Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 25, 2014, 12:09:33 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83029 Posts in 2258 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10

 on: October 20, 2014, 12:37:40 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by objectivist1
The Blood on Obama's Hands

David Horowitz - October 20, 2014

When conservatives consider the casualties of Obama’s national security policies, their attention is drawn quite naturally to Benghazi. In this shameful episode, the Obama Administration sacrificed an ambassador and three American heroes to protect a deceptive presidential campaign message in which Obama claimed that the war against al-Qaeda was over and won (“Osama bin Laden is dead, and al-Qaeda is on the run”). The facts are these: Ambassador Chris Stevens and three American heroes were sent into an al-Qaeda stomping ground that the British and other diplomatic consulates had already evacuated; they were denied the security they had requested; they were then left to die during a seven hour fire fight when their compound was attacked, and finally betrayed in death, when Obama and his representatives lied to the world about what had taken place and when he failed to bring their killers to justice as he had mendaciously promised he would.

Benghazi can be seen as the collateral damage caused by presidential lies – and worse – presidential denial that there is in fact a war that Islamists have declared on America. Instead Obama insists – in the official language he authorized and that is still in place – that America’s responses to acts of Islamic terror should be described as “overseas contingency operations.” If Islamic murders and beheadings take place in the homeland, Obama calls them “workplace violence.” Benghazi is also the most shameful presidential abandonment of Americans in the field in our history – a disgrace compounded when Obama justified his trade of five Taliban Generals for one American deserter by saying Americans don’t leave their countrymen on the battlefield, which is precisely what he did in Benghazi. All of which justifies the conservative focus on this terrible event.

But the casualties of Obama’s reign in Benghazi are dwarfed by the hundreds of thousands of deaths his policies have led to in Syria and Iraq, and the millions of Iraqis, Syrians and Lybians that those same policies have caused to flee their homes and become homeless in Turkey, Tunisia and other places of refuge. Obama’s legacy is defined by his ideological aversion to American power, his rule as the most anti-military president in our history, and his deeds as an “anti-war” activist, opposed to the “war on terror” because he believes that America’s (and Israel’s) policies are the cause of terrorism and the hatred that Islamic fanatics direct against our country.

Because of his ideological opposition to American power, Obama deliberately and openly surrendered America’s gains in Iraq, which had been won through the sacrifice of thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of American casualties. By deliberately handing over America’s massive military base in Iraq – a country that borders Syria, Afghanistan and Iran – Obama turned that country over to the terrorists and Iran, as his generals and intelligence chief and secretary of defense warned it would. Obama disregarded the warnings from his national security advisers – as no other American president would have – because he regarded America rather than the terrorists as the threat. In abandoning Iraq and deliberately losing the peace, he betrayed every American and every Iraqi who gave their lives to keep Iraq out of the hands of the terrorists and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Obama’s stubborn refusal to use America’s military might – ground forces backed by air power – when Assad crossed the “red line” Obama had drawn in Syria created a second power vacuum that the terrorists filled, thus leading to the emergence of ISIS or ISIL – the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant. Defenders of Obama will claim that the American public would not have supported a military intervention in Syria even if Obama had ordered one. But why is that? It is because for eleven years, beginning with their assault on “Bush’s war” in Iraq, the Democrats have sabotaged the war on terror, claiming that America’s use of power for anything but “humanitarian” purposes is illegitimate, dangerous and the root cause of the terrorist problem.

Because it was “humanitarian” Obama felt justified in conducting an unauthorized, illegal intervention in Libya to overthrow an anti-al Qaeda dictator, saying it was to prevent an invisible threat to civilians there. The result? Al-Qaeda is now a dominant force in Libya, and 1.8 million Libyans – a third of the population – have fled to Tunisia. Another brutal Obama legacy. Yet, how firm is Obama’s commitment to humanitarian interventions? In Iraq he stood by while more than half a million Christians were either slaughtered or driven into exile by ISIS murderers on their mission to cleanse the earth of infidels. This was the oldest Christian community in the world, going back to the time of Christ, and Obama let it be systematically destroyed before bad press and pressure from his own party caused him to intervene to save Yazvidis and a Christian remnant trapped on a mountain top.

The Obama presidency has been an unmitigated disaster for Iraqis, Syrians, and Libyans. Now that ISIS is in control of territory the size of a state, has access to hundreds of millions of petrol dollars and advanced U.S. ordnance, not to mention chemical weapons that Saddam left behind, it is an impending disaster for the American homeland as well.

David Horowitz is the author of the recently published book Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan For Defeating the Left (Regnery 2014)

 on: October 20, 2014, 10:35:41 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by objectivist1
Bill Maher and Islam

Posted by Robert Spencer - October 19, 2014

Bill Maher deserves some credit for sticking to his positions on Islam, jihad and Sharia, despite enormous pressure and an increasing torrent of abuse from his Leftist former friends and allies. In this interview, however, he reveals some of his own limitations: he has only a glancing knowledge of the subject matter, and is ill-equipped to answer challenges because he doesn’t realize the fallacies inherent in those challenges, any more than do those who are giving him the challenge.

