The World according to DocBrain

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Following Iran's lead

The leaders of Iran have a dream. It is to have nuclear power plants. This is in a country that has virtually unlimited petroleum reserves and easy access to fossil fuel. While skeptics might think that Iran's motive is to create nuclear weapons, lets consider the fact that Iran is trying to wean itself off of fossil fuel. This is like a quit smoking program at R.J. Reynolds or having fisherman boycott fish.

What are the advantages to weaning off fossil fuel?
  • Less pollution
  • Saving a limited resource
  • Eliminating dependence on others for our energy needs

If we accept that these are truths of fossil fuels, then we should be even more committed to weaning ourselves than the Iranians.

DocBrain thinks that we need a twilight of gasoline in America, much like the end of leaded gas and the end of standard TV.

Here is DocBrain's solution:

  • Annual limit to the number of gallons of gas that an individual or corporation can purchase, weaning from 100% of current use to 50% within 10 years.
  • No sales tax on purchase of alternative fuel vehicles and 50% reduction in sales tax on hybrid vehicles.
  • No tax on alternative fuels for 20 years, giving time for the technology to become economically sound.
  • Encourage private and government funded nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal and water power generation systems, with research to reduce the loss due to friction and other losses during energy production.

Monday, August 21, 2006

Southern Man

Well, I heard Mr. Young talk...

Mr. Young you better keep your head
Don't forget what the good book said

Jews, Arabs, Koreans, and Republicans have taken heat from Andrew Young.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Young

Mr. Young's words are the language of the victim and the villain. This mental attitude is only true if you believe it to be so. This mental attitude limits individual growth and potential by building and reinforcing internal barriers to personal growth. This type of approach is so predominant in the world today that unless it is flagrantly bigoted it passes under the radar.

Blaming others for your predicament is so old school. The real reason Walmart has taken over is that it has the power of scale to dictate pricing to its suppliers, technical innovation to keep inventories under close control, and exchanges good working conditions for a lower pay scale. It is hard for Mom and Pop stores to compete, but they can in terms of convenience, location, and additional services such as home delivery.

Life has challenges and opportunities. If life to you has victims and villains, it is time to feed your head.

Thursday, August 17, 2006

What's in your wallet?

http://kdka.com/pennsylvaniawire/PA--DoctorSlain_d_n_0pa--/resources_news_html


Killing your husband....10 years
Killing a good person, esteemed by the community for good deeds....25 years
Killing for money...........35 years
Killing by proxy (getting someone else to do your dirty work)...........50 years
Killing and then using the victim's money to play rope a dope with the legal system....life
Killing in a way that induces panic among citizens that they may be the next victim......priceless

This woman deserves the death penalty.

Sunday, August 13, 2006

...where everybody knows your name...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._political_families

Goshdarn it! DocBrain has some good political ideas. DocBrain would like to run for office. DocBrain would be a good politico. DocBrain has little chance of winning because...DocBrain does not have brand name recognition.

It's true. Once people become familiar with your name, they will vote for you, no matter how inferior you are to your opponent.

Don't believe me? Here is a story about BrotherBrain's high school science teacher. He had the same name as an ex-governor. He ran for office without campaigning, without party endorsement, and without any experience...yeah, he won.

Names like Kennedy, Bush, Roosevelt, and Adams have retained the national spotlight for decades. I'm sure that wherever you are, there are local political dynasties.

The only other people who stand a chance are those with way out names, names that alliterate like Jessie Jackson, or are three-parters like Frank Lloyd Wright, or evoke subtle memory or recognition like Kerry or Clinton (there is a town named Clinton in almost every state).

So, if you are planning a run for office, I hope you have a memorable name or a familiar one.

What last names do you think will be big in politics in the future?

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Treason: balancing fear and the law

Pre-Crime Statistic = (The magnitude of the potential harm) x (the probability that the people identified are actually going to do the act)

In the movie "Minority Report" the probability was 100% as psychics were used to tell the future; the magnitude varied according to each crime. The decision was to apprehend all pre-criminals due to the high probability (100%).

In the real world, we do not know the probability, but we know the potential harm. The question: what is the value of the Pre-Crime Statistic that should trigger a preventative action?

A pre-crime true story (DocBrain was there): An 18 month old child is taken to the ER with a broken arm. The child is dirty and bruised. He is accompanied by his mother. His mother had two other children (one was a twin of the child in the ER) whom she killed at different times in bouts of depression/drug use. CYS (children and youth services) is notified but, as this woman claims that this child fell down steps, CYS decides that this case does not require further investigation. Two weeks later this child returns to the hospital with multiple skull fractures, after having been beaten by the mother. The child dies. If the behavior of CYS in this case appalls you, then you are a believer in the need for pre-crime assessment. If you think, "Well, isn't that strange! I would never have expected that ending for this story!" then you may be a pre-crime non-believer.

