Getting out of Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

In a news article, John McCain's views about American Isolationism within the Republican party are reviewed: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iWsf0aTHNQJ-qYQTLPGD3mkfcgow?docId=CNG.7a567cd3fbd13227727a3b49b46b2540.121

120 fatalities reported in Benghazi

Photo from: http://pulsemedia.org/2011/02/20/congratulations-gaddafi/ 

Many within the party are claiming that "we" shouldn't have gone into Libya.  It's an easy and automatic claim to make, because the decision to go in was made by a Democratic president.  The thought is "why should we get into anyone else's business?"  And really, if the US were having an internal conflict, would we want some foreign powers from the other end of the world intervening to tip the balance?  The historical answer to this question is YES!

Centrifuges in Libya in 2003

Photo from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Libya_centrifuges_2003_(at_Y12).jpg 

Benjamin Franklin bent all his energies on convincing France to use its military strength to help the American colonists to expulse the British.  When the French finally did send its navy to assist the US, the war ended quickly.  Unlimited movement of troops along the coasts and unchallenged blocades of ports were no longer possible for the British.  By all accounts, the aid of the French was a major factor in American independence.

The 1st days of the conflict when the people showed their will and before Gaddafi pulled out his biggest and deadliest military technology.  

Photo from: http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2011/02/libya-civil-war-in-brief.html

Libya.  There is a majority of the people that prefer to choose their own political future rather than having a dictator choose it for them.  The difference in military strength between the Americans and the British was much smaller than the military difference between Gaddafi and the rebels of Libya. 

Quem Elma Lake, Libya

Photo from: http://www.justfoodnow.com/2011/03/22/libya-a-short-history-the-country-the-food-a-dictator/

The dictator thought at first that he could quell the rebellion through mostly threats.  Using the military on civilians would look very bad for this newly reformed image.  He was wrong.  The rebels advanced close to Tripoli.  Then he released his major firepower, and in a few days his powerful military was knocking on the doors of Benghazi before the international community stopped him.  Gaddafi's military was far superior because it used technology that he obtained from the US, Western Europe, and Russia.  Our technology allows him to easily overcome the will of the people. 

Getting around, Libya style

Photo from: http://iamkoream.com/korea-vs-libya/

Do we help the people of Libya?  I think it's hypocritical and heartless to let them fall to the military strength that the West has given their dictator.  If someone's at your neighbor's house killing them, do you stand by and say, that's their business? 

Willing to fight till the last drop of blood

Photo from: http://politicallyillustrated.com/index.php?/news_page/lpnh/2435/

We can't be sure that Libya will become a democracy.  There are a few friends of Osama Bin Laden (may he rot in Hell) fighting along side those that are fighting for democracy.  It's not perfect.  In our revolution, the American Indians had a major stake in helping the British, because they knew the colonists were all about moving westward, whereas the British were limiting the colonists' expansion into indian lands. 

It started as a nonviolent and peaceful protest

Photo from: http://notenoughgood.com/2011/06/resolution-libya/r-libya-civil-war-large570/

Things aren't perfect.  We don't know if what we want to happen will actually happen.  Being over there costs money.  We can't be there to help in every revolution (ie Syria).  We won't gain lucrative oil contracts for helping.  But you know what?  If you're my neighbor, and your family is being attacked by some bad person, and I find out about it, I'll do everything I can to help.  Free of charge. 

Opinions on Libya: my own

Photo from: http://www.2012notes.com/whats-happening/politics/feb-20-2011-qaddafi%E2%80%99s-son-warns-of-civil-war-as-libyan-protests-widen/ 

Toughening kids up, abuse, and bullying causes and responses

In a news article on MSNBC, there's a story about a two year old girl that was abused and beaten by a man that was trying to 'toughen her up.'  The link is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43312561/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

My question is when is it good to 'toughen kids up?'  I remember when I was in school the exact phrase was used at least twice as an excuse for bullying.  Two different kids hit others or said mean things while explaining that their victims needed to be toughened up. 

As a general principle, if you want to run a race well, then you get better and prepare by running beforehand.  So with toughening people up, the idea is that their future lives will be hard, so we're going to hit them and call them names so that in the future they won't be as sensitive to it?  Will their future lives involve being hit and called names on a regular basis?  I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't been hit or called names on a regular basis... ever.  It happened occasionally at school, but since then... nothing. 

It seems obvious to me that these kids, and the man who beat the little girl, were subjected to similar abuses.  I think the supposed root goal of this abuse is to help people be ready for their future, and reduce characteristics like whininess and crying when bad things happen.  It might also be supposedly useful to teach people to depend on themselves as opposed to others that might fail them or not be there. 