Marlow Stern of the Daily Beast charges that he makes “generalizations about Islam,” and then Maher answers by arguing that it is perfectly reasonable to make generalizations about Muslims. Maher’s point is sound, but both he and Stern are failing to distinguish between Islam and Muslims. What people continually fail to grasp is the distinction between the texts and teachings of a faith, which are matters of record, and the many different ways in which people understand those texts and teachings. To say that all the schools of Islamic law teach violent jihad and the subjugation of unbelievers under the rule of Islamic law is simply a statement of fact. It can be proven or disproven with reference to the actual teachings of the schools. But if they do all teach this, and they do, that doesn’t mean that every Muslim follows those teachings, any more than the fact that the Catholic Church teaches against contraception means that every Catholic opposes contraception. There is a spectrum of belief, knowledge, and fervor among Muslims as there is among believers in every belief system, religious or not.

What I object to is the violent, authoritarian, aggressive and supremacist program of jihad that is codified in Islamic doctrine. All too often any examination or discussion of this doctrine is waved away with a reference to things Christians did hundreds of years ago, and to passages in the Bible that are purportedly as violent as those in the Qur’an. But these doctrines are actually the problem, for they can and do incite Muslims to hatred and violence. Of course many Muslims are not thus incited, and many couldn’t care less about these doctrines. But that doesn’t change the fact that some Muslims are attempting to implement this deeply traditional supremacist program. The longer we don’t address this, or caricature pointing it out, as Stern does here, as tantamount to saying that “all Muslims are generally bad,” these texts and teachings will continue to incite jihad violence, with no one even considering any ways to stop this. (It is, of course, a staple of the Leftist/Islamic supremacist response to foes of jihad terror to claim that they’re saying that “all Muslims are terrorists.”)

Finally, there is in this another example of the low level of the public discourse today: not only does Stern caricature Maher’s position as “all Muslims are generally bad,” but he also offers as a counter to this the fact that five of the last twelve Nobel Peace Prize winners were Muslim. Given that Barack Obama and Yaser Arafat are Nobel Peace Prize winners, this is not an impressive argument: the Nobel Peace Prize is notoriously politicized. But what are we supposed to make of these Muslim Nobel Peace Prize winners? Did the Qur’an and Muhammad inspire them to take the actions that led them to win the Peace Prize? Does their existence somehow make it improper or wrong or bigoted to point out that jihadis worldwide repeatedly point to the Qur’an and Sunnah to justify their actions and make recruits among peaceful Muslims, and that something should be done about this?

“Bill Maher: Yes, I Can Generalize About Muslims,” by Marlow Stern, Daily Beast, October 16, 2014:

The Ben Affleck episode on Real Time was just great television. On no other show would you see an A-list actor from a newly released blockbuster like Gone Girl getting fired up over Islam. What did you make of that heated exchange? He seemed pretty fired up the moment Sam Harris sat down.

Well, I’m done talking about it. My view is I’ve said what I had to say about it the week before, when I did a formal monologue at the end of the show that I wrote very carefully, and they were responding to that. I will say that we legitimately started a national debate on something that needs to be talked about, and it’s very gratifying to finally see that a heck of a lot of liberals understand that the real liberals in this debate are people like me and Sam.

But when you do make generalizations about Islam…

…It’s not a generalization! First of all, this is nonsense—this idea that you can’t make generalizations. All of knowledge is based on generalizations. No one can interview all 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. It’s a dumb argument. Read any history book and it’ll use the word “Christendom,” but they didn’t interview every Christian in the 1600s. We’re talking facts. We’re talking polls that have been done over decades, time and time again telling us what people are thinking about the world. So this idea that we are making generalizations? It’s just stupid. We understand that 1.5 billion people don’t all think alike and that there are differences from country-to-country, but you can’t advance any sort of knowledge without making generalizations and it doesn’t mean they’re inaccurate. To say that it’s a widespread belief in the Muslim world that death is the appropriate response to leaving the religion is just a statement of fact. We should stop arguing about that and move on from it and figure out what we can do about it. To dismiss that is just like saying, “Global warming doesn’t exist.”

If all Muslims are generally bad, then where does five of the last twelve Nobel Peace Prize winners, all of whom are Muslim—people like Malala Yousafzai—fit in?

Man, I’m done talking about this. I just don’t want to keep talking about this. I’ve said my piece, now the rest of you talk about it.

 on: October 20, 2014, 07:08:51 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by G M

 on: October 19, 2014, 08:36:40 PM 
Started by Mad Scientist - Last post by ccp
What is so romantic about sitting in a van for 16 hours from your Ivy League College to protest a police officer who was assaulted by a young oversized bully and had to fight for his own life. 

I was naïve at that age but this stupid?

In Ferguson, activists in search of a revolution

10/19/14 04:57 PM—Updated 10/19/14 05:54 PM
By Amanda Sakuma

FERGUSON, Missouri — It took seven University of Pennsylvania students piled into a rental van nearly 16 hours to drive to St. Louis. They had raised $600 in three days from a Go Fund Me account that was supposed to last them through the weekend. They slept wherever they could crash for free — the basement of a St. Louis couple’s home, or packed on the floor of a church at night.

But once in Ferguson, it was nothing like the war zone they had seen splashed on their television screens exactly two months earlier.