If you believe that 9-11 should have been prevented, then you are a pre-crime believer. The question becomes: at what number do you trigger the pre-crime statistic to intercept, detain and imprison the pre-criminal?

What are the elements that go into determining probability of the person being a pre-perpetrator? Should descriptors of the person be a consideration? In the politically correct world, we should not consider external appearance. Yet, this is known to be valuable, but not foolproof. Nothing in statistics is foolproof. So, DocBrain thinks that using statistically likely data is worthwhile. We do it everyday. The percent of drunk drivers who cause accidents is low, but is significantly higher than the percent of sober drivers causing accidents. Similarly, the percent of young Arab men who express hatred towards America who actually are planning to cause terror is low, but substantially higher than elderly white members of DAR. Keeping data and statistics can help us to do better in the war against terrorism and can help us do better with our pre-crime statistic.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

We are the enemy

Whether you are anti-war, pro-war, liberal or conservative, you are the enemy of Islamic fundamentalists. As a liberal, your lifestyle is repugnant to these people. As a conservative, your choice of religion, if not fundamental Islam, is the reason why they should be your masters. As a capitalist, your concern with material items and with making life easier and more convenient for others is abhorrent as being too focused on materialism. As a communist, your belief in people working for the common good is abhorrent, unless that good is narrowly defined as fundamental Islam.

There will always be alternative world views. DocBrain's world view is that he should be master of all, but, as of yet, DocBrain has only 7 followers: one dog, one cat, and five fish.

The goal is victory, but how do you achieve it? The modern way of dialog, commerce, and social interaction has not been successful in converting most of the non-Islamic world to Islam.

When DocBrain looks at the Arab-Muslim world, he sees: abject poverty of the masses; greed of the obscenely rich; corruption of the military; lack of due process in the courts; social backwardness where the poor, women, children and homosexuals have no rights; a past-directed society; no innovation in health care, technology or science; filtered knowledge; repression in the arts and literature; little effort in preventive health; and vitriol directed against those who would lead or push in the corection of these shortcomings. Those who support the Islamic approach point to: family closeness; chastity; the feeling of belonging that comes from religious conformity; a clear understanding of good and evil; and a celebration of the afterlife over the suffering of mortality. All of these are available outside of Islam for any who wish to avail themselves of it...what is not available outside of fundamental Islam is the lack of choice. DocBrain's primary problem with fundamental Islam is that it flies in the face of personal ethics. When all is determined for you, you have no freedom to be good, only obedient. Fundamental Islam is anti-humanity, anti-freedom, anti-diversity, and violent. In using terror to attempt to alter the world, they have reverted to the lowest form of influence, that of the schoolyard bully, the street thug, the wife-beater, you get the picture.

DocBrain cannot understand why people would not want to stand up and fight against this aberrancy of thought and action. The fear of dissing those who practice Islam and are part of the modern world is rooted in a distortion of the concept of embracing diversity and not being biased or racist. Fundamentalist Islam has co-opted the nationalistic spirit of citizens of the Middle East and has acted as their only hope for respect and power on the world stage. This power needs to be replaced with a credible alternative, such as democracies. Caving in to the enemy is not an option. Destroying the enemy is not enough. We must provide a source of pride and power for the Arab-Muslims that is consistent with a multicultural and multireligious world view; one that respects other religions and cultures; one that embraces its neighbors; one that has the power to be a helpful and strong friend on the world stage. This can only come from re-education over years and retooling of their social fabric.

DocBrain sees no other viable option. One should not pick a fight, but should never back down when the stakes are high out of fear. DocBrain is appalled by the lack of insight of many Americans, as recently demonstrated in Connecticut.

There is no common ground with this enemy. Our society is based upon our "rights". Their society is based upon their "obedience". We just want to do our thing and be left alone. They want to be our masters. They have co-opted the good citizens of the Middle East. We must win and provide them with a better alternative for self-respect.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Joltin' Joe

Joe Lieberman, Senator (D) Connecticut, has lost his bid to be the Democratic candidate. He is out of step with the times. He believes in a strong America and working with others to achieve goals for the betterment of American citizens.

His opponent gave a laughable acceptance speech, decrying lobbyists while two of the most shameful and polarizing lobbyists in DC were standing behind him...Sharpton and Jackson.

Hate and fear, envy and greed were Lamont's biggest allies. This is a sad day for Connecticut, "The Constitution State".

DocBrain does not share many of Joe Lieberman's political views. However, Joe is one of the 5% of politicians that are given a bad name by the other 95%. A good man has lost to a man who panders for votes.

Besides Lamont, Connecticut has turned out Nathan Hale, spy, Benedict Arnold, traitor, and P.T. Barnum, separator of the gullible from their money.

I guess when you combine the votes from those who desire to be paid not to work because of their alleged victimhood with those who fear to defend what is most precious because of their alienation or lack of faith in democracy, you get an election result like this one. And Al Quida did not even have to blow up one railroad track!

