From Science Fiction To Fact, Robots Are Coming To A Farm Near You

Posted by on May 16, 2012 No comments

Kinze/YouTube

Tractor equipped with the Kinze Autonomy Project Planting System planting a field.

In the Star Wars movies, moisture farmers on dry planets like Tattoine use droids to help with the repetitive, back-breaking labor, but that’s in a galaxy far, far away. There’s no doubt that robots are cool, but are robots on farms far off in our future?

Actually, the future is already here, with highly advanced milking machines on some dairy farms and a fully automated robot tractor set to hit the market this fall.

To be sure, today’s farmers already rely on advanced technology, like GPS systems to help with planting and automatic milkers. That makes the jump to robotics pretty easy, says Jeremy Brown, president of Jaybridge Robotics. His Massachusetts-based company makes software that helps turn regular machinery into robotic machinery for commercial use.

 

“Robotics and autonomy become appropriate where you have a situation which is dull, which is dirty or which is dangerous,” Brown says.

Sounds like farming. Jaybridge and tractor manufacturer Kinze have developed a mass-market robotic tractor. It will be in limited release this fall.

A few dairy farmers are already on the cutting edge. They face two or three milkings a day and maintain hundreds of cows, just to stay in the black. Many dairies have turned to some form of automatic milking for years to help out.

But some dairies are trying out new milking technology. It goes beyond just a little attachment to a cow’s udder that squeezes the milk out. This takes it a step further, using a robotic arm to prepare and clean the udders, attach the milking equipment, and monitor the cow’s health. (Check out the cool video here)

Brent Ware, a member of the robotics team at Kansas State, stands next to a planting robot that won a national competition.
Jeremy Bernfeld/Harvest Public Media

Brent Ware, a member of the robotics team at Kansas State, stands next to a planting robot that won a national competition.

Robot technologies like these can buy farmers a little more time off.

“Just this past Christmas we had a customer of ours that had started up two of our (robotic milkers) with their herd,” says Mark Futcher, product manager for an automatic milking machine made by DeLaval. “That Christmas morning was the first time that gentleman had ever been witness to his children finding their Christmas stockings.”

Robots are creeping into everyday life, but could we see robots replacing farmers anytime soon?

Not likely. Today’s modern farmer is a CEO — making decisions about when to buy and sell and managing an ever-changing workforce. For now, robots are there to help.

“There’s very much a human element in all of the business decisions and all of the equipment selection and maintenance and fleet decisions,” Brown says. “I don’t think you’re going to eliminate the farmer with automation.”

Want to learn more about farming in the future? Check out Harvest Public Media’s Farmer of the Future series running this week. There are stories on the changing demographics of midwestern farm towns, the blurring lines of what defines a “corporate” farmer, and more.


Science

Long-Term Investments On Shaky Stocks: ‘New Girl’ And ‘Smash’ End Their Seasons

Posted by on May 15, 2012 No comments
Zooey Deschanel as Jess on Fox's New Girl.
Enlarge Ray Mickshaw/Fox

Zooey Deschanel as Jess on Fox’s New Girl.

Zooey Deschanel as Jess on Fox's New Girl.

Ray Mickshaw/Fox

Zooey Deschanel as Jess on Fox’s New Girl.

As the networks are currently rolling out their plans for the future courtesy of their upfronts, it just so happens that they’re also winding down the current season of shows, the ones that they touted last year at this very time. It’s a good time for television viewers to reevaluate the investments we’ve made in the shows we bought into at the beginning of the season.

Television watching is ultimately an act of faith. So is all entertainment, of course; you plunk down $ 10 for a movie, or $ 50 for a concert, or $ 125 for a Broadway musical, and you pray that your money and time will be well-spent.

But even disregarding the cost of cable and/or an Internet connection, television asks for a heavier investment. It pretends to ask only 30 or 60 minutes of your time, while actually asking you for a year or two or three or ten. What it wants is for you to subscribe. And it can be tough to figure out when to pony up for a full subscription.

Matt Zoller Seitz recently talked about this on Vulture, when he evaluated the mess that was this past season of The Office. There’s a big difference, however, in sticking with a show that you once loved dearly that seems to have fallen on hard times (and that you hope will rebound) and keeping your fingers crossed for a show that you have no history with.

Which brings me to NBC’s Smash, which airs its season finale tonight, and Fox’s New Girl, which ended its first season last week. Both freshman shows have been renewed for a second go-round. And both debuted with problematic pilots.