Instead of armored vehicles blocking suburban intersections and stoking chaos in the streets, police squad cars were escorting peaceful marches that were careful organized and tailored during the day. Instead of training assault rifles on the faces of protesters, officers were standing idly by, at times even joking around with anyone within earshot.

“It was awesome to go and be there in solidarity — we went to the events, we went to the protests — but it still feels a little like it was not ours.”Laura Krasovitzky, age 22
“I guess we are feeding off of what we saw in August,” 22-year-old Laura Krasovitzky said one night in Ferguson, looking around disappointedly as the crowds outside the police department began to disperse at an early hour.

“We all came because we saw the footage on TV of what happened,” she added. “I think people were shocked because this was happening in the U.S.”

Without the heavily militarized law enforcement response to what started as local outrage over the killing of a young black teen by a white police officer, young people like Krasovitzky may never have joined in demonstrations held months later. But as calls for the officer’s arrest grow more desperate, the movement takes on a greater meaning for supporters hundreds of miles away who seek an end to police violence.

Krasovitzky and her crew of classmates were there to join the “Weekend of Resistance” — what they saw as their generation’s own civil rights revolution over the death of Michael Brown, who was unarmed when he was shot by a Ferguson police officer. That officer, Darren Wilson, remains free while a St. Louis grand jury investigates whether he should be charged with a crime.

Related: Ferguson protesters brace for possible no indictment in Michael Brown case

National groups had stepped in to plan the four-day event, organizing rallies and marches to keep the movement alive. They set up a website offering a forum for local residents to offer couches or beds for visitors, and connected people from across the country who needed a ride to the Midwest.

Hundreds of people poured into the city – far short of the thousands organizers had projected – representing a diverse coalition of trade unions, student associations, religious groups and concerned citizens. Still, the disconnect between the die-hard protesters who had camped out for nearly 60 days and the activists who were now joining months later was difficult to overcome.

“As students from Penn., the main question we all have is what was our role there. A lot of us felt like spectators,” Krasovitzky said. “It was awesome to go and be there in solidarity — we went to the events, we went to the protests — but it still feels a little like it was not ours.”

That divide between the local activists and those joining events just for the weekend was on full display last Sunday night when audience members at an interfaith event heckled black leaders who came to St. Louis to urge for peaceful demonstrations in the face of police crackdowns.

“The brother with the suit and tie on isn’t the guy who’s protecting me,” local rapper Tef Poe said to the crowd after he had been called onstage to speak. “It’s the dude with tattoos on his face that look like Chief Keef.”

That same division was on display during the protests last weekend. By the time the group of University of Pennsylvania students arrived in Clayton, where the first organized march was to take place, police officers had already blocked off the streets with barricades to neatly contain the protests. Volunteers wearing neon vests walked along the center of the street, acting as a human boundary between the oncoming traffic and the crowd of barely a few hundred participants who marched the predetermined eight-block route. Though pockets of protesters continued to brave the brutal rain while chanting at the phalanx of police guarding the county prosecutor’s office, the demonstration wrapped up in less than two hours.

“Wait for tonight. The social injustice is what brought us here. Just wait for tonight.”Student activist
The students were running on little sleep, having arrived in town in the dead of night just hours before the first scheduled march. A St. Louis couple had posted online offering a place for the group to sleep in their basement. They pasted signs around the house leading the students to the door, and left a note reminding the young people “Don’t forget to lock up when you leave.”

Undeterred by the rain, the students were buzzing for more action. “Wait for tonight,” one said, pacing excitedly around the group of protesters still milling about. “The social injustice is what brought us here. Just wait for tonight.”

Krasovitzky said they were frustrated by how controlled the atmosphere was during the day.

“If protesters aren’t willing to get out of their comfort zones, it’s actually a joke to authorities,” she said. “They’re more effective when it gets more radicalized or more intense.”****

 on: October 19, 2014, 05:13:23 PM 
Started by Cecilio Andrade - Last post by Cecilio Andrade
Dummies II. Fisiología Táctica para Dummies.

Por Cecilio Andrade

Como ya comenté en el artículo anterior, de la serie “dummies”, muchos textos técnicos son realmente eso, técnicos. La mayoría de las veces por ser dirigidos a personal muy especializado y con unas necesidades profesionales muy concretas. Pero también existen otros trabajos no tan específicos que siendo dirigidos a personal menos técnico, y con necesidades más de “andar por casa”, se vuelven quizás enrevesados y engorrosos para muchos profesionales armados. En estos casos muchas veces es mejor un término medio.

A petición de varios compañeros, profesionales armados, veamos si logro hacer un poco menos técnico este léxico. Aun así, este trabajo solo intentará hacer más accesible un tema muy específico, a modo de primer paso que genere el interés suficiente para introducirlos en trabajos más especializados de grandes profesionales, que muchos de Uds. ya conocen. Veamos si lo logro.

Antes de entrar en como reacciona nuestro organismo ante el estrés y la ansiedad, respecto a la biología y la fisiología, veamos un poco a nuestra mente afectando a nuestro organismo, nuestros pensamientos y emociones versus nuestro cuerpo.

Mente versus cuerpo.

Ansiedad y estrés son muchas veces consideradas sinónimas, y aunque su interrelación es muy íntima y profunda, así como sus efectos muy similares a nivel corporal, no siempre son lo mismo ni surgen por la misma vía o razón.

