The NIE Iran Report

Below is from The Israel Project.org. I subscribe to their email newsletter.

• The new U.S. intelligence report [pdf] makes U.S. intelligence look like an oxymoron. If Iran isn't working towards nuclear weapons, why does it continue to violate international laws and hide its program from nuclear inspectors? Why would Iranian leaders risk more economic sanctions if they don't have a weapons program? Wouldn't they allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to fully access their sites if they weren't pursuing nuclear weapons?
• Iran claims to have 3,000 working centrifuges. If they continue to operate successfully they will create enough fuel for a nuclear weapon in a year. Why, given that the president of Iran has said he wants to dominate the world, would we think Iran’s nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes?
• Iran has been identified as the world’s leading state sponsor of international terrorism, funding Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas, as well as Shiite insurgent groups. Iran is even recruiting its youth and students across the Middle East for suicide operations against Western targets.
• Religious extremism, particularly Islamic fundamentalism, is one of the key dangers in the world today. The Iranian president is a religious extremist who believes that it is his destiny to trigger a period of chaos, war and bloodshed in order for Islam to dominate the world.
• Nuclear proliferation is one of the greatest dangers to world peace. We must act to stop Iran before it can develop nuclear technology, because the Iranian president has said that he would share nuclear technology with like-minded Muslim countries.
• The new NIE report is ambiguous, contradictory, and hardly reassuring, but it clearly states that the timeline for making a nuclear bomb has not changed.
• Most Western countries continue to offer strong support for using economic diplomacy with Iran, led by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
• The president of Iran believes he is creating an Islamic “superpower,” which will bring down the West, including the United States. He says that he will have hundreds of millions of Muslim “holy raiders” eager to become martyrs.
• The Iranian president calls the Holocaust a “myth” and frequently calls for the destruction of Israel. If we do not act, we run the risk of placating an extremist and making the same mistake we made with Hitler, which led to World War II and the deaths of millions.
• We must act now, using more economic diplomacy and greater economic pressure, to help prevent a war.

If there is one international intelligence agency I trust above all others it would the Israels. Why? Because Israel is sitting right next door to Iran, and Iranian leadership wants to see Israel become extinct. They have a invested interest to get the best intelligence about Iran's intentions. This is not to say Israel's intelligence agency is perfect--no intelligence agency is. The intelligence agencies of France, England, Germany, Russia, America and yes Israel thought Iraq had WMDs. This was because Saddam Hussein bluffed countries into thinking he had them in order to bluff Iran. Even Saddam Hussein's top generals believed he had WMDs.

FYI: The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is made up of 16 intelligence agencies of America. The keyword here is estimate.

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 9

• If Satan had tempted politicians with ultimate power, not only would they take the offer but ask how soon could they get it.
• I think Jesus and Buddha would have been good friends.
• Instead of having Congress' wages increasing automatically why not have their wages freeze and have the troops' salary increase automatically.
• If socialists want a universal health care system why don't they create a fund themselves for people they think deserve health insurance. They can put their own money in it and run it as they see fit. I don't see any socialist doing this.
• I would think AARP would be in favor of global warming. After all the elderly have a low tolerance of cold weather. Why isn't AARP supporting global warming?
• I wonder if there is a self-help group for people addicted to self-help groups?
• To say the earth is warming, is the equivalent of saying you have a fever to a doctor. If that is all you say, he will ask you what other symptoms do you have, what did you do before the fever, etc. Global warming could be caused by many factors.
• If you want to tick off a liberal/socialist/communist take away their power.
• I was disappointed that the Rosetta Stone software did not have the language of Aramaic in it.
• Computer tip: Don't make a shortcut point to another shortcut; make it point to the actual program, file, or folder. If the intermeditory shortcut gets corrupted or accidentally deleted then the first shortcut points to nothing.

How Earmarks Work

Earmarks: A four-step program for cash-hungry politicians:

1. A business or local government agency hires a lobbyist and pays him/her a fee. According to Open Secrets.org the top five donors are:

   American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees	$38,673,449
   AT&T Inc	$38,076,096
   National Association of Realtors	$30,873,798
   National Education Association	$27,267,750
   American Association for Justice	$27,117,606

2. The lobbyist donates money to a congressman's campaign war chest. Nine Republican Senators (3 are out of office now) & 8 Democratic Senators each received at least $500,000 from lobbyists. In the House: 11 Republicans and 6 Democrats a piece received at least $500,000 from lobbyists
3. The congressman earmarks cash the business or gov't agency wants.
4. The business gives the congressman campaign contributions.
5. Go back to Step 3.

Source: Outrage (2007) by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann.

All parties involved in the transactions above are happy except the taxpayer. You cannot really outlaw lobbyists because that would violate the first amendment. Although lobbyists from other countries should probably be outlawed because they are really looking out for their countries best interest--not necessarily America's best interest. To limit earmarks you have to have line item veto for the president or just ban riders. The first option would be the easiest. I don't see Congress banning riders in the near future though. Also, the authors suggest letting the president impound appropriations. Another good idea. By the way the American Association for Justice used to be called the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. Why the name change guys?

One final note, The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste has a earmark reform pledge that it wants the Congress to sign.

Liberal Football

This is my idea of football if liberals ran the game:

1. There would be no score keeping because we don't want the loser I mean the losing team to feel bad.
2. If the score was kept track of then the most winning team would be handicapped by not being allowed field goals or limiting the number of timeouts. The non-handicapped team could be given a lot of timeouts.
3. You cannot name your team after a weapon or any thing that seems violent. You are better off sticking with name like roses, daffodils, etc.
4. There would be a quota for non-athletic players. For example receivers who aren't very good at catching the football or quarterbacks who are not very good throwing the football.
5. Coaches cannot yell at their players. It might hurt their feelings.
6. If the game is close by 1-4 points the losing team can ask to see all the replays to make sure the other team was not cheating or to make sure the referees were doing there job.
7. If the game ends in a tie, this a good thing because everyone wins. No need to go into overtime. Overtime causes too much stress.
8. No praying by the coaching staff or football players before the start of the game as this violates the separation of church and football and will make the ACLU angry.
9. If a football player makes a touchdown and then dances in the end zone to celebrate, he could be kicked out of the rest of the game. Dancing can hurt the feelings of the opponent's fans or the opponent's feelings themselves.
10. Fans can not boo anyone.
11. Only vegetarian food and/or low-fat foods are served at the game. We want to keep the fans healthy.
12. You cannot be proud of your team or feel it is exceptional. After all your team is no better than any other team. No waving of team flags will be allowed or anything else that might make it seem you are proud of your team.
13. If a someone enters a stadium without buying a ticket he is allowed to stay and can be escorted to a good seat. This is called the "open stadium" policy. Anyone can enter any football stadium during a game without a ticket.
14. Tackles would be disallowed because someone might get seriously injured. Instead touch or flag football would replace tackle football.
15. If the points spread is 20 or more then the team ahead has to share at least 10 points with the other team so the team behind has a fair chance to win. This is called "points justice" or "score justice."

That's all I can think of for now.

Tasermania

Here are my thoughts on tasers. I should say in full disclosure I do not own a taser. Note: This is only for entertainment purposes only except maybe the first thought.

• I believe interrogators should be able to tase terrorist suspects.
• American people should have the right to own tasers. The Constitution should be amended to allow this right.
• Not only parents should be able to spank naughty children but should be able to tase them too--although the taser's power should be lowered.
• Taser football anyone? Instead of tackling players the defense would tase the offense.

Trivia: Taser is an acronym for Thomas A. Swift's Electric Rifle.

Evolution is Deterministic

ScienceDaily (2007-11-19) -- Biologists have concluded that developmental evolution is deterministic and orderly, rather than random, based on a study of different species of roundworms. The researchers note that even where we might expect evolution to be random, it is not. [...]

Well, if roundworm evolution is deterministic then how about other animal evolution? I mean natural selection is natural selection.This finding in a way gives a boost to the Intelligent Design theory.

I can understand why evolutionary biologists would say that evolution is random. Randomness is the easiest assumption to make. Randomness does not need any explanation. A mutation just happened. It could be caused by when DNA failed to copy correctly or it could be caused by external factors. Take your pick: Chemicals, cosmic rays, UV rays, etc. We (the scientists) just don't know. But to say it is deterministic, you are hinting at a designer or something guiding the evolution. Now you are venturing into philosophy which is not part of the scientific methodology.

