America’s Id kicks Ass

Last year the U.S. Military gave $450 of surplus military equipment to police departments, much of it never used.  A management team that bought $450 million of surplus equipment would be fired.  But, I suspect this is no accident.  Our Industrial Military Complex owns the U.S. Congress.  Giving away military equipment is just another way for the defense companies to make more profits.  Simple.  Should we mention that many think the militarization of the police department is a big mistake and contributes to deaths of its citizens.

Now compare that to how we take care of our people in America.  Just one example will suffice to illustrate the point.  Suppose your partner gets ALS (what is ALS), or "Lou Gehrig's Disease," you might expect your government, or a kind government, to help such people.  Well, they will --- after you exhaust all your money and you are down to your last $2500 of your life savings then medicaid will give you hand with your medical expenses.  Since you must exhaust all your money to get the medical help, surely we help the spouse of the ALS person on living expenses.  Na, our government is not that kind.

Our kind government will order extra military equipment to militarize police departments but won’t give a loaf of bread to a person whose spouse has ALS.  Our government believes it leads the world by force, that it must control the world.  It no longer leads by example in creating a country that everyone would be proud to live in.  Or perhaps, we have become a people that only takes pride in the fact that we can kick ass on a battlefield, foreign or domestic, and taking care of our own doesn’t matter.

A War on Black People That Do Drugs by Robert R. Odle, Ph.D.

The War on Drugs is really a War on  People That Do Drugs.  You really can't

have a war on an inert object, or even a chemically active compound called a drug.   

Definition of drug (n)

1. medicinal substance: a natural or artificial substance given to treat or prevent disease or to lessen pain
2. illegal substance: an often illegal and sometimes addictive substance that causes changes in behavior and perception and is taken for the effects
3. medical substance: a substance given to treat or prevent illness as defined in the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

Of course, our biggest drug in America is alcohol.  I am drinking a second Landshark as I write this and it is already altering my perceptions and I am drinking it in part for its effect, well, to be honest, mostly for its effect.  

About 100% of us use drugs if one includes prescription drugs, caffeine, nicotine, sugar, over the counter-drugs, alcohol, etc.  Big brother has decided some drugs are too harmful for mere citizens to make the choice on what is okay to use and what is not okay.  The government had already failed in outlawing alcohol in the prohibition so it was left off the current master list of harmful drugs, besides there was probably a good alcohol lobby.

Now it is not such a bad idea to identify which drugs are harmful including alcohol, heroin, crack cocaine, etc.  Credibility is lost when something like Pot is put on this list and alcohol is left off the list. As inconsistent as the list is, I am surprised peanuts and shellfish are not on the list of harmful drugs since they do kill some people each year.

But, another question is, once Big Brother has put something on the Bad Drug List, what should they do about it.  To maintain credibility, when someone gets addicted to a drug, whatever it is, we need to be consistent how we handle it.  It is not a crime to be an alcohol, sugar or a nicotine addict, despite the huge costs to society, but a casual cocaine user is a criminal per our inconsistent Big Brother.  So, to put it mildly, Big Brother is not consistent at all -- and he wonders why the kids and adults don’t listen.  When a policy is so ill conceived, why are we surprised that U.S. has no credibility?

So, at least one would think Big Brother could consistently and fairly administer their inconsistent policies.  Lets take two groups: white college kids and black kids in the projects.  Both use lots of drugs, especially pot.  It might surprise you to know that white college kids who do drugs are causing our prisons to bulge at the seams.  Or did I get that backward?  

Of course, Big Brother didn’t get it right.  Why we would expect an inconsistent and illogical policy to be administered consistently and fairly is well like joining them in being idiots.  In fact, the Drug Policy has been used to wage war on black people that use drugs (not white college kids that use drugs).

Why is it that we have a War on Black/Minority People That Do Drugs.  Well, because it is easier to  indiscriminately arrest and prosecute someone that does drugs than it is to investigate crimes like gang violence, murders, armed robbery, etc.  Get in, get out of the Projects and arrest someone doing drugs to show the White Man Press that you care. The result, prisons that are full of black people that do drugs, some of which have done some other really bad shit, some that have done nothing more than be a father that did some pot to relax.  Its a crap shoot that has amounted to nothing less than a War on Black People (who happen to do drugs just like the white man).  

Are there any American values that could be used in helping improve our drug problem in this country?

So, to start overhauling the way we handle drugs in this country, let’s start with removing the word “WAR” from our vocabulary when we are talking about ordinary American citizens that break our inconsistent, unfair, and ridiculous drug policies.  Maybe we should pick something like “take a drug user to church”, or “show an addicted person you care”, or “support the families of addicted Americans” or “lets find a healthy way to live”.  Okay, I need some help on picking a new banner for our drug policy in this country.  What do you suggest?