Ante una entrevista para un empleo muy necesario, una reunión con un (o una) “ex” con el que no terminamos del todo bien, un trabajo para el que no estamos seguros de estar capacitados, un policía o militar que entra en una zona que sabe no es segura y no será bien recibido, etc., es muy común sentir ansiedad y que esta acabe desembocando en un cuadro de estrés.

Ante un ataque por sorpresa, una agresión, un “susto” en lenguaje coloquial, directamente sentimos ese estrés, sin pasar por la fase de ansiedad, que normalmente aparece posteriormente.

Obviamente estoy siendo muy “general”, resumiendo quizás demasiado para un profesional de la psicología, pido disculpas sobre ello.

Mas para un “andar por casa” la ansiedad se apoya en cuatro puntos, a saber:

- Lo que pensamos, anticipadamente.
- Lo que estos pensamientos afectan a nuestras emociones.
- Lo que estas emociones afectan a nuestro organismo.
- Y como se comporta nuestro cuerpo y mente a consecuencia de ello, nuestro proceder o respuesta.

Como podemos observar estos cuatro pasos parten de un punto inicial, pensar, y estos pensamientos anticipan situaciones negativas.

Como ya vimos en el artículo anterior, “Dummies I. Neurología Táctica para Dummies”, nuestro cerebro recibe muchísima más información de la que podríamos procesar conscientemente. Y si bien este proceso es una gran ayuda a la supervivencia en general, muchas veces nos genera otros problemas, como la ansiedad, que si la comparamos con un iceberg sería tan solo lo ínfimo que asoma en la superficie.

A veces mucha información es demasiada información, y ello nos lleva a alcanzar conclusiones erróneas y negativas. Normalmente es el sistema consciente el que se equivoca, el subconsciente solo llega a conclusiones frías y concretas, ya lo vimos en el artículo precedente, es nuestro consciente el que no interpreta correctamente esa información que nos hace llegar el subconsciente. También vimos en ese mismo artículo previo los problemas y trabas que nuestra cultura y educación pone a esa información y a su interpretación.

La ansiedad, como vemos surge del pensamiento (para que luego digan “es solo un pensamiento, no puede dañarte”), y de esta ansiedad podemos llegar a un cuadro de estrés. Pero el estrés por una agresión directa y sorpresiva no pasa por el primer punto, el pensamiento consciente ya no actúa, entrando en liza directamente el punto de las emociones. Ante un ataque el orden sería:

- Al ser atacado aparecen determinadas emociones, normalmente sorpresa e incredulidad.
- Estas emociones actúan sobre nuestro organismo generando reacciones químicas, hormonales y nerviosas.
- En base a esas reacciones orgánicas así actuamos y respondemos físicamente.

Ya podemos afirmar, llegados a este punto, que ansiedad y estrés no son lo mismo, aunque si suelen ir de la mano y apoyándose íntimamente. Respecto a los factores pensamiento y emociones poco podemos decir que no hayamos leído, oído, aconsejado y pensado infinidad de veces. Generar autoconfianza, autoevaluación, capacidades, escucharse a uno mismo, observar y ver, etc. en definitiva, mejorar y ampliar nuestra capacidad de captar y procesar información interna y externa. “Saber es poder” dice el saber popular, y no puede ser más cierto en este caso que nos ocupa.

Respecto a lo que la biología hace con nuestro organismo, nuestra fisiología, veámoslo desde una ventana muy amplia y general, una ventana apta para todo tipo de lectores, no solo para operadores armados de las unidades de élite o psicólogos especializados.

Bioquimica versus nuestro cuerpo.

Ya hemos visto lo que los pensamientos hacen en nuestras emociones, y estas en nuestro organismo y en sus respuestas.

Hagamos una pequeña hoja de ruta ante un cuadro de ansiedad.

- Los pensamientos nacen del cortex cerebral (corteza cerebral, la que genera la conciencia del entorno y de uno mismo), y desde ahí se dirige hacia el cerebro medio donde se encuentra el sistema límbico, el dulce hogar (a veces) de las emociones.
- Este sistema límbico tras generar la o las emociones correspondientes a los hechos pensados, envía mensajes a las glándulas suprarrenales (situadas encima de los riñones) para que liberen un conjunto de sustancias químicas en el torrente sanguíneo con el objetivo de acelerar las funciones de muchos de nuestros órganos, preparándonos y activándonos.
- Estas sustancias, además de lo comentado, al anegar nuestro organismo activa también la glándula pituitaria en el cerebro (situada bajo el órgano rector de las funciones básicas de supervivencia como especie y como ser vivo, el hipotálamo), y esta libera a su vez más sustancias que obligan a las glándulas suprarrenales a generar más compuestos químicos, que sin ser esa su función biológica fundamental acaban provocando lo que llamamos de forma genérica síndrome de estrés.

Eso es muy a groso modo lo que ocurre ante la ansiedad, con un cuadro de estrés sorpresivo tan solo debemos quitar el punto primero, los pensamientos ya no actúan como generadores, lo son las emociones, aunque estas en una muy pequeña y ínfima fracción de tiempo, siendo el hipotálamo el que, como verdadero ángel guardián de la especie, toma las riendas y ordena a las glándula pituitaria (pegada al hipotálamo) segregar todo su coctel de ordenes químicas de forma inmediata, siendo este coctel el que a su vez alerte a las glándulas suprarrenales a actuar.

