Joe Whitten Blog : Theology, Rants, Photography, Politics, Denver, Colorado

Hasty, Foolish Decisions and Consequences

Terrorists were hiding there and the evil dictator was speedily acquiring the tools and building nuclear and chemical weapons very quickly. So many of the leaders in the president’s party as well as great military minds said it was so; how could it not be true?. Then some other evil people who may are may not have had any ties with the dictator building the weapons to destroy us attacked us with hijacked airliners.

We had to act – fast. Quick and decisive action was the order of the day. Quick and decisive; well, we’ll be debating the decisive part for generations to come, action was taken. The man who planned the attacks with the airliners is still out there more than seven years later. the man who was not involved and really had no weapons has been hanged. The world hates us more now than they did then. Should we learn a lesson from rushing into action without a plan? Well, yes…did we? Seems not. Will we? History shows that we most likely won’t.

How often does society in general learn anything from mistakes? Go ahead, present a good example. Just try.

Because of those attacks in 2001, many new laws have been passed in the United States. How many of us are completely aware of what these laws mean to our way of life? How many think none if it really matters because the prevailing attitude is that life will go on here in the Unites States regardless of a few bad political decisions now and then?

Too few people are aware of how that incident has made people more sympathetic to a group of people, Islamists, who are determined to rule the world. Instead of realizing that the hijackers represented what Islam truly is, people have bought into the lie that Islam is peaceful and that the killings taking place in the name of Allah every day are being committed by a fringe element of Islam. Political correctness is becoming the weapon of mass suicide.

Making poorly researched, bad decisions is not uncommon on a large scale in the United States. Since I live in the U.S. that is where I’ll limit my examples.

Flu Shots:

In 1976, at the advice of the CDC, WHO, and pharmaceutical corporations, then president, Gerald Ford, provided funding for a massive Swine Flu vaccination program. Because two soldiers at Fort Dix were found to be infected with a new(?) strain of influenza, several organizations convinced the government (the president and congress were convinced or duped) – that a massive, worldwide outbreak like the one that occurred in 1918 which killed 20+ million people could occur again. More on the 1976 vaccination. The evidence was not that great, but the potential for a few corporations and people to make millions of dollars was very great and the plan was approved. It is a certainty that a few thousand people died from the shots and many developed Guillain-Barre (pronounced Gee-Ann Barray; hard G in the first word)Syndrome. Amazingly, people still line up every year for flu shots. Flu strains (there are many different ones) vary from year to year so that it is not really possible to predict which strains will be most active during any season. People die, people contract Guillain-Barre and suffer other symptoms. Flu shots for children also contain mercury. What was learned from 1976? Apparently nothing.

Vietnam War:

We have no doubt all heard plenty from both sides of the argument about whether The United States should have ever been involved in the battle between North and South Vietnam. It could be argued that the United States at least partially caused that war though.

In 1954, after the French suffered a crushing defeat by the Viet Minh, led by Ho Chi Minh they were trapped and forced to eat rats to survive. Though the United States had financed a large part of the French campaign to rule Vietnam, President Eisenhower decided not to offer assistance in the form of air strikes as the French requested. As a result of the French being defeated by a foe they considered incapable of offering any significant resistance to them, a peace conference was scheduled in Geneva Switzerland. The French were allowed to remove their troops and Vietnam was divided into the North and South, the South being non-communist and the North being Communist. The agreement also stated that elections would be held in 1956 to elect a leader and the North and South would be reunited.

The president of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem, with backing from the United States, decided against allowing South Vietnam to participate in the elections likely because he feared a decisive defeat by Ho Chi Minh. So the United States actively supported South Vietnam reneging on the agreement reached at the peace conference in Geneva. Both countries decided not to live up to the agreement they made for fear that things would not go their way. Considering that the United States pulled out of South Vietnam eventually and let the communist north take control, this decision does not seem, in hindsight, to have been very well thought out.