Right there, that’s a risk. If a show’s first episode is strong – think Lost, Arrested Development or Glee – then it’s obviously easier to buy in right from the start. The show might make good on that promise or it could fall apart or it could fall somewhere in between (I leave it to you to figure out which is which in this example). But at the moment when promise is all that’s available, it’s not hard to hop on board, at least for a little while.

Smash and New Girl, on the other hand, both required an entirely different calculus. Neither one was fully formed by the time their pilots aired. In New Girl‘s case, major casting decisions were still to come, as the character of Coach needed to be immediately eliminated (thanks to the fact that Damon Wayans, Jr.’s show Happy Endings — another series with a terrible pilot — was somewhat unexpectedly renewed for a stride-hitting second season) and replaced with Lamorne Morris, who stepped in as new roommate Winston in the second episode.

Casting uncertainty aside, New Girl had issues at the start. All of the characters were unformed, none more so than Zooey Deschanel’s Jess, whose quirkiness (or “quirkiness,” depending on how much you were willing to indulge the show’s marketing) and naivete were particular lightning rods for criticism. The show’s tone was also uneven, generally positioning Jess as the sunshiny medicine that her new roommates didn’t realize they’d needed all this time.

Smash, meanwhile, gave the audience an intriguing premise for a show in the premiere: the development of a Broadway musical from the ground up, complete with the various people who would be thus involved. It, too, didn’t seem to quite know what to do with its characters, positioning Katharine McPhee’s wide-eyed Midwesterner as the heroine of the show when Megan Hilty’s cynical, ambitious and far more charismatic Ivy had immeasurably more star quality. And Smash‘s own tone bordered on hysterical right at the start.

In foggy focus: Christian Borle as Tom Levitt, Debra Messing as Julia Houston, Anjelica Huston as Eileen Rand, Jack Davenport as Derek Wills. In actual focus: Megan Hilty as Ivy Lynn and Katharine McPhee as Karen Cartwright on NBC's Smash.
Patrick Randak/NBC

In foggy focus: Christian Borle as Tom Levitt, Debra Messing as Julia Houston, Anjelica Huston as Eileen Rand, Jack Davenport as Derek Wills. In actual focus: Megan Hilty as Ivy Lynn and Katharine McPhee as Karen Cartwright on NBC’s Smash.

Two new series, two pilots that had as much going against them (or more) than for them. Sticking with either one (or, as might be the case with some people, or so I’ve heard, both) was an act of pure optimism. It could come only from a Jess-like belief that whatever flaws they started with, there was good in them that would eventually come to the fore.

And when it came to the long-term payoff for that investment that each demanded, New Girl and Smash became almost polar opposites of one another. New Girl not only began addressing and then fixing Jess’s apparent childishness, it did what a lot of great recent comedies (like The Office, Parks And Recreation and even, appropriately enough, Happy Endings) have done, which is to identify the strengths of a cast and immediately begin learning how to play to them.

That’s led to one of the most well-balanced ensembles currently on television, itself an evolution from a show originally built as a showcase for Deschanel. It also has a feature that works very well in sitcoms (provided that it’s kept in check by the writers and producers), which is that it looks as though the cast is having tremendous fun playing with one another. The result is a solid show that’s only getting solider.

Smash hasn’t been as lucky. What began as Glee for grownups has unfortunately devolved into exactly Glee for grownups. The writing is abysmal on any number of levels: dialogue, character, plot. People recite clunkers like, “Maybe I’ll go [to church], too. I could use a little faith.” The entire chorus of the fictional musical seems to exist solely to further the ambitions of either Karen or Ivy, depending on the scene, with no apparent ambitions of their own. Karen, with no stage experience, feels wounded that she’s stuck in the ensemble, which is fine; but Smash itself seems to consider her attitude justifiable, which it is not.

And so on, and so forth. The creative problems with Smash are reasonably well-documented (follow me on Twitter!), so there’s no need to go into too much depth here. But there was a point when New Girl wasn’t much better, and sticking it out with either show required a bit of faith of a viewer’s own.

That’s what’s so hard about upfronts and premiere weeks. A handful of shows will immediately reward the viewers who tune in. A handful will immediately turn viewers away for good. [Hello, 'Work It.' — ed.] For a lot of the rest, it’s both a crapshoot and a waiting game to see whether the amount of time and energy we invest in a show will be worth it. Some will pay off, some won’t. And for a lot of what the networks are trying to get us excited about — starting about now — we won’t quite know the answer until this time next year.


