people in concentration camps during his reign. This crime stands on its own in making the Nazi government one of the most universally considered evil organizations of all time. But what about Planned Parenthood? They have performed over seven million abortions since the SCOTUS's Roe Vs. Wade decision. For those of us that agree with the consensus of biologists and medical doctors that an unborn person is a separate and unique human life, we see that as over seven million murders. Defenders of Planned Parenthood make the case that abortions are different from Hitler's murders. Yes, abortions are murders of even more defenseless and vulnerable people than the victims of Hitler's murders, so in that way, they are different.
There is a case to be made that Planned Parenthood is an evil organization of the same order of magnitude as Nazi Germany, Stalin's Kremlin, or Mao's Communist China. As you try to convince me that I should continue to silently allow the government to funnel money out of my paycheck to an organization just like Hitler's SS, stop trying to use the idea that they also do some nice things to make up for the murders of seven million innocent and defenseless people. It makes you sound like a ridiculous idiot.
Adolf Hitler did a lot of things in Germany. He didn't "only" kill Jews. He had a lot of great programs to reduce crime, get youth off the streets and stimulate the economy. Does that mean we should have funded him during the 1930s? No, because the murders he committed outweighed anything he might have done that might have been called "good". He had to be eliminated.
Before you accuse me of hyperbole, let's look at the numbers. The crime for which Adolf Hitler is most famous is the murder of approximately six million Jewish people in concentration camps during his reign. This crime stands on its own in making the Nazi government one of the most universally considered evil organizations of all time. But what about Planned Parenthood? They have performed over seven million abortions since the SCOTUS's Roe Vs. Wade decision. For those of us that agree with the consensus of biologists and medical doctors that an unborn person is a separate and unique human life, we see that as over seven million murders. Defenders of Planned Parenthood make the case that abortions are different from Hitler's murders. Yes, abortions are murders of even more defenseless and vulnerable people than the victims of Hitler's murders, so in that way, they are different.
There is a case to be made that Planned Parenthood is an evil organization of the same order of magnitude as Nazi Germany, Stalin's Kremlin, or Mao's Communist China. As you try to convince me that I should continue to silently allow the government to funnel money out of my paycheck to an organization just like Hitler's SS, stop trying to use the idea that they also do some nice things to make up for the murders of seven million innocent and defenseless people. It makes you sound like a ridiculous idiot.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
The Electoral Reform We Really Need and Will Never Get
In an election cycle where candidates like Bernie Sanders are advocating for, even preaching, campaign finance reform, we have to ask ourselves, would the reforms that he (or another candidate) are advocating really fix the problem of corruption in our electoral system? The answer is, of course, NO. A cursory read of the link above to Senator Sanders' plan for campaign finance reform shows how he would really reform it; a constitutional amendment putting Congress in charge of finance regulations, or, to use a farming analogy, a constitutional amendment putting foxes in charge of hen houses.
In order to actually solve a problem, one must look to the root cause of the problem rather than treating symptoms as Senator Sanders' ideas attempt to do. The cause of the problems of corruption in the electoral system today has its root in the development and institutionalization of the political parties themselves. The problems we are having today were foreseen as far back as 1797 by the "Father of our country" in George Washington's Farewell Address. In a time when we spend so much of our effort arguing about what this or that founding father "really meant" with certain texts in founding documents, it would do us well to look at George Washington's intent and warnings for the future of our country.
President Washington had seen firsthand the awful effects that party allegiance can have on a country as he presided over the United States' reaction to the French Revolution and the European War that followed. Federalist and Anti-Federalists (the major parties back then) became spiteful and even vengeful toward one another as they argued over the position of neutrality taken by Washington and the subsequent treaty with England negotiated by Jon Jay and advocated for by the Federalists. Based on these observations, Washington saw a future for us of oscillating dominance by one party over another, which each using its turn in power to taken vengeance on the other, and rallying everyone from the highest officials in government to the common voter to take part on one side or the other. As such, over the last 220 years, we have developed this "win at all costs" mentality that has lead to those with money taking control of the two major parties in both determining winners of elections and policies supported by those winners.
So, what should the government do about this? The answer is as it always is: interfere LESS, not more. As it stands right now, the government at the federal, state, and some local levels all treat the Democratic and Republican Parties as more or less a duopoly. These parties are rewarded by the government in current and future elections for having held a certain percentage of the vote in previous elections. As such, they get preferred treatment on ballot access and on the ability to have candidates appear in televised debates. In some states, only "recognized" parties are legally allowed to fund raise to certain amounts, intentionally disenfranchising those hoping to form a "third party". These laws are passed by the dominant party in order to restrict competition and allow themselves an easier road to stay in power. This is exactly the kind of unfair and unscrupulous behavior decried in business by advocates of the Sherman Antitrust Act, but the government does not allow that law to be applied to its own political parties.