Eisenhower had sent 1500 “military advisors” to South Vietnam in 1955. He was concerned about a growing communist influence in Asia. In 1959, Hanoi basically declared war against Saigon and South Vietnam.

While Eisenhower believed in using technology – “more bang for the buck” – to combat foes, John Kennedy, who became president in 1961, leaned more toward using combat troops. Kennedy, like Eisenhower, believed that stopping the spread of communism was crucial. To combat the spread of communism Kennedy sent 18,000 troops to South Vietnam. He also approved the use of napalm and defoliants such as agent orange. Countless innocent people including children were victim to these horrible inventions. In attempting to stop evil, the Unites States may very well have become more evil than its enemies. How could anyone not realize that using such inhumane weapons would take such a toll on innocent people. Napalm is basically jellied gasoline. It sticks to a person’s skin and burns though the skin to the muscle and bone causing unthinkable pain. Can evil be fought with more evil?

Because he feared Ngo Dinh Diem would give in to the pressures of Ho Chi Minh’s forces and attempt to create a neutral coalition of some type, Kennedy either sanctioned or allowed South Vietnamese generals to murder him in order to prevent an immediate loss to the North. Was Kennedy concerned about the people of South Vietnam or merely the United States losing face?

The Viet Minh that the United States were fighting were not afraid of death. In fact, they feared allowing foreign powers overtaking their country more than they feared death. By 1965, Johnson being the president, it was clear that the United States was not making progress against the North Vietnamese. By 1968 the United States had over 500,000 troops in Vietnam and we were not winning. The North left the jungles and began fighting in cities. The United States had ravaged the country with bombings and chemicals but the strength of the enemy was not diminished.

Five years after Nixon was elected president, the United States removed its troops from Vietnam. The south instantly fell to the North. Thousands of South Vietnamese evacuated the country seeking refuge in other countries.

Thousands of people died, the United States (despite arguments by many to the contrary) lost face. When the going got too tough, we pulled out. Many men who bravely fought, thinking they were fighting for their country, returned home to a society that shunned them. The way veterans of that war were and still are treated by the United States is a disgrace.
None of what happened in Vietnam would have or should have happened if the agreement reached in Geneva in 1955 had been honored. There is no justification for the destruction and loss of innocent lives in that war. The United States got involved in the affairs of other people without any clear reason. Our sovereignty was not being threatened and South Vietnam was not clearly asking for our intervention.

Today, Vietnam is peaceful and it has a thriving tourist trade. How much sooner could that have come to pass if an unnecessary war, brought about by foolish, hasty decisions had not taken place?

Does anything happening today seem familiar? Did anyone learn anything from that horrible war in Vietnam or is it now just a vague memory and a few lines in history books?
Only a small number of the events of the Vietnam war have been covered here since the point is to show that it was a hastily made, poorly thought out decision. There are numerous sites covering it in more detail however and many films, videos, and books are available for anyone interested in more detail.

Bad financial management:

For years too many people in the United States have been living on extended credit. It has been too easy to obtain credit far beyond any means to repay. Paying high interest rates on credit cards results in less material wealth because money that could be spent on goods is given to companies like Citibank that make billions of dollars exploiting people’s inability to postpone the desire to own what they cannot pay for at the time they buy it. Obtaining a credit card and running it to its limit is a hasty and very unwise decision. Purchasing a $500 piece of furniture and then paying $1000 for it by the time the payments to the credit card company are made is foolish. Living without the piece of furniture for six months and saving enough cash to pay for it when you get it is much wiser. So why don’t more people wait until they can afford to pay cash before buying expensive items?  We live in a hedonistic society that is unwilling to postpone gratification when not forced to do so. People are no longer willing to work toward goals feeling that society owes them all of the conveniences available.