Arts & Life

President Obama Declares Support for Same-Sex Marriage

Posted by on May 13, 2012 No comments
After Vice President Joe Biden declared his support for same-sex marriage over the weekend, President Barack Obama and his aides felt like he should address the issue sooner rather than later. So, in an impromptu sit-down interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts, Obama explained that the evolution of his position on gay marriage was complete – and he now supports same-sex marriage. He phrased it in this manner: “At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

The President did acknowledge that he believed the Vice President had gotten a bit “over his skis” on the issue, implying that Biden should have kept quiet until the President could better frame his own announcement. And while the announcement has drawn the expected responses from Mitt Romney’s camp and constituent groups on both sides of the issue, many analysts are viewing it as a non-issue in the long term.

Of course, expecting the issue to go away before November is highly unlikely, and it’s safe to assume that Obama is going to be forced to expand greatly on his position in the months to come. But, the fact is that he is not proposing or attacking any legislation with his “new” position on the matter. Instead, he can claim that he is making an honest and non-political statement about his personal position on an issue that is extremely sensitive for many Americans.

The President’s team is counting on the fact that the economy is going to be the make-or-break issue of the upcoming election, so they will remain focused there. Of course, if the election turns out to be as close as many are predicting, the gay marriage issue could tip the scales in one direction or another.


Buzzle: National & World News

Romney Apologizes for High School Bullying

Posted by on May 12, 2012 No comments
Likely GOP Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney was forced to address a Washington Post article in which many of Romney’s prep school classmates recalled some of his pranks and more troubling behavior during his high school years. Apparently, the buttoned-up Mitt Romney that we see today was much more of a wild child in the early 1960s, and some of his classmates still have the scars to show for it. Among some of the more cruel “pranks” perpetrated by Romney, he reportedly held down a student with several other boys and cut his hair because they believed that the student was a homosexual. As it turns out, he was a homosexual and the incident troubled him throughout his life.

Romney denies any recollection of the incident and also pointed out that, in the early 60s, he was oblivious to anyone’s sexual orientation or the possibility that any of his classmates might be homosexual. In fairness to Romney, that is probably a much more accurate statement than trying to claim that he doesn’t remember specific incidents from high school. Anyone who has ever been to high school – and certainly anyone who enjoyed the level of popularity and influence that Romney seemed to hold during his days at an elite prep school – is very likely to remember most of the important details of the experience.

Many of Romney’s classmates acknowledged that he was humorous and could frequently evoke a laugh, even if it was often at the expense of others. And even those who found Romney to be mean-spirited and somewhat of a bully acknowledged that his demeanor began to change when he met his current wife, Ann, who attended the sister school nearby.

Ultimately, the high school stories are probably going to fade away – as they should. Trying to dissect events of 50 years ago isn’t going to create a discernable advantage for either party, but these are the kinds of stories that will be thrown about in the calm before the election storm, which will get into full swing later in the summer.


Buzzle: National & World News

This Mother’s Day, Strike Up The Band

Posted by on May 10, 2012 No comments

You might be getting your mom flowers, brunch, or a card this Mother’s Day. But in Mexico, mariachi bands are snapped up to serenade moms well in advance of the holiday. Host Michel Martin speaks with Dan Sheehy of the Smithsonian’s Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage. He’s also a member of Mariachi Los Amigos, a Washington D.C. mariachi ensemble.


Arts & Life

Difference Between Single Malt and Blended Scotch Whisky

Posted by on May 10, 2012 No comments

‘Nectar of Gods’, ‘An Indulgence for the Senses’, ‘Water of Life’ – call it what you like, it’s the ultimate Scotch whisky that we are talking about. Talk about love for a literal high! Scotch, as we know, is a synonym for sophistication and class. And those of you who are connoisseurs of spirits, having knowledge about the make, the type and brand becomes a prerequisite. After all, having a taste for all the good things in life is not a bad idea; and absolutely not when it comes to treating your taste buds to something good.

