Monday, July 21, 2014

Deleting Poisonous People




Deleting Poisonous People

A healthy person has to prune his social circle about once every 3-5 years.  You will discover the depressed person (who relishes in their depression), the narcissist, or the coward.  Sometimes it takes time to learn these important things about people.  But, you will have to delete these people.  We usually cannot choose family or blood, but we can choose who we hang out with regularly.

To be a winner, you will have to do what winners do.  Sometimes winners do things that ordinary people find difficult impossible, or uncomfortable. 

Tim Ferris once said that success is directly related to the number of uncomfortable conversations you are willing to have.  This sounds true to me.  In his book, The 4 Hour Workweek, this section jumped out at me for the truth value it carries and the ageless wisdom it contains:

Exact numbers aren’t needed to realize that we spend too much time with those who poison us with pessimism, sloth, and low expectations of themselves and the world. It is often the case that you have to fire certain friends or retire from particular social circles to have the life you want. This isn’t being mean; it is being practical. Poisonous people do not deserve your time. To think otherwise is masochistic.

The best way to approach a potential break is simple: Confide in them honestly but tactfully and explain your concerns. If they bite back, your conclusions have been confirmed. Drop them like any other bad habit. If they promise to change, first spend at least two weeks apart to develop other positive influences in your life and diminish psychological dependency. The next trial period should have a set duration and consist of pass-or-fail criteria.

If this approach is too confrontational for you, just politely refuse to interact with them. Be in the middle of something when the call comes, and have a prior commitment when the invitation to hang out comes. Once you see the benefits of decreased time with these people, it will be easier to stop communication altogether.

I’m not going to lie: It sucks. It hurts like pulling out a splinter. But you are the average of the five people you associate with most, so do not underestimate the effects of your pessimistic, unambitious, or disorganized friends. If someone isn’t making you stronger, they’re making you weaker.

Remove the splinters and you’ll thank yourself for it.


This is brilliant advice. 

The question will come about enemies and swords sharpening swords, and conflict being good for the soul.  This is very correct.  Here is the problem.

Many Americans think that being positive is the absence of conflict or discomfort.  This is false.  Being positive is exactly what it means in science: forward movement.  You are in a positive environment if you are growing and moving forward, despite conflict and stress.  Eu-stress is good: biking for one hour or lifting weights is good stress.  Distress is bad: being injured or having a conversation with a person in despair is bad stress.

Freddy

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Notes on Malaysian Flight Crash

I do not watch news - ever.  However, at designated times during the week, I may quickly browse the goings-on in the world.  Winners focus upon things they can control - and ignore everything else.  However, we all need a little entertainment now and then, so, here goes.

In any dispute, in trying to find out the truth, onlookers must first ask the classic question, "Qui Bono?"  Who benefits?

Apparent facts:
  • A Boeing 777 crashed in Eastern Ukraine.
  • The place of the crash is a war zone.
  • The territory of the crash is in the hands of Ukrainian rebels.
  • The flight plan of the plane was over war territory.
  • The 777 was a passenger jet carrying just under 300 people.
All other facts as far as I can tell are disputed.

Qui Bono

Let us examine the question of Qui Bono.  If the plane was indeed "shot down" who benefits?

Russia?  No.  Russia has no reason to blast a civilian plane out of the sky.

Ukrainian rebels?  No.  They have no military or non-military reason to shoot a plane out of the sky either.

Ukraine?  Well, from a cynical perspective, if they can blame it on their adversaries, there can be an argument for this.  But, this would take a lot of resources to pull off, and a lot of people would have to be in on the job.  I do not think they are dumb enough or capable of pulling something like this off.

United States?  The CIA is known for doing stupid things throughout its history, but this sounds really far-fetched that they could have planned such an operation.

Responsibility

Assuming it was a Buk Missile System, they are indeed capable of shooting up to 15.5 miles high.  So, someone with a Buk could have shot the plane out of the sky.

