Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 11

• You do not define yourself by your gender, sexual orientation, age, race, etc. None of these are important. What is important (and more interesting) is your philosophy, your ethics, and your abilities. These three characteristics are the essence of individuality.
• You cannot legislate against stupidity. If education does not work then you are out of luck.
• To the Almighty, the supernatural is perfectly natural.
• The Separation of Technology/Business and State: The federal gov't should not endorse any specific technology or business. Let the free market decide. Endorsing general technology like alternative fuel is fine but endorsing a specific fuel like ethanol is not okay.
• If someone tells you Scouts honor when they promise you something be sure they are or were a Boy Scout or else the promise may not mean anything.
• You can never have a peaceful world as long as the enemy of peace is not neutralized.
• Giving drug addicts clean needles so they won't gets AIDS is like giving a wife abuser boxing gloves so he won't get his fists hurt. It does not make any sense. Aren't you enabling the drug addict?
• Socialism is fine if it does not include you. That is why the powers that be of most socialized gov'ts (Cuba, Great Britain, Canada, etc.) exempt themselves from it.
• I sometimes think that Congressmen (and women) have a lobotomy when they start their term. That could be why America's founding fathers put the Library of Congress in Washington, DC so they Congress can research the bills they make.
• If and when we ever put a settlement on the moon, I wonder if a business would sell air or oxygen? You would not think so because the employees of the business could not live without air unless they were sentient androids...Hmmm

ANWR, Eskimoes, and Caribou

It is dumb not to drill oil in ANWR (the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge). Take a look at these facts:

• In 2007, the US imported an average of 60% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. Some of the countries' gov't we imported oil from are not friends to the US (like Venezuela and Russia for instance).
• Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. I think the 8% could be higher but the Congress (and the presidential candidates) and environmental fascists don't want any drilling there. Why? Because it might upset the creatures who inhabit the region. More on this later.
• The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. 9 to 16 billion is not a drop in the ocean.
• More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The democratically elected Alaska State Legislatures, congressional delegations, and Governors elected over the past 25 years have unanimously supported opening the Coastal Plain of ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain. And yet the environmental fascists insist they know better than the people who live there all their lives. Yea, right.
• The Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals.

I have a theory why the caribou numbers (and probably other animal numbers too) are growing. It goes like this. The caribou see the oil rig. At first they are cautious. Not knowing if it will harm them or not. After a while they walk up to it and discover it produces heat. They make a mental note (if caribou do such a thing). When winter comes remembering the oil rig produces heat they get close to it. If they are in a frisky mood mating begins. It suddenly becomes a caribou hang out.

Drilling in ANWR (and off the coasts) won't solve all our oil needs, but it is a start. Until we can invent a reliable liquid fuel source that is as good as oil we have to use it. Because planes and automobiles cannot run on wind or solar power (well, planes should not run on solar power.) Besides think of all the products made of plastic. You have to find a suitable substitute to make plastics out of.

You can go to ANWR.org to read more about drilling there.

Congressional Investigation Ideas

Since Congress likes to have committees to investigate different issues like the "evil" oil companies and the home morgage mess, I have some issues they could investigate:

1. Why does the postage stamp keep increasing when most people are using email nowdays?
2. The wages of Congress keeps increasing when America supposedly is in debt. (Like that will be investigated.)
3. The price of college tuition keeps rising. Where are the price controls on that? Shouldn't knowledge be free? (Again, slim chance that will be investigated.)
4. Liberal bias in the main stream media. (Oh, that's right. There is no bias. I'm bad.)

Like I said none of these suggestions will ever be investigated.

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda

From WorldNetDaily.com (May 19, 2008):

More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.

Wow, that's quite a number. More than 31,000 (it is actually 31,072 according to the petition website) scientists. Now that's a consensus!

It's understandable though why there is a petition. Meteorologists and scientists like them are getting fed-up with Al Gore and his global warming fanatics high-jacking the field and misrepresenting the data. It is a pretty sad state of affairs when people cannot debate a scientific theory. After all isn't that what science is about? Debating and examining the data to find the truth? When you can't examine the data behind a theory that is the real assault on reason.