In 2008 a financial crisis occurred in the United States and globally. What caused this catastrophe in the financial sector that is still wrecking the economy in April 2009? Many factors are involved. The unquenchable desire for more wealth is almost certainly the driving force behind the terrible recession that is plaguing the US and the rest of the world. Although the common term used to describe the situation is recession, that seems like a poor descriptor. Recessions are caused by slow downs in areas of economies that people cannot always control. The current crisis was caused almost entirely by stupid, ill conceived schemes to make people rich. Rather than a market driven by supply, demand, and quality. The current economy has been driven by an attitude of making sure that there is no risk in any transaction or business deal. There is a long chain of one group or another agreeing to insure the risks being taken. The insurers thought that by taking enough money from enough people they could cover any losses and still make a handsome profit. Everyone seems to have thought that there was so much money in the world and that production of something actually possessing a value is not necessary for an economy to flourish that  they could continue to reap the fruits of the economic trees even though no one was tending the garden. People have become incredibly myopic in regards to finances and no one seems to care about anyone else as long as they are making money.

The details of the financial crisis of 2008-2009 are far beyond the scope of this paper (and the ability of the author to explain). The reaction to the crisis is the point to be addressed. By October of 2008 we were hearing that if the government was not allowed to pump 700 billion dollars into the failing institutes the country would experience a depression worse than the one that occurred at the beginning of the twentieth century. How could anyone have arrived at that conclusion accurately?

How can a country already at the brink of bankruptcy in terms of debt and deficit come up with almost two trillion dollars to repair a failed economy. What can be repaired by pumping money into a failing system? Is this not like a gambler continuing to borrow so he can place bets in a stacked card game? Too much of the bailout money is being used to save reckless companies like AIG and others or the car manufacturers. The automotive industry in this country had a warning in the 1970s. They ignored it and perversely refused to restructure. Now they are paying the price. Why should anyone have to pay to bail them out? Companies that make stupid decisions should fail and disappear. That’s Capitalism. Are we to become the Socialist States of America? Rather than using the resources we have to rebuild and secure a more solid future, our resources are being squandered on failing institutions that have proven their incompetency. Why do people always think that throwing money at problems is the way to correct them? People have been convinced that if the money is not spent in this foolish, hastily conceived manner, we will go into a depression. Could be we are going into one anyway after a brief period of false optimism.

Consumers and government mirror one another in the United States. Both like to spend beyond their means and then find new ways to borrow to spend more after it is obvious that they are completely broke. The mantra is always “Things are going to improve and we will be able to repay this temporary debt tomorrow”. Why pay your hard earned money today for anything you can get on credit and pay for tomorrow with more credit?
Obama is quick recently to point out that he nor his staff did not create this crisis. While that is true, it does not excuse poor management of a recovery and repeating the same reckless mistakes of the past. The United States needs discipline as a country and a new way of managing our economy and our infrastructure. Without a plan for the future, spending large sums of money on temporary fixes is not going to help the United States in the years to come. It is only going to leave us all further n debt with no manufacturing sector. Unless we are producing something worth value on the global market, we may be n for a very hard crash.
Hasty decisions to spend a lot of money with no plan for change.

Weapons of War, Appeasing the Enemy:

Just a few years ago experts were telling the world that it would be years before Iran could build a nuclear weapon. How foolish is it to think they don’t already have one? When the Manhattan Project was formed to build an atomic bomb to end the Japanese assault on the world, did the U.S. have stockpiles of plutonium at its disposal? Did we build the bomb anyway? Is high grade plutonium necessary to build an atomic bomb? No, it isn’t. Only one of the bombs used to end WW2, the “Fat Man” dropped on Nagasaki, Japan contained plutonium. The other bomb, “Little Boy”, dropped on Hiroshima Japan used uranium-235. Is our government being stupid acting as if Iran cannot build an atom bomb since they don’t have high grade plutonium? Could Iran be using the Plutonium issue as a ruse to hide the fact that they are building a bomb with uranium-235? Recently the news is that Iran is almost ready to build an atomic weapon now. In just a couple of years estimates from experts have gone from Iran being at least ten years from being able to build a nuclear weapon to Iran being almost capable now. The question should not be whether they have one but whether their leaders think there is a specific time that is best to use it on Israel. Making hasty decisions without careful analysis, based on inaccurate assumptions is not in the best interest of national defense.

