1. People 45+ are familiar with hyperbole, sarcasm, jokes, and unfamiliar abbreviations. An unnerving t-shirt is nearly inconceivable.
2. Every adult knows that part of societal courtesy is tolerating rebels. Particularly when the rebel is addressing a valid concern.
3. A whole lot of grandmas are tough and know how to deal with troublemakers. They've faced oppression (e.g. gender, race, age) and petty minds throughout their lives. You do not want to fuck with them.
4. Yeah, you can argue any position when you're allowed to make up hypotheticals.
To be fair, there are a lot of people who respect authority, and agree with the GP's rationalizations. They can think clearly in a lot of ways, but can't quite question their obedience to authority (as Stanley Milgram's research demonstrated).
In short, if he was prepared for this result as a part of a larger protest, then I get it. If he just wanted to get from one place to another, he's a moron.
Yes, because in America people can only do one thing at a time. Or is that just the morons?
Some thieves target cars with NRA stickers because there are often guns inside. Easy money. So maybe place the sticker on your house instead of your pickup. I don't know how bright criminals are compared to the typical person, but I suspect as more people go unemployed and increasingly desperate, the criminal IQ will approach the national average.
Well, dose size and other concerns, like subject development, genetics, and environment. Giving an embryo and an adult mammal equivalent doses will have varying effects; depending on the chemical. Frequent blood alcohol levels of.10 are fun for adults, not so funny for a fetus. If triclosan does impair muscle function then embryo (and later) development would certainly be a concern and worth studying.
Many voters, probably most, are too apathetic to bother evaluating candidates on their merits. Instead they extrapolate those merits from things like poll numbers and other horse race indicators.
Let's put a twist on this. What if instead of "apathy" we switch in "availability." If you watch US corporate news or read (almost) any newspaper, you'll only find what you mentioned: poll numbers from biased surveys, Twitter sound-bites, pretty pictures of candidates in their shirt sleeves. That's all a voter has to go on unless they do their own research. Which is time consuming even for those who excel at analysis.
Quick, where do you go to critique a voting record, review the original bill, find out what was crammed in at the last minute, and figure out why a politician voted as they did? When you go to the source you'll find volumes of data. There's 6 hours gone, though with some small but significant knowledge digested. There's a lot of analysis on the Internet, some that's really excellent, but then again you're on a search for good info with a lot of effort dedicated to filtering the various biases. So to save time you start to look for a few analysts to trust, maybe one that other people have found, one that's popular. And you're back where you started, voting with a crowd.
One of propaganda's methods is the bandwagon effect, and these fake Twitter accounts use the technique because it has a history of working.
So, when I read that [JP Morgan is] "in favor of tougher (and substantive!) regulations", one may wonder what this means.
It means exactly what you hint at. It's meaningless talk to convince a target audience of properly educated intellectuals. It's fake regulations, lobbied and created by the banking industry. A financial industry which has repeatedly demonstrated, on local and foreign economies, it's systemic skill in taking from the many to give to the few.
What's needed? Among addressing the issues you raises (speculative investments), perhaps also more small local banks and no multinational corporations which are too big to control. It's what the 99 Percenters, Occupy Wall Streeters, and others are working toward.
According to Reuters, in 2007 JPM was involved in subprime lending: "JPMorgan's first-quarter subprime mortgage originations, through Chase Home Finance, jumped 11 percent to $3.02 billion, according to Inside Mortgage Finance." So your knowledge may be more personal than reliable. And as of 2012, according to other sources, is still involved in Credit Default Swaps so there is reason to continue distrusting banks.
Do you hear of any US banks that want Glass-Steagall reinstated? No? Banks want regulations that protect them with a facade of trust, not restrict them from unlimited salaries and shareholder profits. But hey, at least they'll be hiring some database and network admins.
"In Italy, for 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, they had 500 years of democracy and peace - and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." -- Harry Lime
Well let's see now Mr. Lime (while ignoring that *whoosh* over my head), Switzerland also produced or was a sometime inspiration for: CERN, Jacob Bernoulli, Carl Jung, Voltaire, Rosseau, Freddie Mercury, and Nietzsche. And a few international banks which are far less reliable than cuckoo clocks. So perhaps people develop science, literature, art, and whatever economics is, independently of foreign relations.