The best way our government can improve its current electoral system and reduce the corruption that cronyism brings is to stop recognizing political parties altogether. I am not saying that parties should be banned, just that they should not be recognized in the electoral process. The government should only recognize individuals running for office. Each individual running for office should have exactly the same legal requirements and procedures for ballot access, fund raising, and debate participation regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof.
Under this system, if a political party wanted to choose a candidate from a list of those who desired to run under that party's flag, they would be free to do so, but completely without interference or support from the government. There would be no government run or staged primaries, primary debate, or primary funding. Each candidate who wanted to appear on the November ballot would have specific paperwork requirements to be filed by a specific date and that would be it. Party members would be free to assemble on their own prior to that date and choose a candidate to rally around and support, but they would do so with no help or recognition from the government. The paperwork requirements should be manageable enough that anyone with good enough ideas to rally a few hundred people around her (him) could get on the ballot in any/every state. Ballots should list candidates in random order and without listing their party affiliation. Voters who wanted to vote in an educated way would then need to research the individual candidates and find which one(s) they most aligned with morally, philosophically, and politically.
We all know this is never going to happen, because the members of the two parties currently in charge are never going to vote laws into existence that weaken their stranglehold on the gravy train that is the American Congress. Of course, I choose to live in the world where the impossible dream can come true if only ... will happen. The ... that would have to happen in this case would be for a majority of Americans to become simultaneously fed up with the ridiculousness of those who govern us and all at once decide only to vote for candidates not in one of the two traditional parties. What are the odds of that? Pretty slim, I admit. But I will say this: every time you cast a vote for a Democrat or a Republican, no matter what the reason for your vote, you are perpetuating the system; you are part of the problem.
In order to actually solve a problem, one must look to the root cause of the problem rather than treating symptoms as Senator Sanders' ideas attempt to do. The cause of the problems of corruption in the electoral system today has its root in the development and institutionalization of the political parties themselves. The problems we are having today were foreseen as far back as 1797 by the "Father of our country" in George Washington's Farewell Address. In a time when we spend so much of our effort arguing about what this or that founding father "really meant" with certain texts in founding documents, it would do us well to look at George Washington's intent and warnings for the future of our country.
President Washington had seen firsthand the awful effects that party allegiance can have on a country as he presided over the United States' reaction to the French Revolution and the European War that followed. Federalist and Anti-Federalists (the major parties back then) became spiteful and even vengeful toward one another as they argued over the position of neutrality taken by Washington and the subsequent treaty with England negotiated by Jon Jay and advocated for by the Federalists. Based on these observations, Washington saw a future for us of oscillating dominance by one party over another, which each using its turn in power to taken vengeance on the other, and rallying everyone from the highest officials in government to the common voter to take part on one side or the other. As such, over the last 220 years, we have developed this "win at all costs" mentality that has lead to those with money taking control of the two major parties in both determining winners of elections and policies supported by those winners.
So, what should the government do about this? The answer is as it always is: interfere LESS, not more. As it stands right now, the government at the federal, state, and some local levels all treat the Democratic and Republican Parties as more or less a duopoly. These parties are rewarded by the government in current and future elections for having held a certain percentage of the vote in previous elections. As such, they get preferred treatment on ballot access and on the ability to have candidates appear in televised debates. In some states, only "recognized" parties are legally allowed to fund raise to certain amounts, intentionally disenfranchising those hoping to form a "third party". These laws are passed by the dominant party in order to restrict competition and allow themselves an easier road to stay in power. This is exactly the kind of unfair and unscrupulous behavior decried in business by advocates of the Sherman Antitrust Act, but the government does not allow that law to be applied to its own political parties.
The best way our government can improve its current electoral system and reduce the corruption that cronyism brings is to stop recognizing political parties altogether. I am not saying that parties should be banned, just that they should not be recognized in the electoral process. The government should only recognize individuals running for office. Each individual running for office should have exactly the same legal requirements and procedures for ballot access, fund raising, and debate participation regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof.
Under this system, if a political party wanted to choose a candidate from a list of those who desired to run under that party's flag, they would be free to do so, but completely without interference or support from the government. There would be no government run or staged primaries, primary debate, or primary funding. Each candidate who wanted to appear on the November ballot would have specific paperwork requirements to be filed by a specific date and that would be it. Party members would be free to assemble on their own prior to that date and choose a candidate to rally around and support, but they would do so with no help or recognition from the government. The paperwork requirements should be manageable enough that anyone with good enough ideas to rally a few hundred people around her (him) could get on the ballot in any/every state. Ballots should list candidates in random order and without listing their party affiliation. Voters who wanted to vote in an educated way would then need to research the individual candidates and find which one(s) they most aligned with morally, philosophically, and politically.