Iran almost surely has atomic capability already. The Persians invented chess; they are not stupid. The Iranian leaders are almost surely thinking about destroying Israel and the United States. President Obama thinks he can begin dialogue with Iran and solve all of the problems between Iran and the United States. Obama seems to think that he can intellectualize the situation and resolve it. Islam hates everyone who is not Muslim. Is it wise for a leader to try to negotiate with those about whom he knows nothing? Anyone who refers to Islam as peaceful is ignorant. There is no valid excuse for the president of the United States to be so ignorant. There is no excuse for most people in the United States not to recognize the threat posed by Islam. Muslims try to tell others that they are peaceful. Muslims state that the Quran tells them not to kill innocent people which it does. But anyone who is not a Muslim is not innocent according to the Quran.

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

Obama, regardless of what he claims, is not a Christian and certainly not Jewish, so maybe that verse won’t apply to him. Maybe if he outlaws the mention of Yeshua’s name and agrees to impose more Sharia like laws in the U.S. he can become pals with Ahmadinejad. With his ultra-liberal mindset Obama may decide to pass laws forbidding speech that criticizes Islam in order to appease the very people who will gleefully chop his head off once they have gained control. If you think this is far-fetched, you need to put your Nintendo down and start paying attention to the world around you.

Hastily deciding that Islam is peaceful and does not pose a threat is foolish. There were many who did not think that Hitler posed a threat. Read about the Munich agreement, reached on 29 September signed by Adolf Hitler, Neville Chamberlain, Benito Mussolini and Édouard Daladier. Chamberlain was a naïve man who thought that diplomacy could bring about an understanding with a group of people whose intent was world domination and who thought nothing of lying in order to gain power. Thinking that a lion would enjoy being petted is a good way for a fool to lose his arm.

From the Bukhari:
Narrated Jabir bin `Abdullah: Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka`b bin Al−Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka`b). “The Prophet said,”You may say it.”
Sura (48:29) – Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves….

The disbelievers are those who do not accept Muhammad as the prophet or Allah as the true God. If you do not accept the teachings of Islam, you are a disbeliever.
Sura (9:30) – And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah… Allah (Himself) fights against them. How perverse are they!

If you are a Christian, you are perverse.

Surah 5.33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

If you disagree with Islam and see Muhammad as a false prophet, you have a very harsh punishment awaiting you. People who enjoy ridiculing Christians and others may find the consequences of insulting the intolerant members of Islam to be very unpleasant and unlike the reaction they get from members of other beliefs. Those who decide to accept Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance need to turn off the television and start doing some research. Dropping the politically correct attitude might be a good idea as well. Going out of your way to appease people who want to see you obliterated will only result in your death. Before you make a quick and unwise decision about your view of Islam, you are well advised to spend some time learning about its true history and its true goals. Muslims not a race. Don’t allow yourself to be deterred by accusations of racism when you begin to realize the truth of Islam.Obama is demonstrating one of the core weaknesses of liberalism. The idea that he can solve a problem he doesn’t even understand with his intellect. Obama is not that intelligent. If he was, he would have taken the time to thoroughly research Islam and the Quran. Instead he is hastily trying to show the world what a great man he is. When he makes a deal with Iran he will convince himself that he has succeeded and many people will hail his great success. But the people he makes his great deal with won’t think twice about dishonoring it. The United States is not Islam’s friend. We cannot be unless we accept Islamic laws and give up our freedoms. Islam is not a religion of tolerance.

Once again, a hastily made, poorly thought out decision. This one though is going to have grave consequences. The United States is going to distance itself from Israel and begin forming alliances with our enemies thinking that we are securing our peace.