Muchos se preguntarán porque hablo de ansiedad, en un enfrentamiento armado no tengo ansiedad, tengo estrés puro y duro. Y es cierto, pero la ansiedad nos puede ayudar mucho para entrenar a nuestro organismo y mente para una acción de supervivencia estresante y extrema como es un enfrentamiento armado. ¿Cómo? Analícenlo, el resultado del coctel a nivel químico, hormonal y biológico es prácticamente el mismo dentro de nuestro organismo, con ansiedad y con estrés. Y esto es algo muy a tener en cuenta a la hora de diseñar programas, planes y ejercicios de adiestramiento táctico realista con vistas a su aplicación en el “mundo real”. Generando ansiedad en los entrenamientos podemos simular en gran medida las situaciones de estrés real ante una confrontación armada. Curioso, ¿no creen? Pero no por ello menos real y aplicable si lo conocemos en profundidad.

Ante una agresión o acción armada el cuerpo libera sustancias químicas para ser más fuerte, más rápido y más capaz de admitir pequeños (o no tan pequeños) daños. Con la ansiedad liberamos las mismas sustancias. Usen ese dato en sus entrenamientos.

Coctel químico y nuestro cuerpo reacciona.

Todo aquel que haya pasado por uno o más sustos en su vida, no solo acciones tácticas, también un simple “suceso” durante nuestra conducción diaria en vehículo camino del trabajo por ejemplo, sabe reconocer determinadas señales, Veamos si las podemos identificar.

- “El estomago me ardía, y me subía ese ardor hasta la garganta”. Las sustancias que antes comentamos no se llevan muy bien con nuestros estómagos. Este genera de forma natural ácido clorhídrico para poder descomponer los alimentos, pero el problema surge cuando esas sustancias “estresantes” le dan un mensaje para que libere más ácido. Y ahí tenemos el conocido ardor de estómago que nos quita el apetito durante la ansiedad, o tras una situación de estrés vital no nos deja comer mucho, con el estómago “encogido” y ardiente.
- “No podía moverme, los músculos no me respondían, ni podía hablar”. Que los músculos se contraigan, perdamos coordinación y tacto es una particularidad de todos conocida, así como el hecho de sufrir temblores y estremecimientos sin control. Como veremos en el apartado siguiente sobre la respuesta del cerebro, las ordenes a través de las neuronas, de los nervios, son confusas y fragmentarias, siendo una de los efectos más visibles esto que comentamos en este punto, temblores, estremecimientos, tics, etc.
- “Notaba mis manos como con hormigueo, sin tacto, y vi en el espejo que estaba extremadamente pálido”. La sangre abandona parcialmente las zonas periféricas, concentrándose en los grandes órganos vitales y los músculos más grandes y potentes, lo que nos permitirán responder, resistir, pensar, luchar o huir con mayor garantía de éxito. Así mismo se reduce el riesgo de desangrarnos ante daños y cortes leves, y resistir más, durante esas acciones de supervivencia.
- “Sentia una presión en el pecho, apenas podía respirar, me costaba mucho meter aire en los pulmones”. Los pulmones se contraen, dificultando la respiración que se vuelve irregular y jadeante. Lo veremos con más detalle en el siguiente apartado de este trabajo, respecto a la acción sobre el cerebro.
- “Las manos me sudaban tanto que apenas podía agarrar y mucho menos empuñar, el sudor se me metía en los ojos, notaba mis axilas pegajosas y chorreando, notaba el olor de mi sudor nauseabundo”. Las glándulas sudoríparas son activadas con la primera descarga de sustancias químicas buscando mantener una temperatura corporal normal a pesar del aumento de presión sanguínea. Sangre que por otro lado se retira de estas zonas específicas en la periferia del cuerpo como vimos en un punto anterior, con lo cual no es factible una refrigeración correcta.
- “Notaba la boca seca, apenas podía tragar, tenía la garganta también seca y como hinchada”. Las funciones orgánicas normales no son necesarias ante una lucha, el organismo busca por todos los medios reducir gastos superfluos y acumular medios para reparar posibles daños. La hidratación es fundamental para poder actuar durante un tiempo, y por ello reduce la producción de saliva innecesaria para sobrevivir en una lucha, salvo que consideremos que escupir puede ser una forma de combate.

¿Les suena? Seguro que si, y no solo a miembros de una unidad de fuerzas especiales, si no, como ya dije, a un ciudadano tranquilo y sin riesgos, un susto en el tráfico, una llamada diciendo que nuestro hijo o pareja ha tenido un accidente, una entrevista importante, una aparición de ese ex que no queremos ver más, un instructor que nos pone ante un ejercicio muy difícil frente a todos nuestros compañeros. Si, seguro les suena a todos, recuérdenlo cuando entrenen sus capacidades y habilidades para trabajar en entornos de alto riesgo.

El cerebro también es un órgano.

Pues sí, es un órgano más, el generador de las ordenes y reacciones específicamente, sin duda, pero el también sufre sus propias acciones biológicas y químicas, y de una forma muy acusada además.

