In an entry a while back (here, I said the following in regards to the war on terrorism:

..ending the war and withdrawing troops from certain high profile areas? Then I might agree that we could be safer here. I mean, aside from Iraq and Afghanastan [where we have active involvement], do we really need a military presence in Israel or the Phillipines or where ever the hell else people are angry about? I'm sure for political reasons, the answer to that is yes.

I was basically making the point that terrorists and extremists have a problem with our foreign policy, and that regardless of how aggressively we go on the "offensive", as Mr. Bush likes to say, well will never be free of terrorism.

Today, a new Bin Laden tape was released, where he supposedly says:

If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. It is known that those who hate freedom do not have dignified souls, like those of the 19 blessed ones. We fought you because we are free ... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours.

In an article on CNN, it states the following:

Osama bin Laden delivered a new videotaped message in which he told Americans their security does not depend on the president they elect, but on U.S. policy.

It's not rocket science. Oh, and speaking of rocket science, the FBI is investigating the Halliburton case, and they are now considering the possibility that other bids were not adequately considered or the rebuilding effort in Iraq. WTF? Didn't we all know that?

And still speaking of rocket science... Mr Bush likes to tell Americans how much safer we (Americans) are than before the war. But oh yea, 360 tons of explosives are now missing in Baghdad, and these terror alerts keep coming here in the States. A supposed Al Qaeda member in California says our streets "will run red with blood." Homeland Security agents are investigating toy knockoffs. How can people say they like the man's resolve, and feel better with him leading our country. How can anyone trust him? I'm not voucing for John Kerry, but Dubya has to go. The guy is full of crap.

My Week

Where to start?

I've certainly had an interesting week. It started last Wednesday. Here in San Diego, it never rains, so when it does, all hell breaks loose. People get in accidents everywhere, streets flood, drains back up, the ocean gets polluted from all the dirty runoff, trees fall over... What? Yea, apparently even the trees get relaxed with all the sun and the laid back atmosphere. So the wind blows a little and the ground gets wet and mushy, and then the tree just gives up and I end up with a tree on top of my car.

To make matters worse, it is now the eight day after the incident, and I still don't know whether the my car will be totaled or repaired. It took the shop three days to get an estimate, then because it was borderline, Allstate had to send an adjuster out to assess the damage and determine the value of my vehicle. Apparently this takes another 3+ days. So there is a big combined effort of underperformance. Well, I will be canceling my service with Allstate once I receive my money and everything is straightened out.

Gross National Happiness

When we hear talk of our economy, whether it's surging or in recession, we invariably hear the term GDP, or Gross Domestic Product. According to dictionary.com, it's "the total market value of all the goods and services produced within the borders of a nation during a specified period," and was adopted as a measure of the US economy in 1991. So even more than a measure of production, it has become a sign of the health of the nation's economy, which I'm sure (although I'm not much familiar with economics) somehow indicates the nation's wealth and prosperity, and plays into the standard of living.

So imagine throwing this out as a primary measure. I'm sure this would throw economists into a tailspin. What if we found a way to protect natural resources, promote culture, increase life expectancy, improve literacy, ensure democratic governance, all the while maintaining an increase in the now less important GDP? We could measure the nation's progress instead in "Gross Domestic Happiness."

Sounds strange and inprobable huh? Well, no, it's the approach Bhutan - an isolated country in the Himalayas, and one of the poorest in the world - has taken.

And with some success, according to this article. On the downside, because of recent growth, the country is beginning to experience traffic jams as rush hour, and a mini building boom; since 1998 they have had television, and cell phones came last year.

But hey, we've had that here for years. I'd trade the GPD for GNH and a happier country anyday, and I'm sure at least a few chronically depressed, overworked and unfulfilled Americans would too.

The age of medicine?

Seriously. Why do people get so up in arms about getting the flu vaccine? I've never gotten a flu shot in my life, and I've only gotten the flu maybe a few times, ever. Everyone at work gets all excited when they come in to give flu shots, and the same people I see going in to get the shot are the same ones who get sick when the flu goes around.

I understand that people who are ill, old, or have weakened immune systems have an excuse to get it. But I don't see why people who should otherwise be healthy need it. I have the cure all answer to all the health improving drugs and shots that make drug companies rich and sick people poor... It's called a healthy lifestyle. Maybe they should try it. Instead of eating fast food and other assorted artificially processed food that doesn't even begin to resemble anything found in nature and getting 5 hours of sleep a night after sitting on the couch for four hours and then getting a shot and hoping they don't get sick, maybe they should take a look at the reasons why they are susceptible to getting sick in the first place (which I'm sure happens more often than just during flu season).

I know that when I get regular exercise and sleep and eat well, I feel tip top, and then when I let down my guard on my health, that's when I usually get sick. But the way I see it there's a reason for my getting sick and I'm paying the price for not taking care of myself. So instead of looking for a miracle cure every time a cold goes around or the flu comes to town, why not do what we as humans have been doing for thousands of years, why not just take care of ourselves or else suffer the consequences? Wait a minute, what am I talking about? This is the age of medicine and technology and materialism and consumerism and egoism and self-absorption and a few other words we don't like to hear where we're not supposed to take the blame for any of the perils or ails of our time; we're the same people who would rather spend our money buying a fix for everything, even our own happiness.