We all know this is never going to happen, because the members of the two parties currently in charge are never going to vote laws into existence that weaken their stranglehold on the gravy train that is the American Congress. Of course, I choose to live in the world where the impossible dream can come true if only ... will happen. The ... that would have to happen in this case would be for a majority of Americans to become simultaneously fed up with the ridiculousness of those who govern us and all at once decide only to vote for candidates not in one of the two traditional parties. What are the odds of that? Pretty slim, I admit. But I will say this: every time you cast a vote for a Democrat or a Republican, no matter what the reason for your vote, you are perpetuating the system; you are part of the problem.
Saturday, February 14, 2015
Are Trolls Really NSA Operatives?
Do you often have trolls commenting or dominating conversation on your blog posts, Facebook posts, etc? My blog does not yet have a huge audience, so it is not much of an issue here, but it often is when I comment on public Facebook pages and on the articles of others. The question always comes up, "what motivates an internet troll?" The answer may be money, or some other compensation from the US federal government.
While scanning my Facebook feed I ran across what appear to be a fairly unreliable article claiming that internet trolls are often employees of the federal government whose goal it is to direct discourse on the internet in a particular direction. However, this article appears to be linked to an article by The Intercept that is a bit more reputable. The idea here is that agencies like the NSA monitor activity throughout the internet, particularly on sites like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and yes, even Blogger. The organization for whom we have the most evidence of this right now is the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG), We only know of the existence of this organization as a result of the courage of one our our heroes here at the Alkahest Institute, Edward Snowden. The two main purposes and tactics of JTRIG are to "(1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable". These tactics are used not just against foreign governments and such, but are sometimes used as "alternative law enforcement" to destroy the lives of those whose activities, legal or not, the government finds undesirable. They can do this by creating blogs claiming to be victims of their enemies, or by other "false flag" type operations.
As I said earlier, the organization for whom we have the most evidence of behaving this way is British Intelligence, but it would be silly not to assume that the FBI, NSA and CIA are engaged in the same types of behavior, if not worse. These tactics have even been suggested by some close to the current president of the United States: "Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-'independent' advocates to 'cognitively infiltrate' online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups." This same person is one of the people Barak Obama appointed recently to the NSA review panel, leaving once again, the government fox in charge of the citizens' hen house.
Please, as you have time, read more about this from the original article and its companion article. Now that we know that western, supposedly free, governments are behaving this way, how are we to handle it? How should we react to minor or major trollish behavior on our own pages? How skeptical should we be when a sudden destructive media campaign takes over a famous person's life for supposed bad behavior? (Bill Cosby?). As for the first question, my future response to all trolls on my internet outlets will be to accuse them of being NSA or JTRIG employees, not just because it may be true, but because it will be entertaining to watch their reaction. As for the second question, it will be much harder for me to believe in the publicly announced crimes of any famous person, almost regardless of the evidence, if that person has publicly held any opinions that are inconvenient to a branch of the government (cough, Bill Cosby, cough).
Right now, The Alkahest Institute is likely much to small to garner much negative interest from the American or British governments, but as we grow and the attacks begin, please remember not to believe the hype :-)
While scanning my Facebook feed I ran across what appear to be a fairly unreliable article claiming that internet trolls are often employees of the federal government whose goal it is to direct discourse on the internet in a particular direction. However, this article appears to be linked to an article by The Intercept that is a bit more reputable. The idea here is that agencies like the NSA monitor activity throughout the internet, particularly on sites like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and yes, even Blogger. The organization for whom we have the most evidence of this right now is the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG), We only know of the existence of this organization as a result of the courage of one our our heroes here at the Alkahest Institute, Edward Snowden. The two main purposes and tactics of JTRIG are to "(1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable". These tactics are used not just against foreign governments and such, but are sometimes used as "alternative law enforcement" to destroy the lives of those whose activities, legal or not, the government finds undesirable. They can do this by creating blogs claiming to be victims of their enemies, or by other "false flag" type operations.
As I said earlier, the organization for whom we have the most evidence of behaving this way is British Intelligence, but it would be silly not to assume that the FBI, NSA and CIA are engaged in the same types of behavior, if not worse. These tactics have even been suggested by some close to the current president of the United States: "Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-'independent' advocates to 'cognitively infiltrate' online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups." This same person is one of the people Barak Obama appointed recently to the NSA review panel, leaving once again, the government fox in charge of the citizens' hen house.