Swiss politics involves town meetings with lots of talking, and thus real representations of local concerns instead of representatives in popularity contests (cool to have a beer with, has my family values? yeah I'll for for him/her). Switzerland's not perfect, not just banking but paying non-Swiss cheap wages for jobs the locals don't want to do; but other countries and especially the US with its take-down petitions could learn a few techniques. If, that is, the motivation was to improve democracy, which it's not.
Ask the enthusiasts at MobileRead. The Pocketbook 360 Plus has a nifty snap-on cover, good battery life, and survives ocean spray and bathtubs (not sure about underwater though). Or get a reader app for your phone as backup, which you've probably already toughened. Better yet, forget the ereader and visit with whoever's around, explore the surroundings, step away from the digital blue pill and into full spectrum analog life.
Agreed, let's not have another endless argument. You ask what can we do to make the booming economies and lifestyles of India and China change, and the countries join us in preventing disaster. I think the question is too broad, and not only can I not answer it, no one can. Don't get me wrong, I like big picture utopias of cheap basement fusion, solar roofs and deserts, windmills with molten salt storage, underground homes, workers keeping the income instead of CEOs and shareholders and bankers, and... However, back on earth in the present: if you get specific, find something you're really interested in, then you can sort out approaches, figure out how to apply your skills, start gathering resources.
For example: I watched a documentary about a grade school kid who could hardly believe that a village in Kenya had no water. I guess he figured out what not doing anything leads to, so he had a fundraiser and built a manually operated (no CO2!) local well. Then he raised money for another. And toward the end he flew to the country to celebrate the 50th (or so) well. Another example: Women Helping Women started in the 1990s with one educated but poor person, now it's up to some 600 people in 20-something countries.
I won't presume to suggest what you should do, as I have no idea what you're capable of. You say these arguments are a waste of time. Maybe you've mastered the craft of endlessly detailed arguments, and are ready to move on. To participate in some productive task. Get on the phone or your feet and pick a project. Some are so desperate for people that they'd even be grateful for help from you or me. Or start one. If it doesn't work out, try another.
I expect to give up a lot - I will have to change my diet, my transportation, pay way more taxes, do with less or most everything, and in the end all it will get me is a feeling of contribution. I will not live long enough to see the results. No, I am not that young.
This is what the beginnings of thinking beyond yourself feels like. To consider others, including the generations who are not your direct descendents. You do not live long enough to see the results. You will not be thanked in anyone's memory. You will find no thrill since your contribution is miniscule, while impotence prevents you from influencing others to do more. Your giving up a "profligate lifestyle" is without personal benefit even as deniers and the ignorant enjoy profits and luxuries. You will do it because the alternative is a horror you can't ignore nor contribute to. This is what it's like to be a fairly aware individual.
We've seen what the rich 1% do with the world. And you're right, it's past time to have more "sensible people prevail."
Fair enough. US corporations lobby on different sides (choosing based on profits), UN countries vote for various sides (choosing based on many notions).
UN control of the Internet would kill the Internet as we know it. Long distance fees,
Are long distance fees anything like paying different amounts for different content from different locations? If so, then US corporations are lobbying hard to end net neutrality.
requirements that you respect censorship laws in other countries,
Country laws cross country borders? Check (see US vs. Kim Dotcom and MegaUpload). For censorship, see below.
unique identification requirements,
Large push for "real name" authentication? Check (all non-cash purchases recorded with ChoicePoint? double-check).
different regulatory classes for "service providers" and "consumers"
Check (US common carrier exemption).
powerful governments with strong and pervasive censorship campaigns.
What happens to whistleblowers (e.g. Wikileaks) in the US? Strong and pervasive campaigns. Check.
This doesn't prove that the UN would be any better than the US; but it does suggest that if your points have merit, there are problems with the current controllers.
People have been saying that the "end is near" since human beings developed speech. None have been right. Ockam's razor and the law of induction tells me they won't be in the future.
Day after day, week after week, bacteria in the petri dish told each other "look at all the fresh resources, go forth and multiply!" And so they did, until they couldn't. -- Law of the Finite
First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.
-- Martin Niemroller, c.1900s
Then there's:
The simple fact is, most people don't give a shit about injustice until it effects them personally.
-- AngryDeuce, 2012
Personally, being as how Occam's Razor has demonstrated itself to be regularly useful, I lean toward the second version. Same idea, of course; and Niemroller's does provide examples, which is useful from a research and scientifically rigorous perspective. Still, Monsieur Deuce's statement maintains the principle while displaying a memorable terseness and emotional impact with considerable appeal.