Sea lions likely died from the heat

From the AP:

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The deaths of six sea lions found in traps on the Columbia River earlier this month were likely caused by the heat, and not by gunshots as officials first suspected, the National Marine Fisheries Service said.

Oregon and Washington officials had been trapping the animals as part of a federally approved removal process because they feast on salmon at the Bonneville Dam.

First, before putting the sea lions in the cages and leaving them in there for hours shouldn't the Humane Society have checked with marine biology experts first to see if that would hurt (or in this case kill) the sea lions. I know the Humane Society thought they were being humane to the animals by not shooting them, but by being ignorance they killed them anyway. This is what happens when you have good intentions without forethought.

Second thought. I get it now. Sea lions are less important than salmon. Well, I guess they are not endangered (unless you take them out of the water and put them in a cage). Salmon are not even exotic looking. Evidently, the sea lions did not know the salmon were on the endangered species list. Or maybe they knew and did not care. Those bastards! If it were me, I would have let the sea lions eat the fish. After all it is survival of the fittest, is it not?

Wrongly Defining Militant Jihadism

When Bill O'Reilly asked presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain during an interview if they would use water-boarding to extract valuable information from terrorists they both said no they would not use water-boarding as a technique. They both claimed it was physical torture (in my opinion, it is not physical torture. possibly, psychological torture, but not physical). They also said if America tortures then that gives the right for our enemies to torture America's POWs. Also, both senators believe these jihadists are enemy combats and therefore water-boarding is against the Geneva Conference. Bill O'Reilly did not interview Sen. Obama yet, but I believe his answer is no too at least according to his website. Interestingly enough, presidential candidate Bob Barr, a Libertarian, said he's against water-boarding during an interview with Glenn Beck.

Just as Bill Clinton defined the terrorist attacks during the 90's wrongly, so are these senators doing. Bill Clinton defined the terrorist's as domestic criminals deserving a criminal trial. They are not criminals--they are terrorists. Clinton, McCain, Obama, and probably also Bob Barr (although he did not state why he's against water-boarding) are defining the Jihadists wrong again. I believe they are defining them as enemy combats or soldiers from a particular country. They are not enemy combats. They do not belong to a particular country. The jihadists do not distinguish themselves from general civilian population. They do not follow the Geneva Conventions. Mercenaries are excluded from the Geneva Conventions so why are not the militant jihadists excluded? The motivations are different, but almost everything else in the definition closely matches.

I know I've said this before in previous blogs, so here it is again: Militant jihadists do not follow the Geneva Conventions, they do not follow any country's civilian laws. The only laws (and I mean only laws) they follow is sharia law, ie laws in the Quran. If the militant jihadists are going to torture America's POWs they are going to do it no matter what we do or say. If it is okay in the Quran, then it okay for them to do it. It is that simple.

I am not saying we should inflict enormous amounts of physical pain on the interrogatee, but make them physically uncomfortable (sleep deprivation, playing loud music, etc.) or inflicting psychological pain like water-boarding. You bet. Whatever works to prevent another terrorist attack. Saying "pretty please" to a militant jihadist I don't think will work.

Links: McCain's water-boarding interview. Hillary Clinton's interview.

New Is Not Always Good

After Bill O'Reilly interviewed Sen. John McCain he then talked with an Obama supporter to get her take on McCain's views. She said Obama's ideas are "new" (my quotes not hers) and McCain just had old ideas. Be that as it may, new ideas are not always beneficial.

Hitler and Carl Marx had new ideas too in their day. Do you think their new ideas were beneficial to their respective countries? I don't think the Jewish people in Germany and the oppressed people in Russia would agree. Although, if you are on the far left reading this blog you might think that Communism was a good idea. I am not by the way saying Obama is a Hitler or Marxist. A socialist probably but not a Marxist.

They way you evaluate a new idea is: 1) Does it work? 2) Does the benefits outweigh the costs? A new idea (or a new product for that matter) has to pass both tests. The airplane was a new idea. It worked and it made travel over the oceans possible with few risks. Then you have the child-proof caps on bottles. Child-proof caps works but the elderly could not get the caps off especially if they have arthritis in their hands. Obama on his website wants child-proof guns. On the surface a good idea, then again child-proof caps sounded good too. Sometimes "new and improved" ideas are just "new" without the improved part.