- “No podía pensar con claridad, sabía que tenía que hacer algo pero no recordaba que, no reconocía que estaba pasando”. Esas sustancias afectan, llegando a impedir y obstruir, a la transmisión nerviosa normal. Pensar es una acto electro-químico de nuestras neuronas, el cerebro está formado por esas neuronas, por tanto si la transmisión entre neuronas está afectada, obstruida o reducida, el pensamiento cuando menos es incompleto e ineficaz.
- “Después que pasó todo no recordaba apenas nada”. No pensar con claridad por esa transmisión nerviosa irregular afecta a como recibimos los datos, y recordar es ni más ni menos que recuperar datos. No se puede recuperar lo que no se ha recibido o se ha recibido de forma fragmentaria e inconexa. Ahí nuestro subconsciente nos puede ayudar con las terapias y técnicas adecuadas, pero cuidado con otro factor, los recuerdos falsos, inventados o añadidos por ser “coherentes”. La coherencia a posteriori puede ser inducida externa o internamente, por comentarios, lecturas, pensamientos, etc. Ser conscientes de que el cerebro no puede recibir información de la forma correcta puede ayudarnos a reconstruir ese recuerdo sin añadir “coherencias” positivas o negativas pero, normalmente, incorrectas e irreales.
- “No recordaba nada, tan solo que mi cabeza se quedó en blanco”. Pensar y recordar son simple y llanamente procesos químicos. Las células nerviosas (neuronas) liberan sustancias químicas para comunicarse entre ellas (neurotransmisores). El problema surge cuando las sustancias químicas de la ansiedad y el estrés chocan y obstaculizan a estos neurotransmisores, por lo que memoria y pensamiento se ven alterados. Siendo esta alteración mayor o menor dependiendo de la gravedad de la situación vivida. Piensen en accidente (tráfico o similar) que hayan vivido, en si recuerdan como llegaron al hospital tras recibir la llamada de que su hijo estaba en el hospital con una apendicitis, etc. No es necesario ser un SWAT para sufrir estos efectos.
- “No podía pensar ni respirar, y solo oía que me decían, respira despacio y profundo”. Todo el mundo ha vivido situaciones propias o ajenas altamente estresantes en las que alguien (nos) dice, “tranquilo, tu solo respira hondo”. Es uno de los mejores consejos del mundo para estas situaciones. Los maestros zen, sin ir más lejos basan todo su trabajo físico en este punto, repirar, concentrarse en respirar. Ya hemos visto que los pulmones se contraen ante una situación de ansiedad y estrés, con lo cual no podemos tomar suficiente oxígeno, y la cuestión, damas y caballeros, es que el oxígeno es fundamental para las funciones de pensar y recordar. Un déficit en la cantidad recibida provoca una deficiencia en el funcionamiento correcto del cerebro. Por otro lado el cerebro necesita el 20% del total respirado, lo cual, si lo comparamos con su volumen respecto al resto del cuerpo, es mucho oxígeno. Y mientras otros órganos pueden ralentizar sus funciones para consumir menos oxígeno, y los músculos usar otros “combustibles” anaeróbicos (sin necesidad de oxigeno), el cerebro no puede hacer ni una ni otra cosa. Si no recibe su 20% de oxigeno sus capacidades se van reduciendo hasta simplemente “apagarse” o “desconectar”.

Como podemos darnos cuenta tras este trabajo y algunos anteriores, no somos animales tan racionales y pensantes como creíamos, muy al contrario somos sumamente dependientes de nuestra biología y bioquímica para responder a los estímulos externos e internos de la vida. Eso no quiere decir que nos escudemos en ello para dejarnos llevar, la concienciación, el entrenamiento bien dirigido, la comprensión de los hechos y/o posibles sucesos futuros, usar nuestra innata capacidad de aprendizaje, el usar el atributo mayor del intelecto humano, la curiosidad, investigar, en definitivas cuentas, pensar, nos dará miles de posibilidades más que simplemente nos dejamos llevar por las olas de un coctel químico, por más biológico y natural que sea, debemos aprender a llevar el timón en esas olas, nunca dejarnos estrellar contra los arrecifes de una reacción incorrecta e improcedente.

Las tres “E”, Educarse, Estudiar, Entrenar. Y no hay más, damas y caballeros.

A modo de ejercicios.

Hemos visto como nuestro cerebro y organismo reacciona ante situaciones estresantes o de simple ansiedad. Igualmente hemos visto porque actúa de esa forma, y todo sumado ello nos da las herramientas necesarias para sacar partido y ventaja. A lo largo del presente trabajo y anteriores he indicado ejercicios y capacidades que podemos fomentar para allanar la labor a nuestro cerebro consciente y subconsciente, a nuestro organismo ansioso o estresado. Ahora les propondré, de nuevo, dos ejercicios específicos, los mismos que ya describí anteriormente, solo para uds, para su propia autoevaluación e instrucción. Pueden comentarlo en la presente página, en una conversación entre compañeros o amigos, escribir su propio artículo, rebatirlo, aceptarlo, olvidarlo, o simplemente probar a ver hasta dónde llegan y que conclusiones sacan de todo ello. Hagan lo que hagan, si han llegado hasta aquí significa que tienen un interés genuino, lo cual ya es mucho.

