Saturday, January 16, 2010

"Morning Papers" - It's Origins

The Rooster


The population of Port-Au_Prince before the earthquake struck was 2 million people. A very, very rough estimate is that every family in that area experienced deaths. With about 5 members per family and realizing in some instances nearly entire families have been killed, the body count could go well into the 100s of thousands to even 400,000.

Earthquakes Rock Guatemala and Haiti (click here)
posted (January 12, 2010)

A catastrophic earthquake rocked Haiti this afternoon. The quake measuring 7.3 on the Richter scale struck ten miles southeast of the capital of Port Au Prince. Destruction is reported as being widespread with reports of the presidential palace and even a hospital collapsing. There have been no estimates of fatalities or account of damages but up to 3 million people may have been affected.

And a much weaker quake jolted Guatemala last night. The 4.9 magnitude quake struck 15 miles southwest of Puerto Barrios in Guatemala, 45 miles west of San Pedro Sula Honduras, and close enough to rattle Punta Gorda Town. We also felt it here in Belize City just after 5:00. Francesca Wellington of the Met Office told us more about it.

Francesa Wellington,
“Near Barrios, about 20 kilometres southwest of Puerto Barrios at 5:30 yesterday evening an earthquake was experienced and the depth that it went to was 10 kilometres below the surface and the magnitude was 4.9. From calls that we made in Punta Gorda, people felt it but compared to the last earthquake it wasn’t as storng.”

George is right. As in articulate as it sounded, "just send money."

As long as one trusts the process that the monies will be spent prudently, well and responsibly then send money.

There are three hundred million men, women and children in the USA. If there was a single dollar US sent to the relief funds for every person within the citizenship of the USA there would be a trust fund of $300 million US.

Not bad. A very good start.

The 'message' of Attorney General Martha Coakley is counter intuitive.

Before getting into the 'questions' one has to realize the strategy by the Republican Party is based in 'tried and true' TACTICS used by Bush and Cheney.

The 'uptick' of Brown is due to a huge amount of money coming into the campaign at the 'eleventh hour' ALONG with messages of fear.

The Democrats need to make the effort to 'know' The Independent Voter and not expect them to come to their value system without 'out reach.'

The Independent Voter has no profound 'value system,' except, what is good from them 'at the moment.' They aren't Democrats in disguise. In many ways they are disenfranchised from any political party. They basically don't want to affiliate with anyone because they feel every party is corrupt and they are the only honest folks in the electorate.

They don't understand government, they don't want to understand government, they don't consent to methodologies of government and they would like to remake the entire political structure and begin again. They always see things that way, they always think that way and they always regret voting the way they did after a short while. They also don't learn from their mistakes.

A primary example was Bush in 2004. Many young voters cast their ballot for him because he blatantly stated, "I will not institute a draft." There hadn't been a draft, he was decreasing taxes regardless of their hardship the future would have to carry and they simply wanted a President that would not expand the capacity of the military as we were obviously engaged in an illegal war already. In many ways, the vote of 2004 was an agenda of military containment and nothing else.

Independents have no confidence in anything except what they know and they understand. They like to feel in personal control of their circumstances including the government even after an election. It is silly but true. It is an irrational way of dealing with 'a vote.' Independents have no rudder. They simply 'guess' at what they are being told in election material and through the media and don't engage ANY value system as if it belongs to a party and therefore so do they.

They would like some kind of 'homogenized' party of both Republicans and Democrats, but, simply don't understand how they can't have it after generations of frustration.

IN THE ELECTIONS FOLLOWING THE BUSH YEARS, the Republicans have 'learned' how fear and religious fervor mix well with lies to strike at the 'sense of well being' that will drive people in a direction they previously would not have taken. It is a BLATANT strategy against the electorate and they deployed it in Massachusetts 'on cue.'

When one analyzes Brown's message, it is all based in visceral issues. Health care is 'an intimate' issue and 'security' is a safety issue. They are both hot topics in regard to this administration in DC and the Independent voter is reacting to a lack of belief system, a lack of knowledge and emotional content that tells them 'they are safe in doing things the old way.' The Independent Voter is retreating from reality and promise and hope and returning to exploitation in hopes they can control something they already know about. They are fearing the unknown.