On a related note, DRM provides a method for the copyright acquirer to maintain ownership of a right granted by the public, without providing a method for the right to be returned to the public at the copyright's expiration. Thus I find the self-help irrationality of DRM technology to be unconscionable; and breakers of same to have respectable morality on their side, if not (corporate-financed) legality.
Khan's lectures are simple, accurate, and highly valuable. However, how much does one learn from passively watching great lectures which ignore a student's missteps and false presumptions? This Veritasum video on Khan's videos demonstrates the effectiveness, or rather ineffectiveness, of at least some kinds of video learning. (And yes, the irony of using a video to teach the ineffectivenss of educational videos will not be lost on anyone.)
...On my phone is the Amazon store and code scanner, go into Wal Mart see an item, touch and play with it. if i like it then i check how much on Amazon and then buy it.
"I know lots of people do that, but I think it crosses the ethics boundary."
I have no ethical obligation to Walmart.
If you go into a small family-run business to handle items, then buy from Amazon, is that "ethical?" In this confined example, you have no more ethical obligation to mom and pop than you do Walmart, unless your ethics operate in some whimsical way.
In the US, there is a separate division of the police department called "Internal Affairs," whose job is to monitor police actions. The IA is small, subject to bias, and monitors few events. The public is large, independent (subject to innumerable biases), and monitors many events. Police are already recording events and making selected recordings available. How those recordings are selected is an issue with substantial insider bias. Unless the right is taken away by law, the public already has a legal and even moral right to record those same events.
Nobody wants to be watched, the chilling effect is well known. When the police make the recordings, their superior or IA is in charge of releasing the video. When the public is making the recording, the availability is more independent. Usually, the "nothing to hide" privacy argument falls apart easily; when monitoring police action, as demonstrated in the Stanford Prison Experiment, independently watching the watchers is a necessary hardship. Thus citizen review boards and citizen videos. There are, of course, endless special cases; so like most everything in society, laws and policies can at best be general guidelines requiring community oversight.
With cheap recorders comes the ability to watch the watchers with fewer "he said, she said" problems. Fewer but not none, as with the selective editing of the Rodney King video. The above applies to police actions, not to the general public going about their daily activities (the recording of which is a different topic).
The "damage" Assange did is done, and there's no way you can hide what has been revealed. Just forget about him. move on.
That's thinking like a rational person, not an elite boss. When you want to shut down particular behaviors (e.g. whistleblowers, copyright violators), one technique is to take harsh action against them. Think Mafia and Mafiaa. Have any idea what Jane Akre is up to? No? That's because she's a success story, if you're a boss. Nobody who works at large corporations in the US, and most of Europe, wonders what happens to whistleblowers.
Yes, Japan and the United States both have histories of aggression in controlling others' resources and people. If you're hinting that out of control fascist militaries will typically lead a country to destruction, well, you'd be in good company with (military, industrial, congressional complex) Eisenhower and others.
If by "not US Military" you mean "composed of pilots from the United States Army (USAAF), Navy (USN), and Marine Corps (USMC)" (source). And by "civilian relief operations and humanitarian roles only" you mean "trained in Burma before the American entry into World War II with the mission of defending China against Japanese forces" (same source). Then yes, the Flying Tigers were just civilian humanitarians.
While the Flying Tigers first combat was after Pearl Harbor, singling out this fact ignores a lot of American preparations for war with Japan. The Japanese attack of a military outpost on Hawaii was not the surprise that Hollywood movies make it out to be.
The American's negotiating, concurrently with initiating Internet attacks on Iran, is also not a big surprise. Actions and talk are often unrelated. Whether the attacks are ethical or warranted, and their long-term effects, is perhaps also a worthwhile discussion.
Yes, because after you sign the NPT you get a bunch of assistance with peaceful nuclear energy technology under the assumption (hahaha) that you won't use that assistance to bootstrap your way to weapons (because you "promised not to")Whereas if you don't sign, you can develop all the nuclear weapons you want, but you don't get assistance.
"You don't get assistance" unless you're Israel, Pakistan, or India. In which case you don't sign but still get assistance from the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Netflix and other streaming documentaries.