Four Rules for Republicans

These four rules comes from Bernard Goldberg's 2007 book Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right. My comments are in brackets.
One, you can never outspend Democrats. Never. It is mathematically impossible. Like trying to reach infinity, it cannot be done. [True. I think one of the reasons the Dems got back into Congress is because the voters thought well, if you are going to have a spending Congressmen you might as well have the ones who do it professionally. The bad thing was the voters forgot about the Dems loving to tax as much as they love to spend. Oops!]
Two, you can never out-compassion Democrats. They own the issue. [The Dems like to think they own the issue and the main stream media try to convince the viewers and readers that this is the case. The media likes to show the Republicans (especially the Conservatives) as oppressors. Conservatives are environmental polluters, won't feed the poor, and won't give health insurance to children. I could go on, but I won't. You get the point. But is it compassionate to try to make people dependent on the government? I never really did like the term "compassionate conservative." If you don't call yourself a compassionate conservative does that mean you are not one? (Not that I am saying President Bush isn't compassionate, just why do it at all.) If you are one then why do you need to call yourself that? Just be compassionate. It seems kind of alienating to me to label yourself that.]
Three, no matter how much money Republicans throw at the voters in an attempt to make over their image, it will never be enough. The liberal media simply won't let it happen. [The Democrats in Congress and the liberal media are basically share the same ideology, so the negatives of the Dems will not be reported (unless the negative is really bad and has to be reported or the media is fearful of losing their credibility) or the negatives will be put in a positive light. Reverse this for the Republicans.]
Finally, Republicans who try to repeal rules #1, 2, and/or 3 above will succeed only in losing an important constituency---fiscal conservatives, who will instantly see the cynical game they're playing and despise them for it. [Conservative Republicans will be better in the long run if they are honest, optimistic, and talk about conservative beliefs. They don't even have to use the word "conservatism." Non-political savvy voters won't know what the word means. This is exactly what Ronald Reagan did. They also have to learn to get their views out and be passionate about it. Drop the elitism, have faith in the American people and definitely look out for the national sovereignty of the country. Forget about the liberal media being your friend. They never will be. Go around the media and get your message out.]
All these rules are good rules to live by for Conservative Republicans.

LAPD's Muslim Plan Facing Criticism

The liberal Democrats have a habit of calling anyone who profiles militant Jihadists a racist. Take for instance the LAPD. I just seen on The O'Reilly Factor yesterday that the LAPD is being criticized for asking young Muslims to report on any extremist Imans in their Mosque. The critics call this profiling. Possibly, but this is what the FBI does all the time when they try to define a serial killer. I think what the LAPD is doing is a good idea and that all police forces should be doing this. How is this any different than the police asking for people in a neighbor to report any drug gangs in the area to them? It's not. Even if the gang would be Hispanic or black I still believe it would not be profiling. In my opinion, it is not profiling if the group is illegal or is involved in terrorist activities.

If a moderate American Muslim cares about his Mosque and his Muslim community I would think he would want to tell someone about his extremist Imam. Especially if that Imam is talking about illegal activities and wanting to undermine the Constitution. Yes, I know this is hard to do, but he/she can do it anonymously.

What Increases & Decreases Crime

What increases crime? According to the book Freedomnomics (2007) by John R. Lott, Jr., Ph. D. it is:

• Legalized abortion. An unmarried woman becomes pregnant. Her partner who feels he has been tricked doesn't want the baby and expects her to have an abortion because it is legalized. She does not want to have an abortion for whatever reason. He leaves her to take care of the baby alone.
• Affirmative action hiring in the police force. The police force lowers testing standards for new recruits so its population matches the demographic ratio of the surrounding community. It lowers testing standards by replacing cognitive or intelligence exams with more nebulous psychological tests that aim to gauge a candidate's temperament. Also, the police force implements affirmative action programs by assigning different standards to different groups of candidates in order to ensure similar pass rates.

What decreases crime?

• The death penalty. The author lists nine independent publications that support this position. Three independent publications say it has no effect either way. No publication says it increases crime.
• Police arresting criminals.
• Right-to-carry laws. The author found that significant evidence that criminals move out of areas where concealed handguns are legalized. Fifteen journal publications say that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime. Ten publications say the laws have no effect either way. No publication say it increases violent crime according to the book.

Random-Access Warehouses

From Technology Review.com:

A company called Kiva Systems is speeding up Internet orders with robotic systems that are modeled on random-access computer memory.

Kiva Systems' CEO and founder, Mick Mountz, likens the system to random-access memory chips. The warehouse is arranged in a memory-chip-like grid composed of rows and columns of freestanding shelves. The grid gives robots access to any product in the warehouse at any time. The robots serve two basic functions. First, they deliver empty warehouse shelving units to workers who stock them. The workers might stock one unit with a mix of paper, various types of pens, and computer software, all compiled from large pallets that had been delivered to the warehouse. Then, when a consumer submits an order, robots deliver the relevant shelving units to workers who pack the requested items in a box and ship them off. "We turn the whole building into a random-access, dynamic storage and retrieval system," Mountz says. [...]

Luke's Binoculars

From Wired.com:

U.S. Special Forces may soon have a strange and powerful new weapon in their arsenal: a pair of high-tech binoculars 10 times more powerful than anything available today, augmented by an alerting system that literally taps the wearer's prefrontal cortex to warn of furtive threats detected by the soldier's subconscious.

In a new effort dubbed "Luke's Binoculars" -- after the high-tech binoculars Luke Skywalker uses in Star Wars -- the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is setting out to create its own version of this science-fiction hardware. And while the Pentagon's R&D arm often focuses on technologies 20 years out, this new effort is dramatically different -- DARPA says it expects to have prototypes in the hands of soldiers in three years. [...]

If this technology ever gets developed, the secret service could use it to protect the president and personal body guards could use it to protect their clients. Or even airline security could use it to prevent terrorists from boarding planes.

Questioning Interrogation

From National Review.com is an interesting article by Deroy Murdock. In it he talks about how the prisoners at Club Gitmo (Guantanamo Bay) are being treated and that President Bush should fight back against allegations of prisoner torture. According to his article this is how we are torturing them:

• Guantanamo’s library offers detainees such soothing titles as John A. Day’s The Book of Clouds, Pete Carmichael’s The World’s Most Beautiful Seashells, and Tony Sweet’s Fine Art Flower Photography.
• Detainees’ Islamically correct meals include fruits and nuts shipped from their home countries during special events.
• Atop taxpayer-funded [italics added] prayer mats, prayer-bead-wearing detainees hear the call to prayer five times daily. That’s when everything at Gitmo stops — including interrogations — so these Muslim fanatics can face Mecca. That’s easy: They follow the large, northeasterly arrows painted on the floor.

Oh, man when will the agony for these souls end? This torture must stop immediately! I agree that the president cannot let the press set his War on Terror agenda--they are definitely not his friend. Oh, by the way, water boarding is not physical torture--maybe psychological--but not physical torture in my humble opinion.

British Army Tests Invisible Tank

From Ananova.com:

The Army is reportedly testing secret technology which makes tanks and troops invisible.

The Ministry of Defence revealed they made a vehicle seem to completely disappear in trials last week.

The breakthrough uses cameras and projectors to beam images captured from the surrounding landscape on to a specially-adapted tank coated with silicon to maximise their reflective qualities.

Fascinating. For more invisibility technology read my Cloaking Technology blog.

Happy Halloween!

Isn't that a cool looking pumpkin carving? I believe that pumpkin came from the web site Extreme Pumpkins.com. Anyway, I saw it on the web site under the title "They Eat Their Own." If you want to look at other cool pumpkin carvings go to Pumpkin Gutter.com. Scott Cummins, the carver, does a pretty good job of carving.

Now, to the creepy. If you want to hear some good electronic voice phenomena go to South Jersey Paranormal Research web site. Especially, listen to the "Horn blaring...halt company!" one. It's loud and clear!

In the 1970s, a psychical research group "invented" a spirit named Philip. To their astonishment, Philip actually made contact with them. You can read more about this experience in the "How To Create a Ghost" article. Real ghost or not? What happened with this research group might explain some seances that are not deliberate scams. Seances should not be done anyway, in my opinion, because you never know what you will conjure up.

Creating a Label Cloud

To create the Label Cloud on the left go to Setup and configuration for New Blogger Tag Cloud / Label Cloud and follow the instructions exactly. Creating the cloud looks overwhelming but it isn't if you follow the author's instructions. The author (phydeux3) did a good job with the code and instructions for placing the code in the template. The label cloud would be a good widget for Google to add to the page elements.