What Differentiates Single Malt from Blended Scotch

Not every whiskey is called Scotch; the name itself suggests that it is region-specific. You can make whiskey the world over, but you can never call it Scotch, unless it is made in Scotland. The basic difference between a single malt and blended Scotch is the distillation process. Single malt whisky is produced and bottled in a single distillery, whereas blended, as the name suggests, is a blend of two or more malt and grain whiskies. Let’s dig into the details that follow.

The Making of Scotch: The basic ingredient of Scotch whisky happens to be malted barley. Though at times it can be prepared using rye or wheat, barley is the most preferred grain for producing Scotch. Other than barley, the other ingredients include water, yeast and an additive for coloring.

Before we get to the differences, a little insight into the actual process of producing Scotch would be helpful. So here goes …

The Process

The process of making Scotch whisky involves the following steps: malting, drying, mashing and fermenting, which is followed by distillation and finally, maturation.

Malting: This is the process of soaking the grains in water for 2 or more days and allowing it to germinate. It is an essential factor for a malt whisky; however, this step can be skipped in the case of grain whisky.

Drying: The germinated grain needs to be heat-treated to stop the germination process. Generally, peat smoke is introduced at this stage to give the whisky a smoky flavor and aroma.

Mashing: The dried malt is coarsely ground into a flour called grist, which is then mixed with hot water to create mash to convert the starches into sugars.

Fermentation: Once the sugary liquid is cooled, yeast is added to boost the fermentation process.

Distillation: Distillation is a process wherein the undesired impurities like methanol are removed and the alcohol content is increased.

Malt Whisky: Generally, the Wash, as it is called, is distilled twice; first in a wash still where the liquid is heated to the boiling point so that the alcohol evaporates and travels to the top of the still and into a condenser where it is cooled and returns to the liquid state. After this process, the resultant liquid contains about 20% alcohol and is termed as low wine. A second distillation is then carried out in a spirit still and the resultant distillation is divided into three cuts, of which only the middle cut or the heart of the run is used. The remaining two cuts are re-distilled as they are relatively of substandard material. At this stage, the low wine contains about 60-75% alcohol content.

Grain Whisky: Grain whisky is distilled in a column still, which consists of two columns called analyzer (washes the liquid with steam) and rectifier (carries the alcohol till it condenses to the required strength). It requires a single distillation to achieve the desired alcohol content, unlike malt whisky that requires two distillations. Grain whisky is produced by a continuous fractional distillation process where the mixture is separated into its component parts or fractions by heating them to temperatures, which will cause fractions of the liquid to evaporate.

Maturation: The new-make malt whisky is then diluted and placed in casks to mature. For the maturation process, oak casks which previously contained Sherry, Rum or Bourbon are used. Using such casks lends their characteristics to the actual Scotch that you savor.

Parameters Single Malt Blended Scotch
Defining Factors A single malt whisky is that which is made from water and malted barley, and is distilled at a single distillery. A blended Scotch whisky is called so when a malt whisky is mixed with grain whisky.
What it Actually Means Confusion rules when we say single malt; what it actually refers to is a single producer or distillery. However, the end product need not necessarily be a single malt but is a perfect blend of malts of varying ages, such that the consistency of the product is maintained. A blended Scotch can also imply a blend or mixture of 2/3 parts of grain whisky and 1/3 part of malt whisky, not necessarily from the same distillery. A blended Scotch whisky may contain a combination of whiskies from more than 40 to 50 different malt and grain distilleries.
Differentiating Factor Single malt whisky goes through a single batch production; however, the product is a result of a blend of different aged whisky. The taste differs according to the region and distillery whence the final product comes, and the best part is that no two whiskies will ever taste the same. The minimum period for maturation is three years, and the longer the malt is allowed to mature in its wooden abode, the better the final outcome will be. It is not difficult to find a Scotch which has undergone maturation for 15 or more years. The blending takes place in the presence of a master blender, who ensures the taste of the blend remains consistent throughout. What actually happens in a blended Scotch is that the master blender, samples various malts and grain whiskies and combines them together in a cask and leaves it to mature. The differentiating factor comes in only at the stage of casking, the resultant blend is then left to mature for a minimum period of five years. Apparently, blended Scotch consists of over 90% of the total whisky production in Scotland.
Test the Taste Buds Known for its character and distinct flavor, the single malt Scotch offers an absolute treat to the senses, while keeping you as close to earthiness as possible. Compared to single malt, it is less stronger and has a more pleasing flavor than the two. However, they lack the flavor and character as the single malt.
Cost Highly priced and a connoisseur’s pride, the price of single malt ranges as per the maturation period of the malt. As its major ingredient is grain whisky, it makes this variety less pricey and affordable for the general crowd.