To flesh out the above list a little:
1. People 45+ are familiar with hyperbole, sarcasm, jokes, and unfamiliar abbreviations. An unnerving t-shirt is nearly inconceivable.
2. Every adult knows that part of societal courtesy is tolerating rebels. Particularly when the rebel is addressing a valid concern.
3. A whole lot of grandmas are tough and know how to deal with troublemakers. They've faced oppression (e.g. gender, race, age) and petty minds throughout their lives. You do not want to fuck with them.
4. Yeah, you can argue any position when you're allowed to make up hypotheticals.
To be fair, there are a lot of people who respect authority, and agree with the GP's rationalizations. They can think clearly in a lot of ways, but can't quite question their obedience to authority (as Stanley Milgram's research demonstrated).
In short, if he was prepared for this result as a part of a larger protest, then I get it. If he just wanted to get from one place to another, he's a moron.
Yes, because in America people can only do one thing at a time. Or is that just the morons?
Some thieves target cars with NRA stickers because there are often guns inside. Easy money. So maybe place the sticker on your house instead of your pickup. I don't know how bright criminals are compared to the typical person, but I suspect as more people go unemployed and increasingly desperate, the criminal IQ will approach the national average.
In the end, it all comes down to the dose.
Well, dose size and other concerns, like subject development, genetics, and environment. Giving an embryo and an adult mammal equivalent doses will have varying effects; depending on the chemical. Frequent blood alcohol levels of .10 are fun for adults, not so funny for a fetus. If triclosan does impair muscle function then embryo (and later) development would certainly be a concern and worth studying.
Many voters, probably most, are too apathetic to bother evaluating candidates on their merits. Instead they extrapolate those merits from things like poll numbers and other horse race indicators.
Let's put a twist on this. What if instead of "apathy" we switch in "availability." If you watch US corporate news or read (almost) any newspaper, you'll only find what you mentioned: poll numbers from biased surveys, Twitter sound-bites, pretty pictures of candidates in their shirt sleeves. That's all a voter has to go on unless they do their own research. Which is time consuming even for those who excel at analysis.
Quick, where do you go to critique a voting record, review the original bill, find out what was crammed in at the last minute, and figure out why a politician voted as they did? When you go to the source you'll find volumes of data. There's 6 hours gone, though with some small but significant knowledge digested. There's a lot of analysis on the Internet, some that's really excellent, but then again you're on a search for good info with a lot of effort dedicated to filtering the various biases. So to save time you start to look for a few analysts to trust, maybe one that other people have found, one that's popular. And you're back where you started, voting with a crowd.
One of propaganda's methods is the bandwagon effect, and these fake Twitter accounts use the technique because it has a history of working.
So, when I read that [JP Morgan is] "in favor of tougher (and substantive!) regulations", one may wonder what this means.
It means exactly what you hint at. It's meaningless talk to convince a target audience of properly educated intellectuals. It's fake regulations, lobbied and created by the banking industry. A financial industry which has repeatedly demonstrated, on local and foreign economies, it's systemic skill in taking from the many to give to the few.
What's needed? Among addressing the issues you raises (speculative investments), perhaps also more small local banks and no multinational corporations which are too big to control. It's what the 99 Percenters, Occupy Wall Streeters, and others are working toward.
"(they didn't get into subprime stuff)"
According to Reuters, in 2007 JPM was involved in subprime lending: "JPMorgan's first-quarter subprime mortgage originations, through Chase Home Finance, jumped 11 percent to $3.02 billion, according to Inside Mortgage Finance." So your knowledge may be more personal than reliable. And as of 2012, according to other sources, is still involved in Credit Default Swaps so there is reason to continue distrusting banks.
Do you hear of any US banks that want Glass-Steagall reinstated? No? Banks want regulations that protect them with a facade of trust, not restrict them from unlimited salaries and shareholder profits. But hey, at least they'll be hiring some database and network admins.
Would you elaborate on "Switzerland is more American than America" please?
"In Italy, for 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, they had 500 years of democracy and peace - and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." -- Harry Lime
Well let's see now Mr. Lime (while ignoring that *whoosh* over my head), Switzerland also produced or was a sometime inspiration for: CERN, Jacob Bernoulli, Carl Jung, Voltaire, Rosseau, Freddie Mercury, and Nietzsche. And a few international banks which are far less reliable than cuckoo clocks. So perhaps people develop science, literature, art, and whatever economics is, independently of foreign relations.
