Action will take place only if people press these elected officials who have responsibilities that they are not meeting.

It gets to the point where there are SO many facets of public life where our elected representatives are failing us miserably: civil liberties. bailouts for the rich. climate change. health care. banking regulation reform. mountaintop removal mining. blindly supporting israel. energy policy.

I've called my rep & my 2 senators about ALL of the above subjects, and many more, multiple times. It's beginning to seem like a waste of time... they only seem to listen to the lobbyists nowadays.

Mathematical constructs? You are talking to the wrong person. I have been there and while they may help you (everyone's thinking processes are different) I believe you are in the minority. You may do some sampling of opinions in this blog, maybe I am wrong (would not be the first time).

You sound savvy enough to know this thing. Whether it be in science or politics if there is a way to describe a proposition that can be best understood by the lowest common denominator and hence the widest body of people then that manner of describing the proposition MUST be used and NOT a more complicated and exclusive manner understandable by less and which complication can more easily give rise to misunderstandings. In fact dense and complicated explanations must be viewed with a high degree of suspicion. Lies can so easily be hidden in unnecessary complexity.

I'm not a numbers man but am enjoying an on going education watching the videos of the physics teacher David Chandler and his analysis of the fall of the towers. His manner of thinking in his field reminds me very much of Mr Greenwalds in his. Both are intelligent men who use their intelligence properly to explain often complex issues in as clear a way as possible that they might be more easily understood by those not blessed with so much intelligence or information.

In fact their manner of operation is almost by definition...intelligent.

Check out "David Chanler, South Tower exploding, youtube" to see what I mean

"Whether it be in science or politics if there is a way to describe a proposition that can be best understood by the lowest common denominator and hence the widest body of people then that manner of describing the proposition MUST be used and NOT a more complicated and exclusive manner understandable by less and which complication can more easily give rise to misunderstandings"

.

Thanks SO much!! - Now I finally know why I never believed David Chandler analysis -

I always stuck with a much more complicated and exclusive manner - and that's WHY -

JD -

your limited exposure to the chaos theory might finally be your downfall -

(but for sure on this blog) - because with statements like: "I believe you are in the minority" - you are not getting anywhere.

If we would be in the majority we wouldn't be on this blog - And don't tell me - you meant to say: The minority of the minority - that would be much to easy to understood by the lowest common denominator and you really would get in trouble with LL!

Fair enough, we've been part of the problem leading to the failure of some states. But as macgupta has pointed out, we failed to do the right thing in 1990, we failed to do it in 2002. We have to get it right the third time. Why? Because in 1990 we tried your solution. And guess what? It actually can get much more fucked up and worse by leaving, we already proved that. In 2002, a perfectly good reconstruction was screwed up by the CIA and Rumsfeld funding warlords to the tune of $1 billion while ISAF was trying to disarm them.

We have been the problem leading to the failure of many states and you are ignorant of the historical record if you do not know that. Plus macgupta's point that we did not do the "right thing" is correct if by that you and he mean we did not get the hell out of their country.

The idea is simple. Leave other people alone to work out their own problems. Send some volunteer aid if they will accept it --- say pompous chaos theoreticians. But, the nature of unintended consequences is that it is our own brutal, invasive interference that is causing hatred and violence there.

The Afghani has been fighting outsiders longer than there has been a USA. They will rid themselves of us if history can be any guide at all.

So as to not having a grand plan, see my remarks about complex systems. There is no grand plan that will work, but there is a way to succeed. One would think that heru-ur would really love that scenario. It's the 'move the force of 1000 pounds with the push of 4 ounces', 'iron bars wrapped in cotton', float like a butterfly, kinda Taoist kinda how to fry a small fish thing. Taoism never said hands off, it says "Use a nimble hand and a light touch, and give the opponent nowhere to turn."

-- ondelette

There is a way to "succeed", and that is to leave. This is the lesson of Vietnam --- get the hell out and let them handle their own lives before you kill even more women and children.

As an aside, I have never once read a post from you decrying the ongoing horror in Vietnam. They have a crisis due to the ongoing genetic damage due to our use of chemicals. Not only that, but they have unexploded bombs everywhere that kill many each year to this day. Would you have recommended in '68 that we stay because "we have to fix things we broke"???

And lastly, if you know great plans are doomed to fail, why do you continually promote great plans?

But as macgupta has pointed out, we failed to do the right thing in 1990, we failed to do it in 2002. We have to get it right the third time. Why? Because in 1990 we tried your solution. And guess what? It actually can get much more fucked up and worse by leaving, we already proved that.

He reminds me of one of those slack assed pot bellied pratts spraying a pot noodle larger mix all over the shop, referring to Manchester United as "We," whilst explaining to the missus, dog and the budgerigar why "we" failed in the quarter finals and didn't bring home the silver ware last season.