Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Ebola , Panic worse than the Virus ?

My Sister  a cancer doctor  in Houston recently got  TB from, one of the low income patients she treats.  There are a lot of diseases out there that kill more people than Ebola. You are more likely to  die from a drunk boater on the Ocean than by a Shark attack. Media is creating panic.


Plague, War and texting while driving

If a species does not control its own population nature figures out a way to reduce the population for it

Monday, September 1, 2014

war whats the worst that could happen

War: Because, hey, what’s the worst that could happen?

What’s the harm of bombing [ISIS] at least for a few weeks and seeing what happens?
This is Bill Kristol’s idea of foreign policy. Drop some bombs and “see what happens.”
"What's the harm ...?"
“What’s the harm …?”
You may remember Kristol and his Neoconservative friends for advocating this same idea back in 2003 — “What’s the harm of invading Iraq at least for a few weeks and seeing what happens?” I’m so old I can still remember how that turned out.
This is the basis of the Neocons’ preferential option for war: Hey, what’s the worst that could happen?
One of the many problems with that mentality is that it tends to produce an answer to that question.
We don’t need to take a careful look at the jus ad bello criteria of just war theory to consider whether Kristol’s argument for war is justifiable. It’s not simply that his argument violates those criteria, but that it refuses to acknowledge that there are or ever could be any criteria for whether or not war is a reasonable or just measure. For Kristol, war is the default — the perpetual first resort.
We could kill a lot of very bad guys,” Kristol said, revealing he’s still committed to the simple, neat and wrong idea that shaped American policy during the Bush administration — just kill all the bad people and all your problems will be solved:
As jaw-droppingly awful as it is to realize that Kristol hasn’t learned anything from his complicity in the biggest, deadliest blunder of a generation, it’s just as awful to realize that many others haven’t learned anything from that mistake either. “Someone said on a panel with me,” Kristol says there — because he’s still regularly invited to sit on panels and to offer advice. It’s the same advice he offered in 2002 and 2003 and yet, despite everything that came of that, people still imagine it’s worth listening to.
As James Fallows wrote last month for The Atlantic, the lethal debacle of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq means “Some people have earned the right not to be listened to.”
Fallows boggles at the fact that Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby — two men who were definitively and massively wrong about everything from 2002 on — were recently hired to teach a course titled, “The War in Iraq: A Study in Decision-Making.”
For a bit of contrast from a saner time, here’s a snippet of Anthony S. Pitch’s piece marking the bicentennial of the burning of Washington by British troops in 1814:
The man most responsible for the catastrophe was none other than the Secretary of War, John Armstrong, of whom it was said, “Nature and habits forbid him to speak well of any man.” When a frantic head of the capital’s militia went to see him, the officious and stubborn secretary of war belittled the threat to the capital.
“They would not come with such a fleet without meaning to strike somewhere. But they certainly will not come here!” he said. “What the devil will they do here? Baltimore is the place.” Later he would become the most reviled man in the country and resigned from office.
Armstrong’s resignation and his complete disappearance from public life was necessary. His becoming “the most reviled man in the country” was wholly appropriate.
But Armstrong wasn’t as massively, sweepingly wrong as people like Kristol, Wolfowitz, Libby, Chaney, Rice, Powell and Bush were in 2002. And the consequences of Armstrong’s catastrophic wrongness were not as vast and enduring as the ongoing catastrophe chosen by those fools.
Plus Armstrong at least had the decency to go away. Kristol, et. al., refuse to do so.
They’re still on TV, on the radio, online and in print. And they’re still saying the same foolish thing: “We could kill a lot of very bad guys. … What’s the harm of bombing them … and seeing what happens?”
The recklessness and pride of that still-influential ideology, I think, gives an answer to Scott Paeth’s recent question: “Has the ‘Niebuhr Moment’ Passed?” No, it hasn’t. It hasn’t even arrived yet.

Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2014/08/27/war-because-hey-whats-the-worst-that-could-happen/#ixzz3C5yiOzF4

Saturday, August 30, 2014

The Hawks are calling for war but it is the Ravn that feasts

Senators and oligarchs
talk about the need for action
no matter what the cost,
But it is the Soldier , his mother
and the tax payer who pays
the butchers bill

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Snow flurries in August. It must be Montana.

I miss those hot summer nights of  youth. The tools have changed but the game is the same

Under the moonlight
or the streetlight
The desperate youth
feel the draw of the final
hopes before the fall
like moths battering the porch light
Feral Kids
wandering the streets
Texting their desire
under the stars
Chasing the last
hot moist days of summer
and hormonal

sirens call.

Monday, August 4, 2014

What is the difference between a Freedom Fighter and a Terrorist ?

I guess the old answer is the Freedom fighter Won and the Terror movement lost . This political and military experimentation we've seen the last 80 yrs has really shaken  the pot. Stupid moves in Iraq, libya , etc. Wonder what the real answer is.n For examp-le Palistine  ?

Terrorism vs Freedom fighter

In the international communityterrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g.,neutral military personnel or civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations forprotection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group.

Freedom Fighter is another term for those engaged in a struggle to achieve political freedom for themselves or obtain freedom for others.[14] Though the literal meaning of the words could include anyone who fights for the cause of freedom, in common use it may be restricted to those who are actively involved in an armedrebellion, rather than those who campaign for freedom by peaceful means (though they may use the title in its literal sense).
Generally speaking, Freedom Fighters are seen as people who are using physical force in order to cause a change in the political and or social order
The Irgun policy was based on what was then called Revisionist Zionism founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky. According to Howard Sachar, "The policy of the new organization was based squarely on Jabotinsky's teachings: every Jew had the right to enter Palestine; only active retaliation would deter the Arabs; only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state".
Two of the operations for which the Irgun is best known are the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 22 July 1946 and the Deir Yassin massacre, carried out together with Lehi on 9 April 1948.
The Irgun has been viewed as a terrorist organization or organization which carried out terrorist acts.[3][4] In particular the Irgun was branded a terrorist organisation by Britain,[5] the 1946 Zionist Congress[6] and the Jewish Agency.[7] The Irgun believed that any means necessary to establish the Jewish State of Israel, includingterrorism, was justifiable.[8]
The Irgun was a political predecessor to Israel's right-wing Herut (or "Freedom") party, which led to today's Likud party.[9] Likud has led or been part of most Israeli governments since 1977.

Saturday, August 2, 2014

Sad story of A couple having a Woman have thier baby and then refusing it because its born with Downs syndrome

ITs not like returning a car because it has engine problems !  Stupid people , you have genetic testing if you want and then abort, Or  enjoy sex but use birth control i you are not adult enough to  bear responisbitly fbut commiting to raise a child, it his part of you from  then on . How can you emotionally denie your parent hood

For better or worse , Through sickness and health


A Thai woman who carried a baby with Down's Syndrome as a surrogate mother has vowed to take care of the boy after his natural parents gave him up.
The Australian couple left Gammy, now six months old, with Pattaramon Chanbua but took his healthy twin sister.
"Why does he have to go through all the hardships? I love him... He's like my child now," Ms Pattaramon said.
Gammy has a congenital heart condition, a lung infection and Down's and is in a Thai hospital for urgent treatment.
A campaign to help the baby begun online after Thai newspaper Thairath published Gammy's story last week.
It has raised more than A$150,000 ($140,000; £83,000) from 3,400 donors in 11 days.
In Australia, Prime Minister Tony Abbott expressed his sadness: "I guess it illustrates some of the pitfalls involved in this particular business.

"It's a very, very, sad story and I hate to think that, you know, a child could be abandoned like that."