I don't think Brown is even talking about issues that concern Massachusetts either. I mean what has Giuliani got to do with Massachusetts? Clinton, yes, as a former President. Kerry, yes, as a current Senator. Obama, yes, as the current President. Mrs. Kennedy, yes, as a legacy to her late spouse. But. Giuliani? What did he have to say about issues regarding Massachusetts? Not a darn thing. And this is not a run for the Presidency, it is a Senate seat.

How can spending stop increasing debt?

- the electorate now and in the upcoming elections of 2010 is convinced the Democrats are not reliable to trust with their Treasury. It doesn't matter the sound decision making that has gone into any stimulus bill. It doesn't matter they had 'the con' of the century occur in the last Republican administration in the White House, it only matters they are scared of concepts they haven't experienced yet and will retreat to understanding what they know.

How can President Obama sign a bill that does not provide for a public option in order to increase competition?

It doesn't matter that there are other provisions in the bill that will provide competition and options that are similar to a Public Option. It doesn't matter that millions of Americans are without any health care and that could happen to them, too. If they aren't experiencing it, it does not exist and it does not have priority. Independents aren't noble people committed to any philosophy or belief system. They literally go with what they believe is personally noble and POPULAR to them. They don't realize that both Houses of the Legislature have the opportunity to use Reconciliation as a method to pass the bill and customize it to the exact bill we wanted in the first place. They don't stop to realize President Obama is listening to the legislature in what is preceived as a compromise. They don't realize the President may not be able to live up to every campaign promise because of compromised IMPOSED on him by the very legislators in the House and Senate they elected. They'll simply make the same mistake again.

How can any Democrat say the Health Care Bill will pay for itself when it raises taxes on The Middle Class when everyone was promised they would not see tax increases?

This issue is simply a matter of blatant propaganda. There is not one word in that question that is anchored in a truthful issue. This is a 'created for election' issue by the Republicans and can't be answered. It cannot be answered because its premise is all "W"rong. The idea that insurance companies will increase their premiums after the bill is passed because they have to insure the so called uninsurable is a completely wrong premise. The voters see this as a 'tax' as well. Increasing premiums is not a tax, it is an issue WHEN AND IF it ever presents itself. From where I stand there is no taxes created by the Health Care Bill that will impact anyone or couple making less than $200,000 or $400,000 US. So, all this mess about increased costs and taxing the Middle Class is fabricated. There are specific cost containment measures for premiums for helath care that will result after the bill is passed. The question is fabricated. An electorate SHOULD EXPECT to be protected by legislation and not exploited. IF the Health Insurance Industry finds loopholes or words to exploit after the bill is printed, then it needs to be addressed by the government. Legislation is a process. It is a process before a bill is written and it continues after a bill is passed. The entire question is hideous. The American people under Republican domination have become 'used to thinking' they are chronically nieve to their 'FINAL' outcomes. That doesn't have to be the case at all. What the American electorate has to do is to stop retreating to 'what they know' rather than 'venturing' into what hope lies ahead. They have to trust again. That trust will be postponed as long as they continue to be effected by propaganda.

How does any Democrat justify 'special treatment' of any state or political crony like unions?

This is an easy question to answer. To begin, what is a political crony? It is an entity that profits from government monies and/or brings votes to a candidate regardless of the sincere actions of a candidate. States cannot be cronies and organizations cannot be cronies. States and organization are comprised of people that range in all walks of life and socio-economic status. The unions represent workers, the states are government entities, they could never be cronies or privileged unless someone is getting a pay off. No one anywhere in the Health Care Bill is being paid off. AND. Not all states are created equal. There are poor states and wealthy states. It is a fact. It is the OBLIGATION of the federal government to maintain a 'common treasury' to benefit all the people and that sometimes mean carving out benefits for states with poorer incomes to their state and local governments. THAT is a fact. If one wants a blatant example of legislation that awarded monies differently all one has to do is look at the legislation passed under Bush for Homeland Protection monies. The provision for North Dakota is legitimate and very, very constitutional.