The most likely scenario is that some dumb-ass pulled the trigger before identifying the aircraft.  Americans have shot down American helicopters with fighter jets in military accidents where there was a mis-identification. 

It is extremely stupid to claim that Russians wanted to shoot down a civilian plane.  Putin is one of the smartest guys in the world, so, that holds absolutely no water.  I think it is somewhat far-fetched to claim that even the rebels in that territory would try something so dumb.

I would venture to speculate that if some dumb-ass pulled the trigger, the Russians have probably shot the idiot in the head by now for being so stupid.  I would even venture that if the rebels found out who did this, they would shoot the guy in the head also.

Malaysian Airlines may be responsible in this case, or perhaps European flight controllers.  How stupid is it to fly a 777 jet over a war zone full of passengers?  Think about that for one moment. 

Strange Political Posturing

From NPR:

At the Pentagon, Kirby told reporters that he didn't have any specific information that the SA-11 system, known as a "Buk," had "transited" the Russian border, "but we are not ruling anything in or out.


"We don't directly know who's responsible for firing that missile," he said. However, if the separatists are involved, it "would be strange credulity to say they could do this without some level of Russian assistance," he said.

Seriously?  It would be very strange indeed if they had Russian assistance in shooting down a 777!  Why is the even Pentagon suggesting this?  Information warfare?

NPR again:

"Privately, U.S. officials say they suspect separatist rebels were behind the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17," Dina reports. "U.S. officials say they are still analyzing the audio. They are also using algorithms and mathematics to pinpoint where the missile was fired from."

No crap, Sherlock!  A disorganized, perhaps incompetent militia pulled the trigger on something they thought was military.  It turned out it was not.  But, then again, that is common sense, and we all know common sense is not very common.

Now, Reuters:

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry laid out what he called overwhelming evidence of Russian complicity in the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 as international horror deepened over the fate of the victims' remains.

Russian complicity in shooting down a 777?  I say bullshit.  

Reuters again:

Kerry demanded that Moscow take responsibility for actions of pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine whom Washington suspects of downing the jet with a missile, and expressed disgust at their "grotesque" mishandling of the bodies.

Let's see.  Some rebels shot a 777 out of the sky.  It was on Ukrainian rebel territory.  A Malaysian flight flew over a war zone.  So, logic dictates that it was the Russians!  America has some really smart people at the helm!

More bullshit from Reuters:


In Washington, Kerry criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin and threatened "additional steps" against Moscow.

"Drunken separatists have been piling bodies into trucks and removing them from the site," he said on NBC television on Sunday. "What's happening is really grotesque and it is contrary to everything President Putin and Russia said they would do."


So, if we need cooperation from the Russians, we are going to just say they killed 300 civilians, you know, just out of fun.  That will make friends really fast, you know.  Like I said, America has some really smart people at the helm!

Finally from Reuters again:


European Union ministers should be ready to announce a fresh round of sanctions at a meeting of the EU's Foreign Affairs Council this week, said a statement from British Prime Minister David Cameron's office, issued after telephone calls with French President Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. 

"They ... agreed that the EU must reconsider its approach to Russia and that foreign ministers should be ready to impose further sanctions on Russia when they meet on Tuesday," it said.

The leaders also agreed to press Putin to ensure investigators had free access to the crash site.

So, Western leaders are threatening sanctions against Russia because of something that happened in some other country.  This sounds really smart.

There was once a country called Iraq, where the United States supplied them tons of weapons in the Iran-Iraq war.  How many Americans did the Iraqis kill during Iraq War One and Two (1991, 2003)?  Thousands!  Much more than 300, dude.

///

America is a declining power.  We will need all the friends we can get in the next 20 years.  Do not be surprised if China places military equipment in places like Panama, Nicaragua, Cuba, or even Mexico in the next few years.  Russia may be happy to help them if we piss them off too much.

Our leaders need to think carefully about what they are doing.  Sometimes it is best not to run our mouths, as we Americans are prone to do.  More often than not, we are looking weak and foolish with the rapid decline in leadership experience and capability.

This is scary.

Freddy