The Hunt Doctrine

Below is a list of what U.S. Army Colonel (Ret.) David Hunt in his 2007 book On The Hunt. How to Wake Up Washington and Win The War on Terror thinks is the best way to run the war on terror:

• No soldier shall ever use, fly in, sit on, or ride in any vehicle or weapon that is older than he is.
• Only competent--that means proven competent--combat leaders get to lead soldiers in combat.
• When you are in an fight. . . kill them all.
• Never ask permission in combat.
• Never commit a soldier to combat you are not willing and capable of supporting 100 percent with everything he needs.
• Never give an order or mission you are not willing to do yourself.
• Always go with your men into the fight.
• As long as you care only about your soldiers and the mission, you can do anything.
• Once committed, the government tells only the truth to the American people when soldiers are in combat.
• Admit when you are wrong.
• It's intelligence, stupid; without it you die.
• The Air Force never runs a war.
• Never care who gets credit, just get it done.
• Love your soldiers enough to hurt them in training.
• Make training harder than combat.
• Make people do their jobs.
• When our troops f-ck up, punish and move on.
• Hold the highest accountable, just like the lowest.
• Keeping the peace is always harder than winning the war.
• When the order is stupid, say so, and don’t obey it.
• Your boss is only your boss; he is not always right.
• Administrative courage (standing up to the boss, telling the truth to the powerful) is more difficult than physical courage.

Most of doctrine is just common sense. He is referring to military commanders and the defense secretary mostly. A person in a blog said he disagreed with the first point. He said there are "B-52s in service now that are over 40 years old, but they’ve been retrofitted with new electronics and other gear and they’re perfectly good to use for dropping tons of bombs or missiles on bad guys." Disobeying stupid orders does sound like good advice, but first you have to recognize a stupid order. If you are in a combat situation you better be sure the order is stupid or not before you disobey it. It's a matter of having faith in your commander that he can do the job.

In his book, the Colonel says we should have shot the looters in Iraq in the beginning. Then put a sign in Arabic that says "American troops will shoot looters." A good idea, but the American press would have put headlines saying "American troops are murdering civilians." Then again the military commanders including the president has to ignore what the press reports on the war. Just win the war. Col. Hunt also said it was a dumb idea to disband the Iraqi army and the entire police force in the beginning. Yea, probably not a good idea. They could have gotten the looters under control and gave stability to the country.

This is very good book that every person in Congress and every presidential candidate should read. We (America and the Western world) have to get serious about this war because the militant jihadists are deadly serious about it.

Democrats Smear a Private Citizen

You see the list of forty-one names listed below? They are all senators from the Democrat party that smeared a private citizen. The names in bold print are presidential candidates.

Harry Reid	Hillary Rodham Clinton	Blanche Lincoln
Richard Durbin	Kent Conrad	Bob Menendez
Charles Schumer	Christopher Dodd	Barbara Mikulski
Patty Murray	Byron Dorgan	Bill Nelson
Daniel Akaka	Dianne Feinstein	Barack Obama
Max Baucus	Tom Harkin	Jack Reed
Joseph Biden	Daniel Inouye	Jay Rockefeller
Barbara Boxer	Edward M. Kennedy	Ken Salazar
Sherrod Brown	John Kerry	Bernie Sanders
Robert Byrd	Amy Klobuchar	Debbie Stabenow
Benjamin Cardin	Mary Landrieu	Jon Tester
Tom Carper	Frank Lautenberg	Jim Webb
Bob Casey	Patrick Leahy	Sheldon Whitehouse
Carl Levin	Ron Wyden

The people above signed a letter smearing Rush Limbaugh for comments he never said on his radio show and then sent it to his business partner. His business partner then rightly so ignored the letter and gave it to Rush who then sold it on Ebay for $2,100,100.00 to philanthropist Betty Casey. She was the highest bidder of 213 bids. All the proceeds of the sale went to the Marine Corps -- Law Enforcement Foundation. They give kids of Marines and law enforcement officers who were killed in the line of duty college scholarships. Rush Limbaugh even wrote a check matching the proceeds and gave it to the foundation. I think that is pretty decent of him.

You may think that Rush Limbaugh is a big boy and can defend himself. You are right and he did set the smear straight. But here is why I am writing this entry. No matter what you think of Rush Limbaugh, he is a private citizen like you and I. He does not hold an elected office. If this can happen to him it could happen to anyone that those in Congress or even in the White House deem a threat. That is why America has the Bill of Rights. America's founding fathers knew that a Bill of Rights protects the citizens from a potentially corrupt government. If these Bill of Rights were not in place who knows what those senators might have done. Other countries have done worse things. Rush Limbaugh has a radio show in which he can get his point of view across to a large audience. But what if the powers-that-be go after the little guy? What defense does he have?

I wish instead of condemning private citizens these politicians same would go after Bin Laden or other terrorists with the same zeal. But you don't see that much.

These 41 senators could have checked the transcript of what Rush Limbaugh really said on his web site. Or they could have had their staff check it, but they either did not care or were too lazy to do it. They just believed what a personal attack web site said on face value. I heard what Rush said. Why could not they verify it? I wonder how many other stuff they believe without verifying. After all that is why Congress sits next to the Library of Congress. So, they can do research on topics. It contains almost every book and magazine published.

Here is my wish. I wish that those 41 senators get kicked out of office and I wish those senators in bold face never get elected president. Any Republican running against these senators would be wise to bring up what they did to Rush in their political ads.

Atmospheric Vortex Engine

The Atmospheric Vortex Engine (AVE) is a process for capturing the energy produced when heat is carried upward by convection in the atmosphere. The process is protected by patent applications and could become a major source of electrical energy. The unit cost of electrical energy produced with an AVE could be half the cost of the next most economical alternative.

The design of this engine is really interesting. The design comes from a Canadian engineer named Louis Michaud. I first read of his ambitious design in the November 2007 issue of Popular Science. The article says theoretically the AVE should produce 100 megawatts of electricity.

The Anti-Christ and The New World Order

The Anti-Christ will assume power when he tricks both the socialists and the militant jihadists to support him. The anti-Christ will tell the world leaders that the Kyoto-Agreement must be signed to save the world from global warming and a New World Order has to be created to oversee the global warming crisis. The anti-Christ will tell the jihadists he is one of them and will install global sharia law. The anti-Christ may or may not install sharia law (possibly a hybrid of it) but there will be a horrible New World Order created with the anti-Christ as the world dictator.
What will the New World Order entail?

1. Elimination of private property ie Communism. Socialism is just Communism lite. The militant jihadists may not like this one. Islam respects private property.
2. Elimination of traditional governments and national sovereignty. This is what the New World Order is really about. Socialists think everyone should go everywhere in the world they want without passports or border checks. These are the so-called open border types. As long as the militant jihadist get world-wide sharia law they could care less about national sovereignty. Under sharia law there no separation of religion and state. Read: theocracy.
3. The elimination of traditional Judeo-Christian theism. The secular-progressives which a lot of socialists are think Christianity is the root cause of most problems in the world. The militant jihadists agree. They want to eliminate Judeo-Christian theism and replace it with their own theism.

There might be a clash between the socialists and militant jihadists but the anti-Christ will be able to control that and even use it toward his advantage.

Chinese Government Censoring Bloggers

China Censors Ratchet Up Web Monitoring from PhysOrg.com (AP) -- At first, Liu Xiaoyuan just fumed when his online journal postings disappeared with no explanation. Then he decided to do something few if any of China's censored bloggers had tried. He sued his service provider. [...]

Ladies and gentlemen this is what happens when government has total control of your life. They can censor your speech among other things. This is why America's founding fathers created the Bill of Rights for just this reason--to protect Americans from a potentially corrupt government. Keep in mind only government can truly censor--they are the only ones who make the laws. And people say President Bush is violating citizens privacy by listening to terrorist's conversations overseas to other terrorists. What the Chinese government is doing is far worse. America is not censoring any book that criticizes our government or our leader (and some anti-Bush books attack him on a personal level). I don't see this book being censored: Follow the money: how George W. Bush and the Texas Republicans hog-tied America (2007) by John Anderson (and no I haven't read this book). I wonder how many books in China criticize the Chinese government? Probably zero. Where are the civil rights people complaining about what the Chinese government is doing?

I just don't trust the Chinese government. After all it is still Communism. I wonder how long will it be when the government takes total control of the foreign businesses in China. Just because you have a little bit of capitalism in China does not mean China will change its form of government. First, you have to have democracy. Then capitalism will follow.