Unions are recognized as legitimate bargaining entities that represent the best interests of their members. They are allowed to donate to candidates that represent those member interests. The party is usually the Democrats because the Democrats concern themselves with issues of The Middle and Working Class. The unions are not only allowed to donate to candidates they are allowed to petition government officials when it is perceived legislation is not in the best outcome to their members. That is legal, it is a fact, it is constitutional and it is an obligation of unions to their members. Members pay dues to their unions to carry out those directives. It is just that unions are ostracized by Republican legislators that favor private industry and stockholder profits and a minority of citizens at the top of the income scale in the USA. Unions, by nature, represent a much broader scope of people in culture, income and social status. Unions should have an open door to any legislator as organizations that better represent democracy than any private industry or stockholder ever could. It is wrong to exclude them on sensitive issues that directly effect their members.

Why do I feel as though the promises of the Obama Administration were lies?

They weren't lies. President Obama sits in the Executive Branch and not the dictatorship. Kindly remember that. He doesn't come out everyday to make grandstanding statements to reassure the people of the country as he is 'at work' and not 'at campaigning.' There is something very wrong with any elected authority that acts on insecurity to carry out their office. Not only that, but, President Obama can only hope to have loyality from the legislature. There is every reason to believe he has that loyalty, but, the difficult aspect is achieving bipartisanship on anything. It is the Republicans that have decided it is a political advantage to be the Party of No. If one pays attention to the speeches President Obama makes, they are unwavering 99% of the time. I don't see that he has changed 'his promises' at all since being elected, however, the 'reality' of trying to achieve those promises are now impacted for a variety of reason. The most stark reality for me is not Health Care, but, Afghanistan. Before President Obama took office there was never this level of transparency about Afghanistan and Pakistan. If there was and the fact finding was this through the American people could have impeached the Bush Administration. Bush never lived up to his oath of office and neither did Cheney. Any electorate has to give some latitude to an elected President while accepting the reality of any circumstance as he reports on it. The world is not perfect. President Obama tries to make it so, but, sometimes its not as attainable as we would like. He is a wonderful President and sincerely cares about the people that elected him. I admire him. His response to the Haiti disaster is above and beyond anything that we have witnessed before. He took responsibility and the USA will probably have a presence there for some time to come until a stable government can be returned to Haitian people. What I like best about President Obama is that he is sincere in delegating responsibility and holding those responsible to see their jobs through competently. He also surrounds himself with diversity of views in the highest levels of his cabinet. Bush never did. Bush and Cheney isolated their positions and surrounded themselves with 'Yes men.'

Good night.


What a joke of a man.

Rove has gone 'belly up' in trying to remove doubt to the competency of The Republicans. He is chronically lying and using 'demeanor' as a method to control the lies.

He made a statement that gave me the best laugh I had all day.

He stated, through the 'POWER' of the Murdoch rag, the Wall Street Journal he would set the world straight about the Democrats.

Okay. Right.

The statement went like this...

"Obama states that Bush never paid for anything including the Medicare Drug Benefit. Well, neither did they." He stated "...neither did they." over and over and over as if it were a legitimate excuse for 'fiscal irresponsibility' by the Bush White House.

The beautiful part of that statement is that it indicts Bush's Administration by admitting first they were fiscally irresponsible and somehow the Obama Administration is their equivalent.

It was amazing to watch and realize the stupidity in his words. Simply amazing.

The media is performing a heroic job. Sincerely. However...

...there is such a thing as self preservation. Both the media and the rescue workers are safe. The emergency is not happening to them it is happening to others. There is no blame to be laid for worse than optimal outcomes. The odds were stacked against these people long before this ever occurred. Those odds were dictated for many reasons, but, they were not dictated 'for the trying.'

Rest is a good thing, too. There is nothing anyone working with these people can do in a depleted state of readiness. Working around the clock isn't going to benefit anyone.

Everyone is doing a magnificent job and it is obvious in all the reports there is a profound concern for all those suffering.

This is ONLY the third day. Tomorrow will bring more opportunity to turn the odds in the favor of the Haitian people. A month from now the odds will be better and better and in a year from now there will be infrastructure that will return a form of government and function to their society.