Like I previously mentioned, a connoisseur of spirits would love to indulge in a single malt Scotch thanks to its earthy flavor; hence, it definitely makes a better drink than the blended variety. However, if you aren’t too comfortable with strong earthy flavors, going in for a blended Scotch isn’t a bad idea too. To help you decide on the best brand of Scotch, we have tried to list the varieties of both blended and single malt Scotch; have your pick. You know what they say about indulging in Scotch whisky, “A good whisky should linger in your mind like a fond memory”; absolutely so, for you’ve got to smell it, sip it (yeah!! not gulp down), roll it around and finally swallow it. Ultimately, Scotch is Scotch; no matter what variety you are drinking and it sure is best when had ‘on the rocks‘. Let’s clink to that then, shall we?


Buzzle: Food & Drink

Family Group Calls for Boycott of America’s Got Talent and Howard Stern

Posted by on May 9, 2012 No comments
In a recent letter to over ninety advertisers who are likely to buy time with America’s Got Talent, the Parents Television Council said the following: “Programs like ‘AGT’ have offered millions of American families brief respite from the otherwise-ubiquitous stream of violent, profane and sexually explicit content on primetime. NBC’s decision to add Mr. Stern to ‘AGT’ will probably result in a sharp increase in explicit content and we urge you to be mindful when considering a media buy.”

While that doesn’t openly require that advertisers refrain from buying air time with NBC, the message is clear. Of course, the Parents Television Council is probably only serving America’s Got Talent and Howard Stern by making these sorts of public overtures. Controversial, polarizing characters drive television ratings, regardless of the format. America’s Got Talent is going to remain a family show, except that now it is also going to attract a more edgy audience who wants to see Stern perform on prime time television.

And once he demonstrates the ability to navigate the confines of prime time television while maintaining his sharp wit and honesty, it’s going to be extremely difficult for advertisers to stay away. Even the promos for America’s Got Talent have an almost Disney-like quality to them. NBC has been playing up Stern’s edginess, but it will be his heartfelt honesty and everyman qualities that will win over the masses when the show premieres on May 14.

Whether Stern’s presence is enough to move the needle for AGT remains to be seen. But the potential is there for huge success and a completely new level of fame and recognition for Howard Stern.


Buzzle: Entertainment & Media

How to Detect Microexpressions

Posted by on May 7, 2012 No comments

Imagine how people would look without a slight smile lighting up their face or the frown that lets you know they are disappointed. What if we weren’t able to let our eyes twinkle in recognition of the one we loved, or laugh out loud to our heart’s content at the petty surprises of life? The picture that comes in front of my eyes just describing this is a cardboard face devoid of any sort of emotions, drained out of life forever. Would you like it this way? Nah! At least I wouldn’t want to have a blank expression on my face 24/7.

I, personally enjoy looking at the different expressions around me; the smiles, the tears, expressions of satisfaction, of excitement, relief and sometimes of guilt. Just observing people in their most human form is enough to jolt me to a state of absolute awakening, especially when my day itself is gloomy.

In our day-to-day life, we try to camouflage our emotions with words. However, there’s a truth in the eyes only a few can see, the words that they speak are silent glimpses to the true emotions we hide. These emotions are nothing but reactions to situations and no matter how hard you try to hide, you will never succeed in hiding these microexpressions.

*Click on the images for a better view.

What are Microexpressions

Expressions that last for less than 1/25th of a second are termed as microexpressions. They are described as brief involuntary emotions experienced by an individual when placed in a ‘do-or-die’ situation. In other words, microexpressions are observed for a minuscule moment on the face of an individual in extreme situations. Apart from the basic emotions like sadness, joy, dread, surprise, disgust, anger, disdain, microexpressions include emotions like delight, embarrassment, exhilaration, guilt, pride, contentment, shame and relief.

AngerDisgustPrideFrustrationExcitementSadnessJoySurprise

Types of Microexpressions

If only one spared a moment to think about the phrase, “Actions speak louder than words”, they would see the truth behind it. Just like a flash of lightning lighting up the sky, a flash of emotion can determine the mood and emotion of the person. Besides, research has shown that about 90% of our communication revolves around non-verbal communication. Microexpressions are classified into three broad categories namely:

Simulated ExpressionSimulated Expression

Facial expressions that are devoid of genuine emotions are termed as simulated expressions. By simulation, we understand that the emotions expressed are forced and not real/genuine. Microexpressions of a forced smile especially to pose for a picture, etc., come under this category.