Terrorist Detecting Technology

Technology would help detect terrorists before they strike from PhysOrg.com
Are you a terrorist? Airport screeners, customs agents, police officers and members of the military who silently pose that question to people every day, may soon have much more than intuition to depend on to determine the answer.[...]

This is really interesting technology. It uses machine learning capabilities, which will allow it to “learn” from its subjects during the course of a 20-minute interview.

A Candidate Calculator

On the VAJoe.com web site I took the candidate calculator questionnaire which gauges how close you come to a presidential candidates stance on issues. Below is who I match closely with. I suggest the reader take the questionnaire too.

Mitt Romney (R)	89.66% match
Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo (R)	89.66% No amnesty for illegals.
Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson (R)	89.66% No amnesty for illegals, and no IRS.
Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (R)	86.21%
California Representative Duncan Hunter (R)	86.21%
Businessman John Cox (R)	72.41%
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R)	72.41%
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R)	72.41% Wants the FairTax.
Arizona Senator John McCain (R)	72.41%
Texas Representative Ron Paul (R)	62.07%
Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D)	34.48% Say what? This is Oprah's candidate.
Delaware Senator Joseph Biden (D)	31.03%
New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D)	31.03% Egad, no!
Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd (D)	31.03%
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D)	31.03%
Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (D)	24.14%
Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel (D)	13.79%
Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich (D)	6.90%

John Cox calls himself a Progressive Conservative. He believes in "solutions that use the free markets, competition and the human drive to solve problems that government cannot." He is a CPA and investment specialist. On issues he is pro-life, fiscal conservative (original member of the Club for Growth), wants a strong military, and is in favor of the FairTax. Nothing specific about the War on Terror.

Ron Paul is not bad. He wants to get rid of the IRS too like Fred Thompson and is for home schooling. He's naive about the War on Terror though.

Drawing While Asleep

From Ananova.com, a man can only draw when he is asleep not when he is awake. Lee Hadwin, 33, of Henllan, North Wales says he has been filmed doing this.

Well, it is good to know there is someone out there who is productively using his sleep unlike those run-of-the-mill sleepwalkers, sleep talkers, and snorers. I wonder if there are people who are singing (Perry Coma does not count. He just puts people to sleep) sculpting, dancing, or playing a musical instrument in their sleep but cannot do it when they are awake.

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 8

• Be nice to people and treat them with respect because you never know if you will run into them in the afterlife.
• I wonder if those who are for open borders will let complete strangers trespass on their property.
• It is harder to use reason than to react emotionally.
• Imagination allows a person to examine nuances of a situation or possible future outcomes.
• Since cloud cover decreases global warming maybe scientists should come up with a way to have the whole earth covered with non-precipitates clouds. Just a thought.
• If you are going to be uploading minds to computers you better be sure they are shielded against EMF pulses.
• If criminals gave themselves up to the police and admitted their wrong doing then defense attorneys would be unemployed.
• If guns kill people then what killed people before guns?
• Randomness is sometimes mistaken for complexity.
• Saying you support the troops and not the mission is like saying you love the sinner but not the sin. The troops and their mission are inseparable. You are just playing word games.

A Global Warming Conspiracy

Those 9/11 conspiracies are not only ridiculous but they are boring too! Where's the imagination and the creativity? Don't those conspiracy nuts read novels? Here's my own conspiracy about global warming. Note: This only for entertainment purposes.

Global warming is caused by extra-terrestrials. Why? Because they want to invade the earth and take it over. They have to have it warm enough so they can survive. Right now it is just too cool for them. Some of them are already here getting the global "heating" process started. Al Gore is one of them--or I should say one of the aliens is pretending to be Al Gore. I don't know what happened to the real Al Gore. Think about it. In the 1990's there was no talk about global warming and Al Gore was thin. Now we are talking about global warming in 2000's and Al Gore is fat.

I have no idea if the aliens are the gray ones, the pink ones, or the polka-dot ones.

Right now you are thinking: "But Al Gore is trying to prevent global warming." That's what he says, and yet he lives in a big house. Plus, Al Gore saying he's against global warming draws attention away from him and his alien buddies real plan: global conquest. Anyway, that's my theory. You've been warned. Have a nice day.

Computer Advice: Don't Use Shift-Delete Hotkey

Or at least don't get into the habit of using it. If you happen to select by accident a file or folder you did not wanted deleted (like a system file), it is gone for good. It is better to drag-and-drop the item into the recycle bin or press the delete key. What I do is have a free housekeeping program like Empty Temp Folders empty the recycle bin at startup. This program can also the empty cache and other folders too at startup.

HillaryCare's Worst Features

From Cato.org is a scholar that sums of Hillary Clinton's health care proposal's worst features:

• An individual mandate. Sen. Clinton would require every American to purchase health insurance or face penalties. There are many problems with such a mandate. It restricts individual choice and liberty. It will require a massive new bureaucracy to enforce. And it sets in motion a whole series of regulatory requirements that will ultimately lead to greater government control of our health care.

• An employer mandate. Sen. Clinton would impose a “play or pay “ mandate on American businesses, requiring them to provide workers with health insurance or pay an additional tax into a government insurance fund. Such a mandate simply increases the cost of hiring workers, meaning employers will inevitably hire fewer workers. Some may even be forced to layoff current employees and others will offset their costs by reducing wages or wage increases.

• Expanding government programs. Sen. Clinton would expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to provide benefits for middle-class families. Yet studies show that many of those who would be covered by such an expansion already have private health insurance. Thus, Sen. Clinton would simply be moving people from private insurance to taxpayer-funded government care. She would also allow people under age 65 to “buy-in” to Medicare despite the fact that the program is already facing a financial crisis.

• Insurance regulation. Senator Clinton would require insurance companies to accept all applicants regardless of their health, and would impose “community rating” on health insurance premiums. As a result the young and healthy will be forced to pay more in order to subsidize the older and sicker. And those who practice healthy lifestyles will pay more to subsidize the irresponsible.

This is a scary program. If you don't like waiting at the DMV for renewing your driver's licence how would like to wait weeks in line for a dentist in pain just to get a cavity filled? Something to think about. Also, Hillary Clinton said she would leave it up to Congress to fill in the details of her plan. You know who is the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee that would oversee her plan? None other than Senator Ted Kennedy. That's who. Something else to think about. In summary her plan (or any Universal Health Care plan for that matter) would lead to long lines, overworked good doctors and nurses, poor doctors still getting paid, and shortages of medical equipment and medical staff.

10 Questions About Militant Jihadism

On Counterterrorism Blog.org, Walid Phares poses ten questions below in bold face about the war on terror he says should be answered. My answers are next to the bold face questions.

