Perry to Deploy National Guard Troops to Mexico Border

Other Republicans in Texas and Washington have called on Mr. Obama to deploy the National Guard to deal with the border crisis, but Governor Perry could benefit from being viewed as the first to take action. Democrats, including Texas lawmakers in the border region, immediately lined up in opposition to the deployment plan, calling it an attempt to score political points and to militarize the border.

Many in the U.S.A. believe the George W. Bush brand is dead. This is simply not true. Governor Perry is proof. He has become “The Decider”.

But being the Decider was not the only capability of the W. brand, it was only a part of the process. The real asset of the W. brand was the willingness to build other countries in the American image.

But to do that, turn another country to our will, takes an army and there are not any other  possible candidates for POTUS that have one.

Most of the other candidates, especially in the Republican Party, are even, if unintentionally, rolling-up the military by their commitments to a “smaller” government.

As such, Governor Perry is not only taking off where W. left off, in Born-again Americanism, he is setting off to expand the U.S. government into Central America. While Governor Perry is sending in the National Guard, he is also sending in a military unit that doesn’t have the resources to secure its own position and operating in the area under the control of SOF and under the command of the Commander and Chief of the United States of America.

When conditions change, they will change very fast now.

via Perry to Deploy National Guard Troops to Mexico Border –

Diseases of Orientation, II; A Comment

I think living systems are open systems, as Boyd wrote, and closed systems, systems that are isolated, are non-living systems. Orientations are living systems because they have feedforwad and feedback coming into the system in the form of information as well as data. This is, I think the difference between the two forms of isolation that I believed are represented in your article.

A living system that orients itself to the environment observed (information coming back and forward) takes this information and does one of two things. The culture of the orientation either enforces conformity within or generates diversity outward. An orientation is a position, so the living systems either stays in one position or changes position. The third thing it can do is, like Boyd suggest, neither option. If those at Google, who the Google employee talks about, can’t find a tipping point, when it shows up, will, as Boyd lays out, die.

Whether they find the tipping point and make the correct decision to either enforce conformity or generate diversity (two points from Howard Bloom’s book, Global Brain), depend on the entropy in the system.

Excluding an outside entity, the entropy of the system comes from the capabilities of the organization. Finding the entropy of the organization depends on it’s culture’s ability to adapt resources to a changing environment, the structures ability to contain and control friction in the culture’s use of resources, the organizations ability to maintain the process (OODA) in which those resources are being used, and the want and needs of the living system being maintained by the assets of the organization.

If the living system can maintain its capabilities there is no need to generate diversity. If it can’t maintain its capabilities, then it will need to change its position, because what it is doing isn’t working. If the living system has all it needs, but wants more, then it has the option of either conforming or diversifying, which is the power behind a consumer economy, i.e. perpetual want.

The culture at Google, like the USA itself, is built on the advantage of a consumer economy. The people at Google have all they need, but want more.

That then gets back to what I have said. before: all war is about economic considerations and fought by people with little economic considerations.

Diseases of Orientation, II | Slightly East of New.

The Money Changers

I ran into a discussion on Twitter about Facebook’s newest showing of its ethics.

The discussion came down to the question of who are the customers?

Most of the people who have established a feed on Facebook believe that they are the customers of Facebook. This is simply not so.

If you have established a feed on Facebook, you are the supplier, not the customer.

For your efforts in supplying Facebook with what they need to stay in business, they give you what you want, the ability to form an orientation in the environment of mostly your choosing.

As one commenter on the Twitter feed said, they give you this ability to form a positing in the Facebook environment “untaxed”.

But the information you give Facebook comes with a cost to you the supplier, and like all suppliers, you stay in “business” as long as your costs for what you supply is less than what you exchange it to Facebook for. And apparently that exchange is your private information in exchange for the privilege of being connected to the tax-free environment of Facebook.

Being connected is what you want, so there is no problem in this arrangement as long as you keep wanting. So Facebook needs to find and understand what you want.

This process of finding and understanding is the friction being created behind Facebook’s latest’s PR problems.

Facebook needs to know what it’s suppliers want (it already knows what its customer’s want) and the suppliers are not sure they want to give Facebook this information.

There is no harm in Facebook observing the market, but Facebook is not just observing. Facebook is getting inside the orientation of the suppliers, and that has an effect on the market, by taking away some of the advantage the supplier has. In other words, Facebook is choosing the customer over his supplier.

That may be something the supplier doesn’t want, and Facebook needs to deal with that, strawman or no.

Carl Bass

A good reference as to where hardware and software are going. I liked the nano robot delivering chemicals to a targeted cell. The real point was made towards the end of the video about designing in the cloud. The computer is not changing (yet) the orientation of the designer, just giving options. But when creating structure, the culture has the ability to change with it.

Will ISIS plan a 9/11-style terror plot against the U.S.?

Republicans are sounding the warning that the next 9/11-like terror plot could emerge from the regions of Iraq and Syria that are currently dominated by an extremist group bearing down on Baghdad.

It was on their watch that the first 9/11 happened, so it should not be surprising that they have a heightened awareness for another strike.

“These are not monkey bar terrorists out in the desert somewhere planning some very low-level attack. These are sophisticated, command and controlled, seasoned combat veterans who understand the value of terrorism operations external to the region, meaning Europe and the United States.

The 9/11 attack was a military planned attack. I don’t know who exactly said this, but if it was House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich. he should resign immediately from his position. We had eight years of stupid before Obama took over, we should not allow any more.

But Michael Morell, the former acting CIA director and a CBS News analyst on intelligence, national security and counterterrorism issues, predicted it’s at least a year before ISIS might pose more of a serious threat to the U.S. The current major threats to the homeland still come from al Qaeda groups in Pakistan and Yemen, he said.

Exactly. Most of the military personnel that attacked on 9/11 were from The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom is still there, so the treat is no more or no less real than before 9/11. The guys who are now in Iraq are no more 10 ft. tall than the guys of the military unit who struck us on 9/11.

The real trick is to isolate them for targeting, and to strike them without bringing down our economy.

via Will ISIS plan a 9/11-style terror plot against the U.S.? – CBS News.

Obama Should Have Seen Iraq Unrest Coming, Experts Say – NBC

With U.S. officials now scrambling to respond to the advances by The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, the insurgent group that seized Mosul last week, some critics say there was either a failure by U.S. intelligence officials in assessing the strength of ISIS or Obama and his policy team didn’t react quickly enough.

Sorry, I thought this was Fox News for a second.

Ha! The story now is that Obama didn’t see this coming, and now officials are scrambling to respond to the advances by The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Didn’t anyone see Obama golfing?

What is wrong with you people? Of course Obama saw this coming in the slowest way possible.

“Oh my yes, let’s not lose that progress. “

via Obama Should Have Seen Iraq Unrest Coming, Experts Say – NBC