Swiss politics involves town meetings with lots of talking, and thus real representations of local concerns instead of representatives in popularity contests (cool to have a beer with, has my family values? yeah I'll for for him/her). Switzerland's not perfect, not just banking but paying non-Swiss cheap wages for jobs the locals don't want to do; but other countries and especially the US with its take-down petitions could learn a few techniques. If, that is, the motivation was to improve democracy, which it's not.
Ask the enthusiasts at MobileRead. The Pocketbook 360 Plus has a nifty snap-on cover, good battery life, and survives ocean spray and bathtubs (not sure about underwater though). Or get a reader app for your phone as backup, which you've probably already toughened. Better yet, forget the ereader and visit with whoever's around, explore the surroundings, step away from the digital blue pill and into full spectrum analog life.
Yes, this. The only country one can change is one's own.
Agreed, let's not have another endless argument. You ask what can we do to make the booming economies and lifestyles of India and China change, and the countries join us in preventing disaster. I think the question is too broad, and not only can I not answer it, no one can. Don't get me wrong, I like big picture utopias of cheap basement fusion, solar roofs and deserts, windmills with molten salt storage, underground homes, workers keeping the income instead of CEOs and shareholders and bankers, and... However, back on earth in the present: if you get specific, find something you're really interested in, then you can sort out approaches, figure out how to apply your skills, start gathering resources.
For example: I watched a documentary about a grade school kid who could hardly believe that a village in Kenya had no water. I guess he figured out what not doing anything leads to, so he had a fundraiser and built a manually operated (no CO2!) local well. Then he raised money for another. And toward the end he flew to the country to celebrate the 50th (or so) well. Another example: Women Helping Women started in the 1990s with one educated but poor person, now it's up to some 600 people in 20-something countries.
I won't presume to suggest what you should do, as I have no idea what you're capable of. You say these arguments are a waste of time. Maybe you've mastered the craft of endlessly detailed arguments, and are ready to move on. To participate in some productive task. Get on the phone or your feet and pick a project. Some are so desperate for people that they'd even be grateful for help from you or me. Or start one. If it doesn't work out, try another.
I expect to give up a lot - I will have to change my diet, my transportation, pay way more taxes, do with less or most everything, and in the end all it will get me is a feeling of contribution. I will not live long enough to see the results. No, I am not that young.
This is what the beginnings of thinking beyond yourself feels like. To consider others, including the generations who are not your direct descendents. You do not live long enough to see the results. You will not be thanked in anyone's memory. You will find no thrill since your contribution is miniscule, while impotence prevents you from influencing others to do more. Your giving up a "profligate lifestyle" is without personal benefit even as deniers and the ignorant enjoy profits and luxuries. You will do it because the alternative is a horror you can't ignore nor contribute to. This is what it's like to be a fairly aware individual.
We've seen what the rich 1% do with the world. And you're right, it's past time to have more "sensible people prevail."
Fair enough. US corporations lobby on different sides (choosing based on profits), UN countries vote for various sides (choosing based on many notions).
UN control of the Internet would kill the Internet as we know it. Long distance fees,
Are long distance fees anything like paying different amounts for different content from different locations? If so, then US corporations are lobbying hard to end net neutrality.
requirements that you respect censorship laws in other countries,
Country laws cross country borders? Check (see US vs. Kim Dotcom and MegaUpload). For censorship, see below.
unique identification requirements,
Large push for "real name" authentication? Check (all non-cash purchases recorded with ChoicePoint? double-check).
different regulatory classes for "service providers" and "consumers"
Check (US common carrier exemption).
powerful governments with strong and pervasive censorship campaigns.
What happens to whistleblowers (e.g. Wikileaks) in the US? Strong and pervasive campaigns. Check.
This doesn't prove that the UN would be any better than the US; but it does suggest that if your points have merit, there are problems with the current controllers.
People have been saying that the "end is near" since human beings developed speech. None have been right. Ockam's razor and the law of induction tells me they won't be in the future.
Day after day, week after week, bacteria in the petri dish told each other "look at all the fresh resources, go forth and multiply!" And so they did, until they couldn't. -- Law of the Finite
First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.
-- Martin Niemroller, c.1900s
Then there's:
The simple fact is, most people don't give a shit about injustice until it effects them personally.