1. Do the Jihadists wish to destroy the enemy (the free world) or absorb it? To destroy the free world. Actually, here is the infidels choices: Convert, be a slave, or die.
2. Do they want to attack the West and the United States before they accomplish their goals in the Muslim world first? A crucial question, leading to many others. Not easy to answer. I say since they don't want Iraq to become stabilized and democratic they would try to make chaos as much as possible in Iraq like they are doing now so it does not become a buffer against Jihadism. Iraq is the central battleground right now for the Jihadist.
3. Will it be possible to conclude peace with the Jihadists? What would doing so entail? Definitely not. The only way to make peace with the Jihadists is to become a fundamentalist Muslim like they are.
4. What are al Qaeda’s priorities in the struggle against the United States? To have the US military cut-and-run from Iraq so they can say we are a "paper tiger" as Bin Laden put it. The way to do this is have the American people turn against the military or put pressure on Congress to have the military withdraw immediately. That is probably number one priority. Also, to have the US not support Israel anymore. Finally, to have the US reject democracy and embrace Sharia law.
5. What weaknesses and holes do the Jihadists see in America and the West, and how would they use them? Democracy. What they perceive as our relaxed morals and open society. They would try infiltrate governments to influence law. They would also try to intimidate the western world in not criticizing Jihadists (calling people who condemn Jihadists, Islamphobes).They would have Mosques whose Imam spout out anti-American rhetoric and call for a Holy War against the infidels (ie America and the Western world). Also, they would attempt to gain support with other fundamentalists around the world by having the US citizens attack their fellow Muslim citizens. If people in the US started randomly attacking innocent Muslims (I hope this does not happen) then the Jihadists could use this as a justification for their Holy War. This internal chaos could be accomplished by attacking our schools like the extremists did in Russia. Conservative Glenn Beck on his TV show thinks this is a real possibility. He calls it the "Perfect Day." Also, the border, ports, malls, and stadiums could be used weaknesses if they are not protected.
6. Are the governments in the United States and other western nations ready for these future wars? Sadly, I don't think so. It's like WW II when Hitler started invading countries. Before that time everyone except Winston Churchill thought he was just a nut and did not take him seriously. For the Jihadists this is Holy War. They have no doubt what their mission is--global Sharia law. The Jihadists also are willing to die for that mission.
7. What would the next generations of Americans, today’s children and youths, have to face in these wars? Bloodshed and violence if there are acts of terrorism in our country.
8. What should the United States and the West do to avoid future jihads? Convince the modern and traditional Muslims to take a stand against the Jihadists around the world. The un-radical Muslims The US and the West must show strength and resolve and be united against the Jihadists. Let them know loud and clear that they and their ideology is not going to win. Keep monitoring communication between Jihadists abroad and on the homeland. The gov't of the Western world has to support and protect any astute citizen reporting any suspicious behavior or packages. The press can help here too by not calling people Islamophobes and reporting successes the US military has against Jihadism and encouraging mindfulness behavior in their readers and viewers. The press can also do more stories on how the Islamofascists are oppressing people. We are all in it together. I don't care about "war fatigue." The only people that have war fatigue is the soldiers and their family and close friends. You think the Jihadists have war fatigue? I seriously doubt it.
9. Why wasn’t it already done in the past? The West and the US did not recognize the threat even though Jihadism has been around a long time since the time of the Knights of Templar. Islam was not really understood back then and still is not really today. Also, Communism and before that Nazism were the threats at that time. 9-11 happened because the US could not imagine the unimaginable. We thought we were protected by an ocean. Not anymore. The US and the Western world has to think imaginatively and realistically of ways a Jihadist can attack us and do something to prevent it. For example, could the Jihadists go underground a city and blow it up? There are a lot of cities around the world who have underground caverns. Just watch a few episodes of Cities of the Underworld on the History Channel. Are these being protected? Also, a Jihadist could set off a EMF bomb that just fries electronics. That in itself could make a city grind to a halt.
10. Are the Jihadists alone, or do they have the backing of other powers and states? They are not alone. They are being supported by countries that if not endorse what they do but sympathize with their cause. Like Iran, Syria, some say Saudi Arabia, etc.

Leaders and future leaders of the world should ponder seriously these ten questions. The threat is not going to go away on its own.

Rudy Giuliani's 12 Commitments

Since I believe that Rudy Giuliani will be the presidential Republican nominee in 2008 election and possibly the president I am going to analyze his twelve commitments he has on his web site. I am neutral when it comes to Rudy Giuliani. Now, to his commitments.

1. I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists' War on Us.
2. I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.
3. I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.
4. I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.
5. I will impose accountability on Washington.
6. I will lead America towards energy independence.
7. I will give Americans more control over and access to health care with affordable and portable free-market solutions.
8. I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.
9. I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.
10. I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
11. I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.
12. I will expand America's involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.

He did not elaborate on commitments 1, 5, and 11. I don't know if will elaborate on them in the future or leave it like it is. I think he should elaborate more on those. I am glad he is going to be on the offense in the war on terror. But how? What about Iran? He says he will impose accountability on Washington. What kind of accountability? Fiscal? Could be he says he is a fiscal conservative. Or how about having Congress keep its promises to the voters? He should also expand on what does he mean by school choice. At first glimpse this might seem self-explanatory but I wonder if he is including home schooling in that choice. I hope he does. During his term as mayor he said he created a Charter School Fund.
All in all not a bad platform. Some of the ideas could be fleshed out a little more. At least he is disclosing what he wants to do. I give him credit for that. Politicians who don't spell out their platform are just cowards. They are afraid some one (like a political opponent or a voter) will find flaws in it or make them accountable to it. Well, that is the name of the game. This is a democracy not a monarchy. Say what your platform is then defend it if you have to. A presidential candidate is not appointed by God; she has to be elected. Convince me you are the best candidate. Lecture over. Back to the mayor.
I don't think if the mayor is going to be elected president he will be able to get all twelve commitments done in the first term. If he is lucky enough to be elected again, he might get all of them done. If I were him I would start prioritizing them. Here is how I would rank them according to importance from most to least: 1), 2), 10), 4), 5), 3), 9), 6), 11), 8), 7), 12). The reader may of course rank them differently.

Hydrogen From Salt Water

From Bierbart.com:

An Erie [Pennsylvania] cancer researcher has found a way to burn salt water, a novel invention that is being touted by one chemist as the "most remarkable" water science discovery in a century.

This accidental discovery happened when he tried to "desalinate seawater with a radio-frequency generator he developed to treat cancer." According to the article, as long as the salt water was exposed to radio frequencies it would burn. The hydrogen is released when the radio frequencies weaken the bonds between the elements that make up salt water. Scientists are wondering if this burning hydrogen has enough energy to power a car or other heavy machinery. I hope so. 97% of water on the earth is salt water. I don't think we will run out of salt water soon.

This discovery illustrates two points: 1) Solutions come from unlikely places. 2) Scientific knowledge will always increase probably forever. It is arrogance to think that mankind will completely understand the world around us.

Destroying Bin Laden's Image

It does not seem that the reward for Osama (or is it Usama?--I never know anymore) Bin Laden is not working. No-one is going to take the reward and turn him in especially those that are harboring him. Mainly because money is not the primary reason for militant Jihadism. True, the Jihadists need it for financing terror but only for that. Also, Bin Laden (the bastard) is treated as an icon by his followers. If the US or one of its allies kills Bin Laden (the evil sadistic goat fornicator) he will be elevated to martyr status. Although if he was killed I would not shed one tear. The other way is to capture the jackass. I don't see that happening soon. The only reasonable way to do that is by special forces under the cover of night. But first, you have to find him. There is a third way of dealing with Bin Laden. And that is by having his own followers or the people harboring him, kill him.

What has to happen is his image has to be destroyed. He has to be seen as a non-Muslim or at least not as a militant Jihadist. The way to do this is to show him breaking Muslim taboos.

First you find a look-alike Bin Laden. Then you have this look-alike in a video petting a black dog for instance and holding a glass of wine in the other hand. In Islam, dogs especially black dogs are treated as impure. No Muslim, especially a fundamentalist, would pet a dog. In the Hadith, the angel Gabriel could not enter Mohammed's house because there was dog in front of it. That to me seems strange. An angel being harassed by a dog? And liquor of any kind is forbidden in Muslim society. Of course, this video would seem innocuous to every viewer other than to the fundamentalists. Other ideas would be to have the fake Bin Laden wear a tattoo (another taboo because it is evil) of the Star of David (that would really tick off his followers--although that might be a stretch for his followers to believe), and have a painting (believe it or not paintings are taboo even though Saddam Hussein had them in his palace) let's say of a synagogue on a wall in the background. You can even have the fake Bin Laden play a guitar (yes, another taboo--actually any string instrument is a taboo), and sing a country song. In the background in the video you could have a woman's voice yell out in Arabian: "Osama, are you still filming that stupid video? Come here immediately and help clean up your mess!" Then the Bin Laden would say meekly: "Yes, dear. In a moment." The possibilities could be endless in ways to make Bin Laden look bad. Hopefully, the fundamentalists would get so mad that would turn on him and possibly kill him. Like the Germans tried to do to Hitler during WW II. I say, destroy Bin Laden's image, you destroy him.

What I have just described could be done easily by the military. The technical term for it is psy-ops (psychology operations). The video could be given to Al Jazeera so all the Islamic world can see it. The military could even have an expert come out and analyse the video and point out the taboos. I am just thinking outside the box. The question is how long would it take for the New York Times to expose this operation? (Gee, I hope I did not expose it if the US military is already thinking this!)

Edits in The Bin Laden Videotape

An interesting article from News.com about the latest Bin Laden's videotape. It's interesting from a digital image forensic view point. Neal Krawetz is the digital image forensic specialist.

At roughly a minute and a half into the video there is a splice; bin Laden shifts from looking at the camera to looking down in less than 1/25th of a second. At 13:13 there is a second, less obvious splice. In all, Krawetz says there are at least six splices in the video. Of these, there are only two live bin Laden segments, the rest of the video composed of still images. The first live section opens the video and ends at 1:56. The second section begins at 12:29 and continues until 14:01. The two live sections appear to be from different recordings "because the desk is closer to the camera in the second section."