Hamas looks like boy scouts compared to ISIS. by Robert R. Odle

x

Hamas	ISIS
Funding Taxes on the people that elected them to office	Funding Selling oil to Syria, extortion for those it defeats
Recruitment Mostly locals that have had family members killed by Israel	Recruitment International effort through social media appealing to those that see world domination by Muslims.
Ambition To have self determination, to get the seige/blockaid of their country lifted.	Ambition To dominate the world with their strict form of Muslim
Religion Moderate to strict Muslims	Religion Fundamentalist religion, they are the only ones who are saved. Convert or die.
Military Assets Toy rockets to fire at Israel.  Some rifles.	Military Assets Increasing mobile fast attack machine guns mounted on trucks. Reputation of being fierce.
Income Millions donated each year from Qatar and others.	Income Millions collected daily from selling oil and extortion.
Press Allows Press free access to their country and lets them call it as they see it.	Press Beheads journalists and shows it on social media videos.
U.S. Response Calls them terrorists and contributes a billion plus a year to have them destroyed by Israel.	U.S. Reponse Calls them terrorists and drops  bombs on their trucks.
My View Hamas are freedom fighters resisting a superior enemy backed by World Power. They are willing to die for what they think is fair and what they were promised 65 years ago by the West.	My View A dangerous group that we gave birth to by our actions/values in the Middle East over the four decades.  Our abuse of the Palestinians for decades has provided them an actual villain to unite against.  Our destruction of Iraq has given them a vacuum of power in which to gain a toehold, grow and recruit.

Ferguson, our sins coming home to roost? by Robert Odle

Ferguson is more than it seems.  It looks like the police may have gone too far.  How does someone walking in the street instead of the sidewalk escalate to the killing of Michael Brown?  Six shots to stop an unarmed person -- really?

So, we can see how people would be upset about this and want an impartial review of the evidence to determine if the policeman should be indicted.  In short, all sides want due process of the law.  Of course, the State Attorney works with the police all the time, so can he really be impartial?  

But there are two things that really catch my attention.  The police remind me of a military invasion.  In the picture above, look at the firepower being directed at one black man.  What kind of mindset results in three military looking cops holding three assault weapons on one man? In another picture of this same scene there are actually four assault weapons pointed at this man. Even if this is the National Guard isn't an excess show of force more or less demonstrating the forceful style that exists in Missouri?

Of course, with the peaceful demonstration against the alleged misconduct, there was also some looting and local violence.  And, there was some claims that Michael Brown might of been a suspect in a local burglary and that he had pot in his system in addition to six bullet wounds.  All of that seems to misdirect us away from the original question, was the policeman protecting himself and/or was he using excessive force/ gun power to kill a relatively harmless person.  The answer is probably somewhere in the middle, in the gray area.

But, here is another question.  Is Ferguson an early look on what it is going to be like as the haves militarize to protect their stuff from the have-nots?  Is this what the streets are going to look like as the number of uneducated, unskilled and many of them fatherless Americans respond to real or apparent miscarriages of justice.  Is there a huge gulf arising between those that have, including those that work for them, and those that don't have?

When is Genocide is Permissible by Robert R. Odle, Ph.D.

When is Genocide Permissible?

The article above appeared in the Israeli Times.  It accurately reflects the unspoken Israeli policy.  It goes something like this ... if your enemy is a dog and he says he wants you dead then genocide is okay.  Isn't he saying that Israel wants Palestinians dead.  So, it would follow that genocide of Israel is okay, too.  What stupid logic.

Ok, there is no love lost on either side, on the Palestinian or Israeli side.  But, Israel as the power to carry out genocide of the Palestinians, thanks to America, but the Palestinians, namely Hamas, can talk the talk, but they can't walk the walk -- since America does not give them F16's, etc. like they do Israel. But, as Americans do we want to back a country that is even using the word Genocide.  Of course, their actions say they do not value Palestinian life ... they are practising selective Genocide trying to break the spirit of the Palestinians.

My half Jack Russel/ winnie dog, Bungalow has started his share of fights with other dogs.  Why, because his big brother, Ashton, goes in and does his best to clean up and back up Bungalow.  The U.S. is the one responsible for the Genocide occurring in Gaza.   The U.S.'s backing allows Israel to act with impunity in killing Palestinians.  The rest of the world, besides the U.S., condemns Israel actions.

What is amazing is that the youth in this country, the under 30 crowd, identify with the Palestinians.  Well, I am an old dude and when I see the genocide that is occurring under the auspices of precise targeting of terrorists by Israel it makes me sick.  They are shelling Gaza with artillery from Battleships.  Give me a break.  Battleships are World War II precision.  They are bent to flatten entire areas of a city, they are not smart bombs.  And yet, the over 30 crowd in America buys into this crab.  It makes me ashamed to be old and "wiser".  Older and and a propaganda idiot.