-- AngryDeuce, 2012
Personally, being as how Occam's Razor has demonstrated itself to be regularly useful, I lean toward the second version. Same idea, of course; and Niemroller's does provide examples, which is useful from a research and scientifically rigorous perspective. Still, Monsieur Deuce's statement maintains the principle while displaying a memorable terseness and emotional impact with considerable appeal.
On a related note, DRM provides a method for the copyright acquirer to maintain ownership of a right granted by the public, without providing a method for the right to be returned to the public at the copyright's expiration. Thus I find the self-help irrationality of DRM technology to be unconscionable; and breakers of same to have respectable morality on their side, if not (corporate-financed) legality.
Khan's lectures are simple, accurate, and highly valuable. However, how much does one learn from passively watching great lectures which ignore a student's missteps and false presumptions? This Veritasum video on Khan's videos demonstrates the effectiveness, or rather ineffectiveness, of at least some kinds of video learning. (And yes, the irony of using a video to teach the ineffectivenss of educational videos will not be lost on anyone.)
...On my phone is the Amazon store and code scanner, go into Wal Mart see an item, touch and play with it. if i like it then i check how much on Amazon and then buy it.
"I know lots of people do that, but I think it crosses the ethics boundary."
I have no ethical obligation to Walmart.
If you go into a small family-run business to handle items, then buy from Amazon, is that "ethical?" In this confined example, you have no more ethical obligation to mom and pop than you do Walmart, unless your ethics operate in some whimsical way.
In the US, there is a separate division of the police department called "Internal Affairs," whose job is to monitor police actions. The IA is small, subject to bias, and monitors few events. The public is large, independent (subject to innumerable biases), and monitors many events. Police are already recording events and making selected recordings available. How those recordings are selected is an issue with substantial insider bias. Unless the right is taken away by law, the public already has a legal and even moral right to record those same events.
Nobody wants to be watched, the chilling effect is well known. When the police make the recordings, their superior or IA is in charge of releasing the video. When the public is making the recording, the availability is more independent. Usually, the "nothing to hide" privacy argument falls apart easily; when monitoring police action, as demonstrated in the Stanford Prison Experiment, independently watching the watchers is a necessary hardship. Thus citizen review boards and citizen videos. There are, of course, endless special cases; so like most everything in society, laws and policies can at best be general guidelines requiring community oversight.
With cheap recorders comes the ability to watch the watchers with fewer "he said, she said" problems. Fewer but not none, as with the selective editing of the Rodney King video. The above applies to police actions, not to the general public going about their daily activities (the recording of which is a different topic).
The "damage" Assange did is done, and there's no way you can hide what has been revealed. Just forget about him. move on.
That's thinking like a rational person, not an elite boss. When you want to shut down particular behaviors (e.g. whistleblowers, copyright violators), one technique is to take harsh action against them. Think Mafia and Mafiaa. Have any idea what Jane Akre is up to? No? That's because she's a success story, if you're a boss. Nobody who works at large corporations in the US, and most of Europe, wonders what happens to whistleblowers.
Yes, Japan and the United States both have histories of aggression in controlling others' resources and people. If you're hinting that out of control fascist militaries will typically lead a country to destruction, well, you'd be in good company with (military, industrial, congressional complex) Eisenhower and others.
If by "not US Military" you mean "composed of pilots from the United States Army (USAAF), Navy (USN), and Marine Corps (USMC)" (source). And by "civilian relief operations and humanitarian roles only" you mean "trained in Burma before the American entry into World War II with the mission of defending China against Japanese forces" (same source). Then yes, the Flying Tigers were just civilian humanitarians.
While the Flying Tigers first combat was after Pearl Harbor, singling out this fact ignores a lot of American preparations for war with Japan. The Japanese attack of a military outpost on Hawaii was not the surprise that Hollywood movies make it out to be.
The American's negotiating, concurrently with initiating Internet attacks on Iran, is also not a big surprise. Actions and talk are often unrelated. Whether the attacks are ethical or warranted, and their long-term effects, is perhaps also a worthwhile discussion.
Yes, because after you sign the NPT you get a bunch of assistance with peaceful nuclear energy technology under the assumption (hahaha) that you won't use that assistance to bootstrap your way to weapons (because you "promised not to")Whereas if you don't sign, you can develop all the nuclear weapons you want, but you don't get assistance.
"You don't get assistance" unless you're Israel, Pakistan, or India. In which case you don't sign but still get assistance from the US.