Ejercicio 1:

- Busquen en su vida cotidiana, familiar, social y profesional sucesos que ejemplaricen lo comentado en los cuatro puntos de este trabajo, tanto individualmente como en grupo. Busquen sucesos del tipo frenazo en un cruce, semáforo en rojo, una desgracia familiar, una acción profesional, una entrevista, una fiesta o reunión incomoda, etc. Busquen e intenten sacar conclusiones, datos, lecciones, ejemplos. Se darán cuenta que esos puntos, como los del otro trabajo, están en su vida cotidiana tanto como en los sucesos más de acción y violencia, si los tienen o han tenido.

Ejercicio 2:

- Lo pregunté en el trabajo anterior, ¿Conocen el último libro de Don Ernesto Pérez Vera y Don Fernando Pérez Pacho? Pues insisto en ellos, si me leen a mí con más razón siguen a Ernesto y dispondrán de este magnífico libro, “En la línea de fuego. La realidad de los enfrentamientos armados”. Bien, el ejercicio es el mismo, vayan capítulo a capítulo, caso a caso, busquen e identifiquen cada uno de los puntos aquí comentados, individual y en conjunto. Analícenlos desde lo relatado, desde los hechos, sin críticas negativas, solo como lecciones a absorber. Súmenlo a las explicaciones, datos y magníficos comentarios de ambos autores, y sorpresa, ya somos casi bioquímicos tácticos, pero, el eterno pero, solo es “casi”.

Como ya les dije, y a riesgo de ser repetitivo, con esos dos ejercicios seguirán sin ser los mejores profesionales, o quizás sí lo sean realmente, pero no por el hecho de realizarlos, será nuevamente su interés y deseos de mejorar, aprender y avanzar en la dura vocación de proteger y servir, lo que les hará de verdad marcar la diferencia.

Acabaré de nuevo parafraseando, que no plagiando, aquel viejo anuncio de mi juventud, busque, lea, compare, analice y decida, pero sobre todo, piense.

Cuídense y cuiden de los suyos. ... -para.html

 on: October 19, 2014, 11:31:43 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp
She makes some good points but I don't agree with her by and large about the larger issues.
She describes in detail how difficult it is too deal with such a deadly communicable virus in a safe way.  But than proceeds to describe how our system has failed us in dealing with it to perfection.

Why is it always someone else's fault?  I do agree with at least trying to stop Ebola in Africa.  That is my big beef with the liberals on this issue.  I think it is really because stopping immigration from these countries would conflict with their narrative that immigration is not a threat to us.  Like the adenovirus that just coincidently becomes an epidemic for the first time ever in the US but is found endemically in S America.

******I'm a Hazmat-Trained Hospital Worker: Here's What No One Is Telling You About Ebola
Posted:  10/17/2014 10:18 am EDT    Updated:  10/18/2014 12:59 pm EDT   
Ebola is brilliant.

It is a superior virus that has evolved and fine-tuned its mechanism of transmission to be near-perfect. That's why we're all so terrified. We know we can't destroy it. All we can do is try to divert it, outrun it.

I've worked in health care for a few years now. One of the first things I took advantage of was training to become FEMA-certified for hazmat ops in a hospital setting. My rationale for this was that, in my home state of Maine, natural disasters are almost a given. We're also, though you may not know it, a state that has many major ports that receive hazardous liquids from ships and transport them inland. In the back of my mind, of course, I was aware that any hospital in the world could potentially find itself at the epicenter of a scene from The Hot Zone. That was several years ago. Today I'm thinking, by God, I might actually have to use this training. Mostly, though, I'm aware of just that -- that I did receive training. Lots of it. Because you can't just expect any nurse or any doctor or any health care worker or layperson to understand the deconning procedures by way of some kind of pamphlet or 10-minute training video. Not only is it mentally rigorous, but it's physically exhausting.

PPE, or, personal protective equipment, is sort of a catch-all phrase for the suits, booties, gloves, hoods and in many cases respirators worn by individuals who are entering a hot zone. These suits are incredibly difficult to move in. You are wearing several layers of gloves, which limits your dexterity to basically nil, the hoods limit the scope of your vision -- especially your peripheral vision, which all but disappears. The suits are hot -- almost unbearably so. The respirator gives you clean air, but not cool air. These suits are for protection, not comfort. Before you even suit up, your vitals need to be taken. You can't perform in the suit for more than about a half hour at a time -- if you make it that long. Heat stroke is almost a given at that point. You have to be fully hydrated and calm before you even step into the suit. By the time you come out of it, and your vitals are taken again, you're likely to be feeling the impact -- you may not have taken more than a few steps in the suit, but you'll feel like you've run a marathon on a 90-degree day.

Getting the suit on is easy enough, but it requires team work. Your gloves, all layers of them, are taped to your suit. This provides an extra layer of protection and also limits your movement. There is a very specific way to tape all the way around so that there are no gaps or "tenting" of the tape. If you don't do this properly, there ends up being more than enough open pockets for contamination to seep in.