Then there are the audio edits. Krawetz says "the new audio has no accompanying 'live' video and consists of multiple audio recordings." References to current events are made only during the still frame sections and after splices within the audio track." And there are so many splices that I cannot help but wonder if someone spliced words and phrases together. I also cannot rule out a vocal imitator during the frozen-frame audio. The only way to prove that the audio is really bin Laden is to see him talking in the video," Krawetz says.

It's funny how much the TV press comment on Bin Laden dying his beard black. Yes, it's different but is that really important? I don't think so.

Test Scores and Parenting

Here are some interesting education correlations from the Freakonomics (2005) book by Steven D. Levitt and Shephen J. Dubner. If you don't know what a correlation is it indicates a relation between two sets of values. A correlation does not state what the relationship is though. For example, if A factor goes up and B factor goes down at the same time, you don't know if A is influencing B or if B is influencing A or if it is just a coincidence between the two factors. Anyway, here are the factors the two authors found influencing a child having high test scores.

1. The child has highly educated parents.
2. The child's parents have high socioeconomic status.
3. The child's mother was thirty or older at the time of her first child's birth.
4. The child had low birth weight.
5. The child's parents speak English in the home.
6. The child is not adopted.
7. The child's parents are involved in the PTA.
8. The child has many books in his home.

Here are the factors that don't influence high test scores:

1. The child's family is intact.
2. The child's parents recently moved into a better neighborhood.
3. The child's mother didn't work between birth and kindergarten.
4. The child attended Head Start.
5. The child's parents regularly take him to museums.
6. The child is regular spanked.
7. The child frequently watches television.
8. The child's parents read to him nearly every day.

Keep in mind all these factors are about test scores, not morality, having friends, going to jail, etc. In the factors that are strongly correlated with test scores 1), 2), 5), 7) make sense to me. If you're parents are highly educated (possibly this is because of good genes), well off financially (can send their kids to good schools--possibly private schools), speak English (tells the kids communicating in the dominate language is important), and are involved in the PTA (the parents are keeping tabs on how the kids are doing in school) the child will probably do well on test scores. It is hard to say which factors are more important than the others. Factors 3), 4), 6), 8) are kind of surprising. Older mothers who wait to have their first born are more likely to want the child than teenage mothers, according to the authors. Probably because the mother was preparing for the child and it was not unexpected. According to the authors, if the child has low birth weight it might be because the mother did not take care of the child in utero either because she was poor or whatever the reason might be. Also, if the child is adopted it is probably from a mother who cannot take care of the child emotionally, physically, or financially. This child might also have low birth weight too. As for why books in the home contribute to high test scores it is because that is a strange one and it is not because the child is being read to (see non-factor H). The authors think that a book is in fact a cause of intelligence than an indicator.

Head Start child does not effect the child's test score because instead of the child spending the day with his own undereducated, overworked mother, the typical Head Start child spends the day with someone else's undereducated, overworked mother--that's the author's theory. In other words there is no change in the learning environment. Non-factor E will probably be bad news for liberals who like to take their kids to museums thinking it will make them intelligent and sophisticated. Not that I have anything against museums, but unless kids like going to museums it will be boring to them. I mean how many kids are interested in seeing the Mona Lisa painting or a sculpture? Watching TV having no relationship to a child's score does not bode well for PBS with kid's educational shows like Sesame Street.

Unsolved History: Killing Hitler

I watched on TV a show called Unsolved History: Killing Hitler. What the guys on the show were trying to figure out was how Adolf Hitler survived a failed assassination plot from some of his top commanders. Those commanders (who by the way were executed by Hitler when he found who was conspiring against him) put a bomb in a suitcase and set it next to Hitler in a bunker next to a table. The table's part is important--I'll explain later. Anyway, he was meeting with some of his top commanders in this bunker. One of the people in the meeting moved the suitcase under the table to get it out of the way. A few minutes later the suitcase bomb went off. Most of them died from the bomb blast, but Hitler survived. The Unsolved History crew wanted to find out why. What they did was recreate the bunker from old photos, position people made out of wood in the room just like they thought they were before the blast. Even the crew used plastic dynamite similar to what bombers used back then. Positioned the bomb in the suitcase under the table. When the bomb went off in the recreation the mannequin version of Hitler had hardly any damage on it. It survived just like Hitler did. Matter of fact the damage on the mannequin Hitler was similar to where Hitler was injured. Then they repeated the same scenario except for one difference--the crew put the suitcase bomb next to the table instead of under it. Lit the bomb and waited for the results. Guess what? The mannequin Hitler had fatal injures from the bomb's debris. The real Hitler would not have survived.

Originally, the plotters were going to use two bombs in the suitcase but they were interrupted before putting the second bomb in the suitcase. Just the first bomb would have been lit with the second. The Unsolved History crew found out by putting both bombs in the suitcase, Hitler would not have survived even when the suitcase was under the table. I should mention that the table was a breakaway table. The part of the table that broke off shielded Hitler from most of the blast. Also, if Hitler would have been in a metal bunker instead of a wooden one he would not have survived. Just think if the plotters would have killed Hitler the war would have probably ended sooner than it did. Hitler thought him surviving the assassination attempt was a good omen he would win the war.

Spotting Tell-Tale Signs of A Possible Terrorist

In a Stratfor.com article the author talks about having situational awareness and spotting tell-tale signs of a possible terrorist watching someone or a location. If a person sees someone repeatedly over time, in different environments and over distance, or one who is acting unnaturally then that person can assume (s)he is under surveillance. If a person is being watched then time, environment and distance would come into focus more. If it is a location that is under surveillance then demeanor would be something to be on the lookout for. For instance, if you go to the store, a movie and to work and see the same person or maybe the same vehicle in each location then something is up--ie you are being watched. If a location is being watched then the only thing a person can be aware of is strange demeanor. Like wearing winter clothing on a hot summer day, or being somewhere he should not be, or avoiding eye contact when being looked at (this can be also true if is a person being watched instead of a location), or even giving hand signals to others to communicate with other members of a surveillance team.

Most terrorism experts tell people to be on the outlook for strange packages or suitcases being left by themselves and report them to local law enforcement officers because they might have explosives in them. This is good advice, but it would be better to prevent the explosives being placed by stopping the person who put the explosives there in the first place. In other words, preventive or proactive measures like Stratfor.com advises.

Is what Stratfor.com advises profiling? Kind of sound likes it doesn't it? But you are not watching out for a particular race or gender, but instead watching out for unnatural behavior. It could be any race, age, or even gender for that matter watching you.

I don't think the author of the article is trying to make anyone paranoid. He just wants you to be mindfully aware of your surroundings. Which is always good advice. Just like you watch for the behavior of other vehicles when driving, being mind full of other people in your surroundings is good habit to start. Your intuition or gut feeling can be a good guide here.

Endgame: American Options in Iraq

From Stratfor.com here is Dr. George Friedman options in Iraq:

The new U.S. mission, therefore, must be to block Iran in the aftermath of the Iraq war. The United States cannot impose a government on Iraq; the fate of Iraq's heavily populated regions cannot be controlled by the United States. But the United States remains an outstanding military force, particularly against conventional forces. It is not very good at counterinsurgency and never has been. The threat to the Arabian Peninsula from Iran would be primarily a conventional threat -- supplemented possibly by instability among Shia on the peninsula.

The mission would be to position forces in such a way that Iran could not think of moving south into Saudi Arabia. There are a number of ways to achieve this. The United States could base a major force in Kuwait, threatening the flanks of any Iranian force moving south. Alternatively, it could create a series of bases in Iraq, in the largely uninhabited regions south and west of the Euphrates. With air power and cruise missiles, coupled with a force about the size of the U.S. force in South Korea, the United States could pose a devastating threat to any Iranian adventure to the south. Iran would be the dominant power in Baghdad, but the Arabian Peninsula would be protected.

This goal could be achieved through a phased withdrawal from Iraq, along with a rapid withdrawal from the populated areas and an immediate cessation of aggressive operations against jihadists and militia. It would concede what the NIE says is unattainable without conceding to Iran the role of regional hegemony. It would reduce forces in Iraq rapidly, while giving the remaining forces a mission they were designed to fight -- conventional war. And it would rapidly reduce the number of casualties. Most important, it would allow the United States to rebuild its reserves of strategic forces in the event of threats elsewhere in the world.

Dr. Friedman also states the three other options (staying the course, cutting-and-running, and staged withdrawal) won't work in the long run. Staying the course he says pursues an attainable goal of Iraq creating an effective coalition government. Cutting-and-running just "opens the door for possible Iranian hegemony -- and lays a large part of the world's oil reserves at Iran's feet." Finally, a staged withdrawal would put our troops in Iraq at a disadvantage. Our troops numbers would decrease while the enemy's troops number would increase. We would be outnumbered--a dangerous situation that a soldier does not want to experience and should at all possible not to be put in.