In my opinion, having watched lots of kids, there's a little bit of human nature in children.  Whining and crying is a reaction to events around them.  It isn't the best reaction.  Probably the best reaction is communicating with others.  Learning to be mean and violent may be another type of reaction to events around people.  It's worse than whining and crying, and it's what people learn when they're 'toughened up.' 

I don't think anything positive comes from lashing out violently and name calling.  Toughening up is just another phrase that means abuse.  If someone wants to help their kids learn better ways to interact and react to others and the situations that they confront, they should be taught to communicate their needs and wants, and negotiate acceptable outcomes to difficulties.

Obviously when faced with imminent violence, sometimes defending ones self is necessary.  Here's an article on 'teaching your kid to defend themself: http://www.teachkidshow.com/teach-your-children-how-to-defend-themselves/ It stresses the need to teach children to speak up for themselves, and to tell others how they feel, even if they're angry.  It also talks about steering clear of trouble.  Telling a teacher is used only when other attempts at resolution have failed.

As far as bullying goes, another website: http://www.greatschools.org/parenting/bullying/1333-defending-himself-from-bullies.gs talks about why teaching kids to respond with violence is a problem.  Responding with calmness and confidence and communication is best in almost all cases. 

In my personal opinion, teaching kids how to fight to defend themselves against bullies tends to turn them into bullies.  We have some friends that were quite upset that another boy hit their child with a stick.  They were very angry about it, and have been teaching the child to use violence to defend himself.  They didn't know that their child had knocked the other boy off of his scooter in order to get on it himself before the boy got the stick to hit him with. 

I don't think little kids are able to differentiate well when to use violence if they are taught to use it.  It's easy to teach kids to hit, it's hard to teach them it's only ok in a single circumstance.  They often get caught up in the idea that it's only good against the "bad" kids.  But if you watch them on the playground, they're often making judgments about bad kids, and those judgments are often wrong. 

Another website: http://www.myprimetime.com/family/parenting/content/bullying/index.shtml about "Bully proofing" our kids, teaches six different strategies to stop or prevent bullying.  The expert says to look over them and talk about it with your child to choose the best one to implement.  Very good site. 

Often kids that are bullies need help.  If they and those that are raising them can get help, these behaviors can stop, and it may be as good as keeping one person from a future jail sentence, in my opinion.  There was an article about how bullies grow up and abuse intimate partners.  I found it! http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/school-bullies-linked-domestic-violence-adults/story?id=13774706
Actually this is a hack job by another website about the same study.  Oh well.  Same information. 

There was a case of bullying in Australia on you tube found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isfn4OxCPQs&feature=related  It's one of those cases where one kid is shown as a bully, and he's picking on a larger kid, and the big kid takes him down.  There was a lot of cheers and praise for the big kid.  No one can be sure, however, that the kid initiating in the video clip is entirely the bully, and the big guy was entirely the bullied.  Maybe the little guy had been bullied by the big guy, went and got some friends who he thought would even the odds, and came back for revenge, only to get body slammed. 

We can't really know.  It's likely that this was a case of a bully 'getting his', but we can't be sure.  And even if it is, our little bully that gets his probably has also been getting his at home for most of his life.  He's probably been getting 'toughened up' by someone in his family.  I think violence is cyclical in nature, and in some cases it's a response to a situation where more customary measures seem to have failed. 

At the end of the day, lets stop the violence!  And let's stop cheering violence.  Can't we all just get along?

Why aren't there enough organ donors?

Hey,

   I was wondering this and got my answer quickly.  So here's a quick answer for you.  If you don't know.  If you do, then click to another blog post. 

   The truth is, there are many more organ donors than people that need organs.  A lot more.  Like 10 to 1.  The problem is that, most people's organs won't work as donations.  The reason why is that as soon as the heart stops beating, tissue begins to die, and organs become unusable.  This means heart, lungs, kidneys, eyes, skin, fingernails (just kidding, fingernails will keep and keep)  and anything else that you can think of that is 'alive'.  So car wreck fatalities don't produce usable organs. 

   The situations where you can actually use the organs and tissues are very few.  Basically you have to be brain dead with your heart still beating, being kept alive by machines, and with no chance of recovering.  Then your wishes ( often only if familiy is all right with it... see Living Will) may be taken into consideration, and your body is prepared for tissue and organ removal while your heart continues to beat.  My understanding is that recipients have to be there and ready to receive many of the organs right after they're cut out of you. 

   In any case, the key here is that, even though you may want to be an organ donor, the chances of being able to be one are very slim.  This is why there is such a need for organ donors.  So that the tiny slice of people that can actually donate will include more people that expressed willingness to donate.  For the record, I want to be an organ donor if it ever comes up.