The Sarcastic Architect

From Ananova.com:

John Jessop's replies to a series of what he termed "silly questions" from Mendip District Council were leaked in an e-mail which has been sent all round the country.

After being asked to fill in a "design access statement" for a storage shed on a small farm, he wrote: "The use is compatible with a farm because it is a farm building.

"It is located where it is because it is in the most convenient place, being on the farm and near the farmhouse." [more]

Good for him! Those and the other questions are stupid, but I guess the District Council will justify them for some reason or another.

Show Me The Money, Hillary and Barack

From My Way News.com (May 7, 2008):

LOS ANGELES (AP) - What will it take for a Democratic presidential candidate to win the support of California superdelegate Steven Ybarra?

Say, $20 million. [my italics]

The Democratic National Committee member doesn't parse his words when it comes to what he wants from Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton - an ironclad promise to spend that heady amount to register Mexican-American voters and get them to the polls in November.

In a telephone interview Wednesday, he said he plans to remain undecided in the tight contest until "someone shows me the money." [more]

This lawyer (surprise there) is not kidding. He says he can persuade 1.3 million Mexican-Americans to vote in the November election supposedly for the Democrat nominee.

Here are some questions: One, isn't that vote tampering? Two, how is he going to per$uade them to vote for Obama, er I mean the Democrat nominee? Oh, wait a second he did not promise he would get them to vote for the Democrat nominee only that he would register them and get them to the polls. That is his out if the Democrat nominee loses. That way he does not have to give the money back. Three, why do the Mexican-American voters need to be persuaded to register and vote anyway? I would think if they think Obama (or any Democrat nominee for president) would be a good president they would vote him anyway. Where's your faith, man?

A Day in a Bureacracy

Or Making the United Nations (UN) Work for You. These steps are taken from Glenn Beck's 2007 book, An Inconvenient Book. The situation: You're a humanitarian worker for Lativia's government. People are starving in your country and you appeal to the UN for help.

1. The UN charters you a jumbo jet to fly to NYC. It costs the UN: $450,000 (one way).
2. Meet with the Deputy Ass't to the Under Secretary General of Dept. of Management (DM).
3. UN officials suggest you tour Manhattan (via Helicopter).
4. Meet with head of DM.
5. Informed that DM is not the right agency.
6. Receive $50,000 cash for your "trouble."
7. You send $50,000 to Latvia via UN diplomats.
8. Latvia receives $12.59 in aid.
9. UN diplomats' offshore acct suddenly larger by about $50,000.
10. People are still hungry in Latvia.
11. UN Staff directs you to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC)
12. Meet with ECLAC officials.
13. The UN is the King of Agencies with Acronyms (KAWA).
14. ELCAC officials inform they don't cover Latvia.
15. UN officials give you $199,000 cash for "their bad."
16. You send the cash to Latvia via UN diplomats.
17. UN diplomats obtain brand new Benz.
18. Latvia gets another $10.12 in aid.
19. People are still hungry in Latvia.
20. UN Staff directs you to the United Nations Population Fund Administration (UNPFA).
21. UNFPA recommends you decrease Latvia's population to increase food per person.
22. Population control.
23. UNFPA gives you $25,000 worth of condoms.
24. Meet with the head of the World Food Program (WFP).
25. WFP says will send food.
26. The UN flies you back to Latvia, on the Space Shuttle. Cost to UN: $462 million dollars.
27. 8 months later; still no food.
28. 1.2 million Latvians dead of starvation.
29. WFP releases statement: "Oops."
30. Civil war breaks out in Latvia; genocide begins.
31. WFP refers you to Security Council.
32. Security Council holds talks.
33. Security Council votes.
34. America approves sending aid to Latvia.
35. Rest of council votes against aid.
36. You plead your case again.
37. You secretly tell US to try reverse psychology.
38. Security council votes again; America votes "no."
39. Rest of council approves aid and peacekeepers.
40. You are appointed King of Latvia.
41. Peacekeepers rape Latvians.
42. You are publicly hanged.

Okay this was probably more humor than fact, then again...