If you're wearing a respirator, it needs to be tested prior to donning to make sure it is in good condition and that the filter has been changed recently, so that it will do its job. Ebola is not airborne. It is not like influenza, which spreads on particles that you sneeze or cough. However, Ebola lives in vomit, diarrhea and saliva  -- and these avenues for infection can travel. Projectile vomiting is called so for a reason. Particles that are in vomit may aerosolize at the moment the patient vomits. This is why if the nurses in Dallas were in the room when the first patient, Thomas Duncan, was actively vomiting, it would be fairly easy for them to become infected. Especially if they were not utilizing their PPE correctly.

The other consideration is this: The "doffing" procedure, that is, the removal of PPE, is the most crucial part. It is also the point at which the majority of mistakes are made, and my guess is that this is what happened in Dallas.

The PPE, if worn correctly, does an excellent job of protecting you while you are wearing it. But eventually you'll need to take it off. Before you begin, you need to decon the outside of the PPE. That's the first thing. This is often done in the field with hoses or mobile showers/tents. Once this crucial step has occurred, the removal of PPE needs to be done in pairs. You cannot safely remove it by yourself. One reason you are wearing several sets of gloves is so that you have sterile gloves beneath your exterior gloves that will help you to get out of your suit. The procedure for this is taught in FEMA courses, and you run drills with a buddy over and over again until you get it right. You remove the tape and discard it. You throw it away from you. You step out of your boots  --  careful not to let your body touch the sides. Your partner helps you to slither out of the suit, again, not touching the outside of it. This is difficult, and it cannot be rushed. The respirators need to be deconned, batteries changed, filters changed. The hoods, once deconnned, need to be stored properly. If the suits are disposable, they need to be disposed of properly. If not, they need to be thoroughly deconned and stored safely. And they always need to be checked for rips, tears, holes, punctures or any other even tiny, practically invisible openings that could make the suit vulnerable.

Can anyone tell me if this happened in Dallas?

We run at least an annual drill at my hospital each year. We are a small hospital and thus are a small emergency response team. But because we make a point to review our protocols, train our staff (actually practice donning/doffing gear), I realized this week that this puts us ahead at some much larger and more notable hospitals in the United States. Every hospital should be running these types of emergency response drills yearly, at least. To hear that the nurses in Dallas reported that there were no protocols at their hospital broke my heart. Their health care system failed them. In the United States we always talk about how the health care system is failing patients, but the truth is, it has failed its employees too. Not just doctors and nurses, but allied health professionals as well. The presence of Ebola on American soil has drawn out the true vulnerabilities in the health care system, and they are not fiscally based. We spend trillions of dollars on health care in this country -- yet the allocation of those funds are grossly disproportionate to how other countries spend their health care expenditures. We aren't focused on population health. Now, with Ebola threatening our population, the truth is out.

The truth is, in terms of virology, Ebola should not be a threat to American citizens. We have clean water. We have information. We have the means to educate ourselves, practice proper hand-washing procedures, protect ourselves with hazmat suits. The CDC Disease Detectives were dispatched to Dallas almost immediately to work on the front lines to identify those who might be at risk, who could have been exposed. We have the technology, and we certainly have the money to keep Ebola at bay. What we don't have is communication. What we don't have is a health care system that values preventative care. What we don't have is an equal playing field between nurses and physicians and allied health professionals and patients. What we don't have is a culture of health where we work symbiotically with one another and with the technology that was created specifically to bridge communication gaps, but has in so many ways failed. What we don't have is the social culture of transparency, what we don't have is a stopgap against mounting hysteria and hypochondria, what we don't have is nation of health literate individuals. We don't even have health-literate professionals. Most doctors are specialists and are well versed only in their field. Ask your orthopedist a general question about your health -- see if they can comfortably answer it.

Health care operates in silos -- we can't properly isolate our patients, but we sure as hell can isolate ourselves as health care workers.

As we slide now into flu season, into a time of year when we are normally braced for winter diseases, colds, flus, sick days and cancelled plans, the American people has also now been truly exposed to another disease entirely: the excruciating truth about our health care system's dysfunction -- and the prognosis doesn't look good.

Note: In response to some comments, I would like to clarify that I am FEMA-trained in level 3 hazmat in a hospital setting. I am a student, health guide and writer, but I am not a nurse.*******

 on: October 19, 2014, 12:26:28 AM 
Started by Maxx - Last post by Tony Torre
Some of my thoughts about kerambits.

Tony Torre
Miami Arnis Group

 on: October 19, 2014, 12:11:34 AM 
Started by Karsk - Last post by Tony Torre
Older boxer takes it to a young buck!

Tony Torre
Miami Arnis Group

 on: October 18, 2014, 03:21:59 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG

From the report:

Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance

President Clinton addressed the nation from the Oval Office
Clinton spells out Iraq's non-compliance
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.

Iraq tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all documents requested by the inspectors.
US Forces:
There are 15 U.S. warships and 97 U.S. aircraft in the Persian Gulf region, including about 70 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. More than 12,000 sailors and Marines are in the region.

U.S. sources said eight of the warships, equipped with cruise missiles, have been moved into the northern part of the Gulf, within easy striking distance of Baghdad. More troops and jets have been ordered to the region.

Clinton statement from the Oval Office on attack against Iaq

'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'
Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'

The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.

"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.

The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.

Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs

Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.

Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.

"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."

Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

CNN had no comment on the double standard of news coverage.

 on: October 18, 2014, 12:12:10 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by G M

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!