Please, as you have time, read more about this from the original article and its companion article. Now that we know that western, supposedly free, governments are behaving this way, how are we to handle it? How should we react to minor or major trollish behavior on our own pages? How skeptical should we be when a sudden destructive media campaign takes over a famous person's life for supposed bad behavior? (Bill Cosby?). As for the first question, my future response to all trolls on my internet outlets will be to accuse them of being NSA or JTRIG employees, not just because it may be true, but because it will be entertaining to watch their reaction. As for the second question, it will be much harder for me to believe in the publicly announced crimes of any famous person, almost regardless of the evidence, if that person has publicly held any opinions that are inconvenient to a branch of the government (cough, Bill Cosby, cough).
Right now, The Alkahest Institute is likely much to small to garner much negative interest from the American or British governments, but as we grow and the attacks begin, please remember not to believe the hype :-)
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
The Jeff Galloway Training Method
In 2008, I suffered what could some runners might call a catastrophic knee injury, catastrophic not because of the extent of the injury, but because of the effect it had on my running career. As a result of a combination of the slowness of my insurance company to want to run through the appropriate tests and the general incompetence among most medical professionals to diagnose running injuries, it was about a year and a half before I was back to running and am still not quite pain free. Combine that with the affinity I developed for fast food during that time and we have a ruined running career. Not that I was ever close to elite, but I could sneak an age group award fairly regularly at local 5Ks. The good news is though, I did manage to mostly recover without need for surgery.
At about the time I had given up on my running career altogether, I noticed a series of posts on the Facebook wall of a friend of mine who had broken her ankle and was recapturing her running career using the Jeff Galloway training method. Jeff Galloway is a former Olympic runner with decades of successful running experience. The idea of his plan is to break each run up into a series of short runs and walks rather than running the entire distance. For example, on a 30 minutes "run", one might run for 30 seconds, and walk for 15 seconds repeatedly for the entire 30 minutes. In addition to reducing the cardio and respiratory stress, the risk of joint and tendon injury is greatly reduced without losing much of the caloric or cardio benefit of the workout.
I began using the method in the spring of 2010. On most occasions I would run for about 3 minutes and then walk 1 minutes, sometimes slightly shortening or extending a run period such that my walks would talk place on an uphill, thus even further reducing the strain on the fragile knee. I am not back to pre-injury speed or mileage and I rarely run on consecutive days (another part of the plan), but I am able to run in a way that five years ago I figured would never happen again.
Jeff Galloway's page has a significant list of different training schedules for runners planning to run races ranging from 5K up to marathon. One area that needs to be greatly improved and/or expanded is the page associated with improving speed. At my age, I don't know how practical it is, but I would like to knock about a minute off my current mile time and about 5 or so minutes off my 5K time. That would not get me back to pre-injury pace, but it would get me to about what we would expect me to have regressed to by now without the injury. Jeff seems to have no practical suggestions for that, despite have a page on his site that appears to be dedicated to it.
If any of you have any experience with this or other similar training methods for old timers like me, I would love to read about it here in the comments section or on my Facebook page.
At about the time I had given up on my running career altogether, I noticed a series of posts on the Facebook wall of a friend of mine who had broken her ankle and was recapturing her running career using the Jeff Galloway training method. Jeff Galloway is a former Olympic runner with decades of successful running experience. The idea of his plan is to break each run up into a series of short runs and walks rather than running the entire distance. For example, on a 30 minutes "run", one might run for 30 seconds, and walk for 15 seconds repeatedly for the entire 30 minutes. In addition to reducing the cardio and respiratory stress, the risk of joint and tendon injury is greatly reduced without losing much of the caloric or cardio benefit of the workout.
I began using the method in the spring of 2010. On most occasions I would run for about 3 minutes and then walk 1 minutes, sometimes slightly shortening or extending a run period such that my walks would talk place on an uphill, thus even further reducing the strain on the fragile knee. I am not back to pre-injury speed or mileage and I rarely run on consecutive days (another part of the plan), but I am able to run in a way that five years ago I figured would never happen again.
Jeff Galloway's page has a significant list of different training schedules for runners planning to run races ranging from 5K up to marathon. One area that needs to be greatly improved and/or expanded is the page associated with improving speed. At my age, I don't know how practical it is, but I would like to knock about a minute off my current mile time and about 5 or so minutes off my 5K time. That would not get me back to pre-injury pace, but it would get me to about what we would expect me to have regressed to by now without the injury. Jeff seems to have no practical suggestions for that, despite have a page on his site that appears to be dedicated to it.
If any of you have any experience with this or other similar training methods for old timers like me, I would love to read about it here in the comments section or on my Facebook page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)