Neutralized ExpressionNeutralized Expression

The individual prefers to have a bland look on the face rather that portraying any sort of emotion on the face. The real emotions are counterbalanced or suppressed in this type of microexpression. A typical bored face sans expression would fit into this category.

Masked ExpressionMasked Expression

Just like a clown, who has his face plastered with a permanent smile, this type of microexpression is about absolute masking of emotions. This type of expression leaves no scope to portray the actual expressions.

Detecting Microexpressions

Being able to distinguish the truth from the lie is a herculean task and should we say that it takes a lot of practice. As microexpressions last for a fraction of a second, constantly observing them can be a strenuous task. However, the task is not reserved for professionals alone; just about anyone who has a roving eye can catch and detect these microexpressions. The only thing you need to remember is that every time you have a conversation with anyone, keenly observe the person’s face. Ensure you do not appear to be glaring at the person you are observing. You can understand the real feelings of the person with these simple steps.
» A Smile Can do Wonders
A genuine smile is reflected in the eyes of the individual. In case, the smile does not fill up your subject’s eyes, you should immediately understand that they are lying or hiding something from you. Notice the ‘crow-feet’ at the edge of the eyes; that’s where the secret lies!
» Focus on the Window to the Soul
Maintaining eye contact with your subject is very important and this you have been told many a time in the past, but you duly ignored it. The eyes are a sure bet on whether a person is lying or hiding something from you; well, the eyes are not simply called the windows to the soul. Notice the way the eyes move when the subject talks to you. When the person is lying/sad and is trying to hide this emotion from you, his/her eyeballs will constantly move from one corner to the other.
» Ah! The Wrath of the Gods!
How do you understand if you have angered someone? Observe the lips of the person in front of you; if something angers them, it will show with narrowing of the lips into a thin line. Besides, there will be a flash of intense glare in the eye, which will tell you to tread cautiously.
» Twitch twitch!
The slightest twitch should be your giveaway. To catch that microexpression, go with your instincts open; you will observe that twitch in the eye, in the lips and you know something’s amiss.

FrustrationBoredSadDesperationHappyDisappointmentContentmentMischievous

The only way to catch those microexpressions is to keep your eyes wide open. Besides, knowing how to read microexpressions will help you know if someone is lying to you. By the way, do not stop practicing your skills of micro-observing people around you; after all, practice will make you an expert ‘lie detector’ at least. Here’s where I sign off and get back to my favorite pastime of observing the people around me and leaving you to pursue it too.


Buzzle: Home & Lifestyle

Just How Super Is Tonight’s Supermoon?

Posted by on May 6, 2012 No comments

Audio for this story from All Things Considered will be available at approx. 7:00 p.m. ET

May 5, 2012

Astronomer Philip Plait tells host weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz the Supermoon you’ve been hearing all about actually isn’t that super.


Science

Military Brass Concerned About Discipline Breakdowns

Posted by on May 4, 2012 No comments
The Global War on Terror, if you will, has been going on for well over a decade, employing an all-volunteer force of mostly very young and very naive men and women. Those same young people, after brief and intense periods of training, are shipped off to active war zones to fight a faceless enemy that is often indistinguishable from the peaceful civilian population. The stress is enormous and the leadership on the ground is also composed of very young soldiers, with only slightly more experience and training.

When those factors are coupled with a general mission that is difficult to define, with gains seemingly impossible and every loss magnified, many young soldiers start to break down emotionally and psychologically. When those breaks occur, bad things happen. Recently, there have been a growing number of incidences of U.S. troops acting in ways that are in gross violation of any ethical or moral standard.

And whenever such incidents occur, they are almost immediately headline news events across the world. The problem U.S. military leaders face is that there is really no way to stop these incidents from occurring within the current structure of the ongoing War on Terror. Military conflict – human warfare – is an act that requires a purpose and a defined objective. The current circumstances don’t meet those requirements. And without those requirements, military conflict simply becomes a prolonged and unnatural state of constant angst and anguish, periodically interrupted by direct combat. In the current situation, even healthy, clear-thinking young people will break. And when they do, bad things will happen.


Buzzle: National & World News