The doctor's plan I think is reasonable. We cannot let Iran take over Iraq and make it into another terrorist training camp. Basically the author is saying we cannot completely leave Iraq. So, how long would US troops be in Iraq even if they are in the uninhabited regions? Probably a long time or until Iran is not a threat anymore. Some political analyst say President Bush will do some action against Iran before he leaves office if they become a nuclear power.

Youth Suspended Over Sketch of "Gun"

You see the drawing above that looks like a gun? According to WorldNetDaily.com, a 13-year-old boy was suspended from school for drawing it. Why, you may ask was he suspended, it was because school officials thought that drawing posed a threat. Mind you, the boy never brought a gun to school. Matter of fact the parents say they do not even own a gun. Is his suspension an overreaction? I think it is. The boy never drew a person getting shot it is just a "gun"--or what is supposed to be a gun, I guess.

There may be something deeper going on here. If you look at the drawing again there are happy faces on the gun. Is he promoting guns I wonder? Or maybe putting guns in a positive light? Maybe the school officials just objected to him drawing a gun period. If he would drawn another weapon like a switchblade would they have considered him a threat then? Where is the ACLU legal support for the boy? After all isn't the boy's freedom of expression being violated? If he would have been suspended for drawing Jesus mockingly or a marijuana cigarette then the ACLU would have probably shown up to defend him. Then again maybe the school officials would have let that slide. Hard to say what they would have done.

Terror Group Converts Gaza into Hamastan

From The Israel Project.org:

Since Hamas took over Gaza by force in mid June 2007, the Iran-backed terrorist group has consolidated its military and Islamic authority over the Palestinian people. Examples of Hamas's militarily growth include:

• Importing sophisticated technological weapons into the Gaza Strip;
• Smuggling in more than 20 tons of explosives;
• Increasing militant manpower to 13,000;
• Sending more than 20 militants to Iran for training and instructing 400 more in Gaza;
• Creating a naval guard force.

Examples of Hamas's Islamic authority include:

• Banning "all demonstrations and public gatherings" that do not have special permission and beating up protestors;
• Ordering the closure of popular television programs that portrayed the problematic situation in Gaza;
• Kidnapping a Christian professor from Palestine University in Gaza City, Ana al-Sayegh, forcing her to convert to Islam and forging a marriage between her and a Muslim man;
• Forbidding women to wear bathing suits to swim in a Gaza hotel pool, even on days designated for women only;
• Shutting down a coffee shop where men and women sat together, sometimes touching;
• Producing a children's television show in which a Mickey Mouse clone named Farfur came under international criticism for conveying messages about Islamic supremacy as well as hatred of Jews and Israel. The pressure to change or shut down the program led Hamas to produce a show in which Farfur was killed off by an actor posing as an Israeli who appeared to beat him to death. Farfur is regarded as a martyr in the episode. He was replaced by a bee character who says he will "…continue on the path of Farfur, the path of Islam is the solution. The path of heroism, the path of martyrdom, the path of jihad warriors. In the name of Farfur, we shall take revenge on the enemies of Allah, the murderers of the prophets, the murderers of innocent children, until Al-Aksa will be liberated from their filth."

The above example is what would happen if sharia law would be norm of the world.

Bishop Urges Christians to Call God 'Allah'

From WorldNetDaily.com:

Catholic churches in the Netherlands should use the name Allah for God to ease tensions between Muslims and Christians, says a Dutch bishop.

The idea of calling God Allah is not only unnecessary but stupid. For one thing in the Qur'an, the word 'God' and 'Allah' is used interchangeably. For example, one verse says: "In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful." And another verse says: "In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful." To me both verses say about the same thing.

This whole deal smells of political correctness which I detest. All political correctness does is to make the person using p.c. speech feel better. I don't really care if in Netherlands' past they called 'God' Allah. That was their choice back then. The moderate and traditional Muslims don't care if you say the word God instead of Allah. It's trivial to them mainly because both words are used interchangeably in the Qur'an. Using the word 'God' is not an offense. A Muslim spokesman referenced in the article even said the Moroccan mosques never asked for this gesture. So, why do it? If you really want to upset a Muslim drop the Qur'an on the floor. And if you are trying to appease the fundamentalist Muslims, well, you can never appease them. The only way to make them happy is to become a Muslim.

President Bush's Charleston AFB Speech

President Bush should give a speech like this every month. What follows below is a subset of his full speech he gave at Charleston Airforce Base July 24:

Our top commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, has said that Al-Qaeda is public enemy number one in Iraq. Fellow citizens, these people have sworn allegiance to the man who ordered the death of nearly 3,000 people on our soil. Al-Qaeda is public enemy number one for the Iraqi people. Al-Qaeda is public enemy number one for the American people, and that is why for the security of our country, we will stay on the hunt, we will deny them safe haven, and we will defeat them where they have made their stand.

Some note that Al-Qaeda in Iraq did not exist until the US invasion and argue that it is a problem of our own making. The argument follows the flawed logic that terrorism is caused by American actions.

Iraq's not the reason that the terrorists are at war with us.

We were not in Iraq when the terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993.

We were not in Iraq when they attacked our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

We were not in Iraq when they attacked the USS Cole in 2000, and we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001. Our action to remove Saddam Hussein did not start the terrorist violence. An American withdrawal from Iraq would not end it.

Our troops are now working to replicate the success in Anbar and other parts of the country. Our brave men and women are taking risks, and they're showing courage, and we're making progress for the security of our citizens and the peace of the world. We must give General Petraeus and his troops the time and the resources they need so they can defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

President Bush could have added:

We were not in Iraq when Barbary pirates who happened to be Militant Jihadists attacked our American ships back in colonial days.

The Barbary pirates were referenced in the Marine hymn with this line: "To the shores of Tripoli." There were two Barbary Wars back then. Here's the interesting part. The Americans asked Adja why his government was hostile to American ships, even though there had been no provocation. The ambassador's response was reported to the Continental Congress:

"That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

Does that quote above sound familiar?

Actually, the militant Jihadists can be traced back further. The main reason the Knights of Templar were created was to protect Christians from militant Muslims. The Christians were making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem at the time when they were being attacked.

Dog Gives Birth To a Kitten

From Ananova.com, a dog in China has given birth to a kitten. Well, not really. Actually, the kitten really is a puppy but because of mutations (the article says a gene mutation--but I think it is more than one gene mutating to produce that phenotype--just speculation on my part) it looks like a kitten. Looking at the puppy in the photograph above I can see why the family thought the puppy was a kitten at first glance. But if you look close at the photograph the "kitten" has no whiskers.

That cat-like puppy is really going to confuse some cats and probably other dogs--especially when it starts barking. If that puppy is a female (the article does not state what gender the puppy is) it might want to stay away from male cats that are in heat. It might even have trouble associating with other dogs.

Universal Health Care: A Bad Idea

The Left especially those lean toward the Socialistic side, believe that the American health care system is not working right because it is not perfect--ie an utopia. Any system man creates will always be imperfect, because man is imperfect himself. Just ask any engineer or software programmer about imperfect systems. Utopia is a myth. What the far left wants to do is make a system that is say 80% perfect and make it 40% perfect, by having the gov't run it. Like it runs the Veteran's Hospital so well.

When you have universal health care this is what will happen. First, your taxes will sky rocket. Contrary to belief, universal health care is not free. Somebody's got to pay for wages for doctors and nurses and pay for medical supplies, and it is the taxpayer who will pick up the cost. Not to mention bureaucrats who have to manage the health care system--they have to be paid too. Second, you have to wait in long lines for any health care service. How long? Try months. According to Canada's gov't health care web site, it says the waiting time for an MRI is in months. And US citizens complain about waiting for hours to see a doctor. Also, the web site says there is one primary health care doctor for every 1000 Canadians. This low doctor-patient ratio is because doctors are not being paid well. So, what can happen is that some doctors set up private clinics and charge what they want to charge. Technically, the gov't is not supposed to allow this to happen but it does happen. Consequently, wealthy Canadians go to the private clinics and don't have to wait so long. If universal health care is the perfect solution, then why is there any private clinics existing at all? I mean you would think that the wealthy would use the same system if it is any good. Wouldn't they? Instead they go to private clinics in Canada or go to private clinics in America. Also, it seems the Canadian system is not too comprehensive. Canadian citizens can buy private health insurance to supplement the national health care they get. Canada does not cover things like dental services, optometrists, and prescription medications. This private insurance is offered by companies for their employees. One other thing about Canada's health care system is that you have to have a health card to use the system. This card contains an identification number (sounds like America's social security card), which is used to access a person's medical information. I wonder what that medical info is--but I can take a guess. If the card is used to access the medical information where is the information stored? That's right, in gov't databases. Something that the privacy advocates might want to ponder.