Brainwash: Persuade completely, often through coercion. Notice there is nothing in that definition that entails any type of elaborate technology, torture, or mind control. Brainwashing can occur slowly. Victims need not realize that their environment contains unperceivable elements of brainwashing. Brainwashing is most effective when victims are completely unaware of it.

Every day, people in the United States and, most likely, many other countries are exposed to advertisements, music, television shows that distort reality, and many other ideas expressed through media. Most people will state with absolute certainty that they are not affected by these things, but how can anyone be sure?

Perhaps a visit back in time can help. Were people willing to talk openly about sex one hundred years ago? The answer to this question is most were not. We can be sure of this by looking at books written at that time, newspaper articles, and other written records. If people were not as open about personal matters one hundred years ago, what occurred to change attitudes and perceptions about it? The term “Sexual Revolution”, while not heard so frequently today, was a very common term in the sixties and seventies (1960-1970). What caused people to suddenly shed their inhibitions during that era and openly flaunt sexuality and defiance to law and government? Television was not yet so bold then, but in the fifties, rock music was becoming very popular and the lyrics in it were pressing the limits of what was then acceptable.

Elvis Presley caused a stir when he moved his hips while singing. His dancing was considered vulgar and sexually suggestive. Today, with singers grabbing their crotches, using every foul word imaginable and singing openly and explicitly about sex, Elvis seems tame, but it’s important to remember that when he first appeared he was considered by many to be quite obscene. Several cultures still find him obscene today. The point of this comparison is to provoke thought about the way opinion, perception, and morality with it can be altered by what people see and hear even if they do not realize what is happening.

It is natural for opinions to change, but when opinions change due to outside influences that the people changing don’t know the facts of, change can be dangerous. When societies change unconsciously and without realization of the slow change, societies become the puppets of the influencing forces which they know little about and the motives of which they are completely ignorant.

In the early days of television broadcasting foul language was not tolerated in the shows. Married people didn’t even sleep in the same bed. If you ever watched I Love Lucy or The Dick Van Dyke show you will remember that during the rare episodes when a scene was shot in a bedroom there were always two beds and the couple would be fully clothed in pajamas. The only television shows in which more than one person would be in a bed were comedies like The Three Stooges where the three would share a bed so that one of them could irritate the other two by snoring loudly.

Could television have really influenced attitudes and morality? Is it affecting viewers today? Is pop psychology affecting people? Does the general populace really think about what they believe and why they believe it or do most people perversely cling to that which they have come to accept as truth and fact because it is easier to just allow someone to tell them what the truth is than to seek it for themselves? Has religion, specifically Christianity, been affected by distortion of the truth?

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 2 Tim 4:3 (KJV)

Has television become a teacher? Do people merely seek the channel where they can hear the words that justify the lifestyle they want to live?

If you doubt that watching television has affected the thinking of people, ask yourself how the term homophobia became so common. Any time that someone who considers homosexuality to be a sin or to be disgusting, there is almost certain to be some liberal, pseudo-intellectual nearby eager to use that term to describe them. People use it as if it elevates their intelligence and or coolness to a higher degree. Being against the casual acceptance of homosexual behavior does not reflect any type of phobia. Phobias are irrational fears of events with a low probability of occurrence. Being against a homosexual lifestyle is not an irrational fear of homosexuals anymore than being against thievery or adultery is an irrational fear of people who engage in those sins, but the term has been cleverly planted into the psyche of society and it is used by people totally ignorant of what they are saying. Once a person accepts beliefs for the sake of fitting in with the crowd he or she begins to lose their identity – brainwashing begins.

The media is a great tool for shaping the opinions and thoughts of millions of people. Even those who think they are too intelligent to be affected by it are affected by it.

In the late sixties and early seventies a common expression was “I have the blahs”. The blahs was an imaginary disease created by a drug company to sell their product. Any time you woke up feeling a bit down or tired you were encouraged to just drop a couple of pills in a glass of water and then just a “plop, plop, fizz, fizz” later you will be feeling great.