NOTE: Modern medicine has a valuable place in our society. I don't discount the discoveries and knowledge of our time nor the advances which have been made that have helped to remove deadly diseases from existance and have allowed many people overcome illnesses which earlier could have resulted in their deaths.

What is going on these days?

What is going on these days?

I just recently read an article recommended to me about the order of Skull and Bones. I couldn't find the exact site, but this looks like the same article. The story is so complex I can't begin to sum it up, but it doesn't paint a pretty picture. It's a conspiracy theory at its best.

Here is an excerpt:

Is the American electorate subjected to cyclic propaganda, pre-selected candidates and winners, and psychological warfare to alienate Americans from the institutions established to serve them by the Constitution? Are the Democratic and Republican National Parties used for a Hegellian experiment in controlled conflict?

And another:

This is just the tip of an iceberg. You also have eugenics and population control, suppressed history and technology, yearly retreats, profitable partnerships with brutal dictators, deals with "terrorists", the involvement of the Knights of Malta, war-mongering and profiteering, mind-control, secret societies for teens, ritual magic and more -- all spinning the dark threads in the web of conspiracy that our spinning blue ball has gotten caught in.

Unrelated, I also read portions (about the first half) of the Unabomber's Manifesto. It seems to me that he had a lot of intelligent thoughts and ideas, but some of them were rather extreme and contradictory to each other, and a lot of them seemed contradictory to his actions. I can agree with his feelings about accelerated progress and the destabilization of society, but I certainly can't agree with his exploding bombs in the hands of people who were unknowing and only working for what they thought was the good of society. He was anti-progress and anti-technology, which he sums up in the following excerpt:

The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in "advanced" countries.

I think there is some value in that paragraph, although how much is certainly debatable. But in reading further into his Manifesto, some striking contradictions arise. I would debate the negative effects of technology, and as I mentioned in a previous post, "I don't believe that at its core technology is bad. It's an extension of a lifetime of curious minds, signifying human progression through time."

More unrelated, I've heard about a pirate radio station here in San Diego, Free Radio San Diego 96.9, and their story is quite interesting. Essentially they broadcast illegally, and the FCC doesn't much like it. Initially they had tried to be legit, inquiring about open frequencies with the FCC, and were told that they could not apply for any low power broadcast frequency from their location because it would interfere with other FM stations. So now they illegally broadcast on 96.9, with NO interference. Hmmm. And they also point out the fact that the FCC gave the same frequency to the Super Bowl in 2003... Needless to say, I'm going to try to get a listen to 96.9, and see what the radio minus the FCC/Govt sounds like.

Makes you wonder about this wonderful democracy we have here doesn't it? All of this government regulation, conspiracy theory, suggested effect of technological progress and societal breakdown... It's no wonder people live their lives doing so many things that adversely affect their well being, being unhappy and never giving a second thought to much of anything. It almost seems like that's how "they" want it.

What is going on these days?

The price we pay

We know that certain high level officials like to claim that the United States declared war on and invaded Iraq because Saddam was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq in general was a threat to national and global security, as well as a center supporting the growing threat of terrorism. What seems to be have left the headlines lately is the possibility that part of the decision to do so could just possibly have been (read: sarcasm) oil related, and justified by reasons selfish to those in power.

I think this was a major (if not the single) factor, especially given that a certain President has oil ties and a certain vice president has much to gain by having a company he's connected with in Iraq getting grossly overpaid from day one. Not to mention the fact that oil ministries were secured before other important buildings.

Assuming this oil greed is a possible scenario, does it really make sense to be spending such large amounts of money to "guard", or "earn" a stake in the oil produced there? It has been widely predicted that we have exhaused 50% or more of the world's oil supplies. Using some simple eight grade math, assuming that since the industrial revolution is when most of it has been used, we have used this +/-50% in less than 150 years. And with consumption steadily rising, populations increasing, and more nations industrializing, it only goes to figure that within another 100 years or so the supply and demand of this remaining oil could reach crisis proportions.

This being the case, it makes sense to do what it takes to secure oil for our country. Right? Or does it? Does the price we're paying (monetarily, globally, and in terms of lives destroyed) justify this greed? I would bet that using the money that's been spent thus far on the war in Iraq - remember it's publicized as a war on terror - we could have made enormous strides in finding alternative energy sources. So rather than stake and tie our future to relations with a country and a land that at its' core we still don't understand, it seems to me there are better options. Why waste the time and resources killing people and ruining reputations? Even if it all plays out peacefully and successfully, likely during our lives an energy crisis will be an inevitable reality. Should we face it now when we have time, or later when we don't? This debate is nothing new; I've read several perfectly feasible proposals which outline specific plans to do become an oil independent country with 40 years, but apparently the choice is not ours to make...