If America adopts a national health care system one thing is almost certain to happen, that the powers to be won't be part of it or they will make it so they get a different version of it. You think Congress is going to wait months in line for health care? They'll probably put in a provision that they go will to the front of the line automatically. Or they will be the ones who be going to private clinics like the wealthy can do in Canada. Social Security is a good example. For a long time Congress did not have to pay a social security tax. They do now, but their social security system is not exactly like the one the voters have to contribute too. Always remember that those in power always satisfy their needs first, then the rest of population's needs second. And the powerful can always exempt themselves and the people they favor from their own laws they pass because they can. That is the nature of the game.

If America's health care system needs to be fixed or improved this is what can be done. Encourage more competition in the system. More doctors, more insurance companies, more pharmaceutical companies, etc. Competition increases choice and brings down prices. Here's a thought: Just like gov't is not responsible for your health insurance, neither should your employer be responsible for supplying it. You and you alone are responsible for getting your health insurance. If you own it yourself, you can transfer it to any business you work for. It's yours not the business. Portability issued solved. Actually, that is the way it was before WWII.

If you say gov't is responsible for health insurance, then why not life insurance, home insurance, pay your electricity bill, or even pay your food bill? I mean aren't these life issues important too? Just have gov't take care of all your basic needs. They could even hire crossing guards for adults--don't want people getting run over by automobiles. Or have human eating monitors that make sure you don't eat too fast--don't want people choking to death. That is exactly what the Far Left really wants in the end I believe. A nanny state.

The 20/20 Stossel-Moore Interview

When John Stossel on 20/20 said that gov't is force when it tries to monopolize the health care industry, Michael Moore's response was that no it isn't because as he put it "the government is of, by, and for the people." I know the U.S. Constitution alludes to that statement, but I don't think universal health care is what the founding fathers was talking about. I agree with John Stossel that gov't is force. Do you really have choice when you pay taxes? You certainly don't have a choice about paying into the social security system or not. Both systems are not voluntary. If the Congress is truly like the American public then how can they take a month off with pay? Do you know any businesses where the employees can vote for their wages to go up or not like the Congress? A business would not survive long if it did that. The Congress never votes for a pay cut. Think about that next time when Congress tells you have to sacrifice and votes down any tax cuts.

John Stossel should have asked Michael Moore what if the gov't told him he could not be above a certain weight limit for his height, or the gov't fined him if he ate food that had so much saturated fat or sugar in it. Think it can't happen? London England is thinking about instituting a fat tax. No joke. Keep in mind Great Britain has a universal health care system. People in Great Britain already pay a 17.5 percent surcharge on candy, ice cream and other snacks and drinks. In the article it says the tax could save 3,000 lives a year.Well, so exercising can probably save lives too. Is the gov't going to mandate exercising too? Gov't regulation is fine when it happens to someone else but when it happens to you--it's a different story. Politics is always personal.

Earth Much Warmer in the Past

Yes, you read that right. The earth was much warmer in the past (hundreds of thousands of years ago) than generally believed. According to Science Magazine, scientists found the oldest plant DNA inside a glacier on Greenland. The glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago.

What is most interesting in the article is that during the last period between ice ages, 116,000-130,000 years ago, when temperatures were on the average 9^o F higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away. Hmmm. How could the earth be warmer than now? There wasn't anyone driving hydro-carbon cars. So, what caused the warm up? (Maybe it had something to do with the sun. Just a thought.) And yet the glaciers were still there.

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 7

• Never read a book you cannot lift.
• I don't think gov't should endorse any new technology or research over any other because this is not fair to other technologies competing against that technology. Also, this will hurt the consumer in the long run by restricting choice. Let the free market decide what technology will survive.
• The main function of prisons is to keep the criminal element away from the law abiding citizens. If prisons rehabilitate criminals or deters crime that is fine, but that should not be the primary function of prisons.
• If you believe intelligence on other planets exist (I myself am agnostic about this) then you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot. After all they just like extra-intelligence life have not been conclusively proven either way.
• The soul does not need to evolve because it is immortal. Only mortal life-forms need to evolve to survive.
• Gov't agencies (other than law enforcement and national security agencies) and gov't programs when they are created by Congress should have expiration dates like say three years. When their expiration date comes then they should be reviewed by Congress to see if they are needed anymore. Otherwise they are a waste of taxpayer's money.
• Unprovable theory is just philosophy.
• Ignorance is the mother of conspiracy theories.
• Nocturnal dreams are created because the brain always has to be working. Even in sensory deprivation chambers people hallucinated.
• In the end, either we will know that consciousness survives death or we will never know. If the mind or consciousness stops existing after physical death, then it cannot ultimately prove life after death. It's either all or nothing. I believe that the consciousness survives death.

Happy Birthday America!

You are 231 years old! Here are a collection of links about the 4th:

• The Declaration of Independence
• The Declaration of Independence: A History
• Samuel Adams Advocates American Independence
• What happened to the signers of the Declaration of Independence
• The Guardian WatchBlog's "America's Birth"
• The meaning of The Pledge of the Allegiance (flash)
• The True Meaning of Patriotism
• Patriotic Melodies

God bless this great country!

Future Versions of the iPhone

From an anonymous source inside of Apple Corp. I know these are new functions/specifications coming to future version of the iPhone:

1. You will be able to call the spirit world. (Okay, that is just plain creepy.)
2. The phone will able to translate any human language including the dead ones like Aramaic and Latin. (Hopefully, Apple will have this function at the same time of function 1. This would be good to have if you talk to really old spirits.)
3. It will be able to teleport you anywhere in the world. You just give it the GPS coords of your destination.
4. You will be able to travel back in time up to 10 years. Apple is trying to make it a 1,000 years, but they are not sure if this is possible or not. Time travelling in the future will not be possible on the iPhone. Rats! I guess Apple cannot do everything.)
5. It will be able to zap any cancer tumor.
6. It will be able to monitor your cholesterol, blood pressure, heart rate, and blood sugar level.
7. It will stop migraines and back pain within 5 seconds. (Apple says this time lag is way too long. They want to get the time down to 1 gigasecond at least.)
8. It will be able to stop tornadoes, hurricanes, and typhoons within 10 minutes! (Damn, those Apple people are geniuses! See if Microsoft tops that! Again, Apple wants to get this time lag down to 1 minute if possible.)
9. It will be able measure temperature, wind speed, humidity, and barometric pressure in a 50 feet diameter around the iPod. (Hmmm. Not sure if anyone would use these functions unless your a meteorologist. I think functions 8 and 9 will be on the meteorology version, not on the standard version. No price yet on the meteorology version.)
10. The phone will warn the user if he is going to be physically attacked by someone.
11. The phone will have a taser function on it. (I hope this function and function 10 are tied together.)
12. It can materialize any food or beverage you want within 3 seconds.
13. The iPhone will be able to operate any TV and/or radio irregardless of the manufacturer. It will be the ultimate universal remote control. It will be also to change cable and satellite channels irregardless of who the provider is.
14. It can change its color according to your mood. (Is this really necessary?) If you are really sad, it tells you a joke from its 1 million database of jokes to try to cheer you up or it will play you a happy song if you have saved one on the phone. (Again, is this really needed?)
15. In the future you can make the iPhone invisible so no-one can take it without your permission. Like if you leave it in your car.
16. Future iPhones will run on nuclear fusion that will last 10,000 years. You will be dead, but your iPhone will still be working.
17. Not only will future iPhones be water proof (you can take them to the bottom of the ocean) and shock proof (you can drop them off of Mt. Everest), but they will be bullet proof, fire proof, freeze proof, heat proof, and acid proof. They are not for some reason peanut butter proof. So, don't handle the iPhone if you are eating peanut butter.
18. It will be able to convert CO₂ to oxygen.
19. For $1,000 more you can get the deluxe version that converts lead into gold.
20. Other versions will be equipped with sonar, radar, infrared sensors, ultraviolet sensors and x-rays.
21. If you put the iPhone up to your eye, it can scan for eye diseases like glaucoma.
22. A bar code reader so you can scan store products to see if you are getting a good deal or not.