It is only our hope the best outcome occurs, but, there is no guarantee, there IS only trying in the best methods we know how. Thinking one has 'left something out' that would have turned the corner earlier is incompetent thinking. This is an impossible set of circumstances.

USAID is doing a wonderful job of coordinating. What they might not realize yet is they have to take over the role of a missing government until one is re-established.

The reason the People of Haiti are in turmoil regarding aid to their survival is that they lack the culture.

If such a tragedy occurred in the USA, the people of this country would be able to 'figure it out.' The people of Haiti can't and they react with instinct and criminality.

If I may?

The Haitian people speak languages, of course they do, but they don't have a national language regarding emergency response. In that, they sincerely lack 'the culture' of emergency that facilitates 'cognitive' behavior BEFORE 'fight and flight' sets in.

They believe they have been abandoned by 'the caregivers' they had before this earthquake. They don't 'reason' that the folks and infrastructure that cared for them before was as human and vulnerable to death and injury as they have been. They expect their 'caregivers' to show up regardless.

The culture of Haiti never included emergency response. Example:

In the USA, when a person is 'on fire' for whatever reason a person would be on fire, the CULTURE of EMERGENCY instilled in a person from a young age tells that person to overcome 'instinct' to run and to STOP, DROP AND ROLL.

IT IS COUNTER INTUITIVE. It takes a lot of culture to have a young person 'accept' instruction from teachers to be counter intuitive, but, the American people are taught from very early ages to control their instincts and react in a way that will garner 'success' over 'emergency.'

The Haitian people not only don't have the culture, they don't have the language and are not empowered to reason through their circumstances. They are quite used to caregivers to provide for them. This tragedy will see secondary consequences because of the lack of 'emergency culture' within that society.

If I were there and trying to get aid to people that have moved beyond reason, this is what I would try to do.

I would not maintain control in distribution as NGOs are accustom to doing. I would find an abandoned area of the city or place where people are known to be near. Empty as many of the supplies in that area as possible as quickly as possible utilizing as large an area as possible. I would then leave. But, before I would leave I would set up an apparatus or 'loud speaker' to direct attention to the location of the supplies. Then as I was leaving through an established and safe exit route I would fire off flares to raise the attention of people in the area.

By placing supplies over a large area it will allow greater opportunity for more people to access the supplies. The loud speakers could explain the supplies, the quality of the supplies and how they can be used best. The distribution would be random with greater opportunity to more people as a plan to these sites. The people will carry out a 'street strategy' but they will eventually begin to get the 'idea' they are alone in their ability to cope. In that, they will have to come to realize they cannot carry weapons and there must be ample opportunity for all to remain calm and receive care.

Right now, they see a truck full of supplies and believe it is the only truck in that capacity and violence breaks out to take as much of the supplies as possible a person can horde. They don't realize there are warehouses full of supplies available to them that will be continuous.

The truth they also don't realize is that a fairly short walking distance of about 5 to 6 miles there is no or far less devastation. They only know their reality and they believe all of the country is in the same condition.

That is the good news. The bad news is that there are people still surviving in the city and amongst the rubble that have to be reached and cannot move to obtain their care. They will perish if those causing violence continue to do so making it unsafe to workers to make in roads to survivors. What I am concerned about is that those engaged in violence will try to form an encampment and hence a militia and then there will be real issues that the USA military will have to confront. It would be better if people's needs were met and they began to think about a different reality. These folks don't understand their own actions threaten their lives and the lives of the people that are weak they may be trying to save.

It is my opinion that with such an abundant amount of supplies already in Haiti, it is imprudent to try to control the distribution so much as allowing it to happen. I mean where is it going to go? At this point, considering we are attempting to have them survive, the supplies are theirs to destroy even that is their directive. They are a tough bunch to try to save from themselves.

Let's see, where do I begin?

I debate whether to discuss Haiti first and then the media covering Haiti or the other way around?????

I think Haiti first, then the media covering Haiti, then Rove and finally Massachusetts. Rove by the way is over. He isn't saying one word that is true, he is manipulating through demeanor alone and he is 'on the run' from the fact The Republican Party during his tenure was corrupt and out of control.

Haiti first. I'll keep my perspective short and to the point. At least I'll try.