Friday, August 04, 2006

Mad Mel

In the world of political correctness, we are cautioned never to say anything that might upset anyone. We also know that the surest way to make a monkey out of a man is to quote him. We also know that people have been harmed and killed because of ideas, often tied to bigotry. So, what do we do with Mad Mel?

What is true:
  • Some(one) of the conflicts in the world today does involve Jews (Israel)
  • Jews have often been persecuted and killed just because of their religion and customs
  • Mad Mel managed to link these two with the aid of alcohol and a distorted upbringing.

It is not so much Jews that cause world problems as the reactions to them. Any sober person would know that, even a Hollocaust denier. In a world where, if you are not mainstream, you can either opt out of the system or try to win in a biased system, Jews, like many Asians, have tended to try to win in a biased system, while other cultures have tended to fold in anger and resentment. This has bought animosity for Jews and lately also for Asians. Conversely, it has bought a form of superiority-based compassion towards "those less fortunate" ie, African-Americans and some Latino-Americans.

The unfortunate thing for Mad Mel is that his words reflect a distortion of reality that has been at the heart of anti-Semitism. The outrage is that this distortion is still present in those who should know better, even when wallowing in hydrocarbons.

Mad Mel does not need DocBrain's advice. He knows that good deeds and kind words heal wounds.

Land for Peace? An immodest proposal

Land for Peace is a concept discussed concerning Israel. It has been tried unsuccessfully in other places and at other times, but its natural tendency to failure is not its prime weakness. The real problem, as recently voiced by the head of Iran, is the very existence of Israel. It is not any specific amount of land. To prove my point, one can turn the "Land for Peace" equation on its head and say, "If the Muslim Arabs would only concede the small amount of land in the Middle East to the Israelis that they now occupy, then we would have peace in the Middle East." When you say it that way, you see its absurdity as that approach has been rejected for over 50 years. So, land for peace is actually a hoax, as those who propose Israeli land for Muslim peace never consider the opposite tact.

So, we get to the true issue: the very existence of Israel as a state in the Middle East. If OPEC is planning to raise petroleum to $100/barrel, and if we proposed that, if they only raise it to $95/barrel we would get Israel to relocate out of the Middle East, but if they insist on $100/barrel, we will arm Israel to the teeth and provide tactical support, thereby helping them conquer whatever lands that are in their (or our) strategic interest, I think we would have a deal. So, as the phrase goes, we have shown them to be prostitutes, we are just haggling about the price.

I propose that we split the difference. OPEC sells the USA oil for $20/barrel for 10 years; the Middle East becomes a nuclear-free zone, and the US government raises taxes on oil to keep gas at about $2.00/gallon. With the money collected, we purchase land in Montana equal in size to Israel offer to relocate all willing Israelis to that area, ceding that land to them as an autonomous country. We use additional money to help them re-tool, re-build and restart their industry, commerce and residential communities. Then, we stop supporting the Israeli state in the Middle East and promote Arab rule.

With no Israeli scapegoat in the Middle East, the Arabs will have to get on with their lives. Any potential violence towards the US could be dealt with decisively. No nuclear arming of the Middle East would be tolerated, punishable by raining of devestation from the skies via our airforce. They could be as third world as they want. Also, no more US aid in the Middle East. We work on petroleum free energy over the next 10 years and leave them ...er... in the dust.

Those who wish to be first or second world could develop their own industries and become part of an ecumenical world scene, but only if they develop governmental structures that are not Islamic states and demonstrate a reasonable form of justice and freedom for their citizens.

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

War 1.0

Once upon a time, war was very messy. The goal was to right past wrongs. Many people would die, some combatants, others civilians. Children were routinely killed to prevent repopulation of the enemy army. Women were killed or raped. Villages were burned. The enemy was crushed. You get the picture.

Now we have war 2.0 where no one except combatants are expected to be harmed, no infrastructure harmed. This is even true when the combatants hide and fight within civilian areas. We saw this in the Iraqi invasion and now in the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. The enemy is lightly spanked. Nothing more brutal. The goal is to make the world better in the future, to prevent further harm.

In the current Middle East conflict, one side is being held to the war 1.0 guidelines while the other held to 2.0 guidelines. Why? No argument makes sense to DocBrain.

The best that DocBrain can figure out is that it has something to do with the concepts of "brutality" and "fairness". Even in war, one should not be brutal and one should always play fair. Never bring a gun to a knife fight. While DocBrain is a strong believer in doing the right thing, the future as well as the past must be considered in any conflict.

Those opposed to Israel always point to the past for justification for waging war 1.0, while Israel looks towards the future as justification for waging war 2.0. Most news media view the conflict within this guideline. As the future moves through the present to become the past, nothing changes in the minds of those opposed to Israel as the past cannot be changed. Basically, the world keeps waiting for Israel to move to war 3.0, where it capitulates in a Shmoo-like attempt to please those who oppose it.

It is sad that few demand that the enemies of Israel look to the future instead of the past.