How much influence have television, movies, and novels had on attitudes regarding marriage? Today, many people prefer to live together now and have children outside of marriage. How does this affect the children? How has the erosion of the family unit adversely affected the lives of everyone, especially in the U.S.?

How much influence has television had on the general attitude toward homosexuality by way of shows like “Will and Grace”. That show wasn’t funny. People just laughed and watched it to prove how open and liberal they were. How do soap operas affect people? Watching people constantly scheming to destroy each other’s lives, committing adultery, fornicating with several people on a rotating basis, lying, and engaging in many other bad behaviors and often gaining from it is almost certain to alter the way people think about personal relationships if watched long enough.

Why are so many people so obsessed with television? Many people claim to watch only educational shows but that seems unlikely. Many people claim they pay their credit cards off every month and never run a balance on them, yet credit card debt has proven to be one of the greatest causes of financial destruction in the United States.

Proving that any individual is molded by what is seen on television would be nearly impossible. The purpose of this article is to influence the reader to think more seriously about it. If you watch more than a few hours of television a week, you are spending too much of your time in a cognitive void when you could be learning about the realities of the world. If you are watching cable news thinking that you are keeping up, you are being deceived. Cable news exists to make money, not to inform viewers. If you listen to people like Rush Limbaugh more than once a month, ask yourself; “Why do I listen to him?”. Maybe because it is easier for him to tell you how you should feel than for you to seek the truth and form your own opinion. Have you ever heard people arguing about something and realized that their arguments sound very familiar to topics and opinions you heard on a talk show? Maybe one is arguing from Howard Stern’s viewpoint and the other from Oprah Winfrey’s viewpoint. Neither of those two people is a great source to be basing opinions on. When you allow others to think for you, you are being brainwashed. You might be fortunate enough to listen to someone who is basically honest and intelligent, but odds are you are not. Honest, intelligent people are generally seen as not very entertaining so people turn to entertainers and speakers who amuse them.

Television does have an impact on people who watch it often. Humans cannot be exposed to any influence for lengthy periods of time without being in some way influenced by it. At the very least, frequent viewing of commercial television detracts the viewer from the realities of life. People claim that they only watch news or “educational” television. How often though do people take any time to verify what they view on television? Commercial news exists to generate income for television stations and the owners of the stations. Journalistic integrity is not the driving force behind the creation of the news on television.

A few years ago Joe Scarborough became obsessed with the Michael Jackson molestation case. For months his entire show was focused on this case to the exclusion of anything relevant or important. People go to trial frequently for molesting children without becoming the target of a television host’s ????????? so why would someone with an opportunity to educate a vast viewing audience about real work issues waste hundreds of hours on Michael Jackson? Regardless of the answer to that question, the fact is this; all of the people watching that show night after night lost a lot of hours that they could have been educating themselves and doing something productive rather than rejoicing in the misery of others. Viewers allowed their minds to be distracted and focused on an issue with no relevance to them.

After the Michael Jackson incident he become obsessed with the Janet Jackson wardrobe incident at the Super Bowl half-time show. Was that incident really worth the time people spent going on and on about it? Were not more important issues occurring all over the world? Talk show hosts often seem to use their pulpit as a way to elevate themselves above the rest of society. Isn’t it more disgraceful to waste an opportunity to bring important information to people by going on and on for weeks about some trivial incident than to accidentally reveal a bit too much skin on television? There are billboards on highways in this country that show more skin than Janet Jackson showed that day. Dis Scarborough spend any time on that issue?

If you watch(ed) that show frequently you spent time listening to nonsense when you could have been learning something meaningful. That show is only presented as an example. Too many “news” shows on television are as bad or worse.

There is, of course, the argument that television reflects society. What if television only reflects the views of a small minority who wish to have a great influence on a majority though?

More soon in Part 2.