Who is selling sugar to our children? by Robert R. Odle

The WHO (World Health Organization) released a report No.916 last year.  The report said among other things that we are eating twice as much sugar as we should be and that it is the number one cause of obesity in this country.   The WHO recommended less than 10% of our calories should come from free sugar added to our food by manufacturers.  In short, to be healthy in this country we need to reduce our sugar consumption by half.

Many expect the cost of treating obesity to bankrupt the American; by just 2018 the costs are predicted to go up by $344 billion.   It is a problem that is increasingly attacking our children, even infants.

So, one would think we would happy to get some news that pointed to the cause of this obesity.  Nope. The food corporations, especially the corn industry, was about to lose billions of dollars.  They got the lobbies together and threatened to remove $425 million of U.S. funding for the World Health Organization.  The U.S. Sugar association got their way and the language in the report was softened.

So, isn't the story that all calories are equal still true.  Not exactly.  When we eat sugar we get a burst of sugar into the bloodstream, the pancreas secretes insulin, and the liver converts that sugar into fat. Other foods like an apple or almonds have fiber which slows down the digestion process and the sugar is more slowly introduced in the blood stream and you use more of it as energy, less of it gets converted to fat.

So, what about the old story that fat people are not trying.  They eat too much and exercise too little. That may be true, but at high levels of consumption sugar becomes addictive. Some are even claiming that sugar is more addictive than cocaine.   While cocaine is not one of the more addictive drugs, and the statement is controversial, the stark rise in obesity in this country parallels the doubling of sugar in our diet since the mid-1970's when fat became the bad guy and food companies raised the sugar content to compensate for the bland taste of low fat foods.

So, why do we have corn-syrup in everything even though half of us are trying to avoid it. Because it is cheap to make.  And why is that ... because we subsidize agriculture.  We just stopped this year giving money to farmers to not grow crops, but instead agreed to pay the cost of  crop insurance, which insures the rich farmers make money no matter what happens with their crops.  What a deal.  The democrats tried to put in an exception that farmers that made over $750,000 in income were not eligible for free insurance, but Republicans pushed it through.  Of course, they compensated by decreasing the amount of food stamps to the poor.   But, I digress.

So why are Americans becoming more obese.  Because it makes food companies a lot of money. They are using the tactics of the tobacco companies, deny and lie. And eventually, we will wake up, but at what human cost.  Look up all the diseases caused by obesity and imagine the lives of all the obese children that are counting on us guide them.  The next time you look at a cereal box look for the % of daily nutritional requirement next to the sugar.  What you will see is nothing.  Have you ever asked why and who is responsible for that omission.  Do you think that is accidental?

Should America Recuse Itself?

google-site-verification: googled7f164eb17a132c4.html

Are there American values / principles that we are ignoring in the Middle East?

re·cuse

riˈkyo͞oz/

verb

NORTH AMERICAN

1. challenge (a judge, prosecutor, or juror) as unqualified to perform legal duties because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality.

   "a motion to recuse the prosecutor"

   • (of a judge) excuse oneself from a case because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality.

   
   

Have thousands of lives been lost and trillions been wasted in the Middle East because we put economic interests ahead of our core American values? Are we seeing the fruits of our misguided efforts coming home to roost in the ugliness that is unfolding in the Middle East?  Let's focus on the Israel / Humas conflict.

In previous blogs I have blamed the U.S. and Israel from blocking any long term settlement that would give self determination to the Palestinians. But, after further reflection, I realize that it is mostly fault of the U.S. that there is no settlement in the Middle East. One of the necessary traits of a professional negotiator is impartiality. They listen to both sides and try to help the two sides find common ground. A negotiator that has bias in the case because of his relationship with one or more of the sides in the dispute should recuse himself from the case. This is just not a practical guideline based on the ineffectiveness of a biased negotiator (or judge, etc.), it is a moral issue. It is just not right to pretend to be impartial when you have a long relationship that would cause you to be unfair to one of the two parties. Could anyone deny that the U.S. is biased for Israel? Then what is the U.S. doing in the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians? If the U.S. is in favor of an issue, any wise Palestinian should be wary. Just by being in the negotiations, we undermine their legitimacy.

Another principle in our courts is whether someone has standing in a given case. Of course, the whole world has something to gain if the Middle East is more stable, if Israel and the Palestinians learn to live peaceably together. But, what besides our military might (might is right?) gives us standing in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict? It is the Israelis and Palestinians that must live with what they craft or more likely live without a viable agreement.

And taking this logic one step further, our continued contribution of money and weapons to Israel undermines any settlement. Our gridlocked Congress just failed to pass a bill giving Israel $250 million to restock its Iron Dome missile defense. Shouldn't the Israel people pay for this and feel the cost of war on their own shoulders. Wouldn't this just be another incentive to reach an equitable settlement. 

Should the U.S. have the courage to withdraw all aid from the Israel until the Palestinians have self-determination. Can we claim to be just if we support a country that denies self-determination to those in its care?