Impulsive Behavior Can Make Life Hard

This is almost a "duh, so what." What I mean by the blog title is if you are impulsive as a child, later on as an adult you will live a much harder life. In his book The Time Paradox (2008) Dr. Phillip Zimbardo talks about a simple study that was done at Stanford University's Bing Nursery School. In this study four-year-olds were given a choice to eat a single marshmallow now or wait later on for two marshmallows. Some kids at the marshmallow later on and others waited for the two marshmallows. It did not matter what the reward was--same behavior.

Later on when the kids grew up they were interviewed. The kids who resisted the single marshmallow had developed a range of superior emotional and social competencies compared with the children who had eaten the treat immediately. The non-impulsive adults were better able to deal with adversity and stress, and they were more self-confident, diligent, and self-reliant. Even the intelligent was higher with the non-impulsive adults. It is something to ponder. I guess according to this study patience is its own reward.

Islamic Nations Push to End Free Speech at UN

From Newsmax.com (December 17, 2008):

GENEVA — Islamic proposals to ban criticism of religion, which have gathered strength since the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad two years ago, threaten to derail an already troubled U.N. anti-racism conference planned for next year.

The European Union rejects suggestions by Algeria — backed by other Muslim and African countries — that limits on free speech are needed to stop the publication of offensive articles and images.

Supporters of the proposal, who have been pushing for such a ban to be included in international anti-discrimination charters, want it discussed in April at a high-level United Nations anti-racism meeting in Geneva. [more]

Substitute "the world" with "UN" in the title and you have what the Islamofacists really want. No criticisms of Islam at all in the world. It doesn't surprise me though. You don't hear Christians, Jews, Hindus or the other religions want to ban criticisms of their religions. Sort of makes a person wonder if Islam is so strong and secure a religion why can't it take any criticism? No believer likes its religion poked fun (like Monty Python's the "Life of Brian" movie which made fun of Jesus Christ, or the new movie "Religulous") or criticized, but if they have a strong faith it should not matter to them if it is criticized.

I am glad the other countries are standing up against these Islamists. If they don't then that is exactly what the Muslim fanatics want. Total fear or submission.

eHarmony.com potential issue

I believe I found a potential issue on eHarmony.com's site. It does not filter out or allow the subscriber to filter out people (s)he does not want to date such as relatives, exes (that would be funny, if the service matched you with your ex), etc. I looked at their website closely and did not see a filter of any kind. Since I don't use their service I cannot say for sure they don't have filters, but just reading the description of their service I did not see any.

The tricky part is to create a filter. One possible way is to have the subscriber create a "block list" of people who (s)he never wants to be a potential mate. This list could contain at the very least the person's first and last name. Maybe a middle name or initial. To rule out people with the same name you want to date, a birthday field could also be included so you don't get false positives.

Is this really a problem? It could be if you have a lot of friends or relatives who use the service. It is interesting to note that eHarmony does not do background checks. So, you could potentially be dating someone who is secretly stalking you.

Good Code, Bad Computations: A Computer Security Gray Area

ScienceDaily (2008-11-03) -- If you want to make sure your computer or server is not tricked into undertaking malicious or undesirable behavior, it's not enough to keep bad code out of the system. New research shows that the process of building bad programs from good code using "return-oriented programming" can be automated and that this vulnerability applies to multiple computer architectures. [more]

Basically, a hacker hacks a website for example and rewrites some of the existing code instead of injecting his own outside code on the website to do some potentially malicious behavior. Good job for the researchers for imagining the unimaginable.

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 12

• I may not know anything about how match-mating services (like eharmony.com, match.com, etc.) work but wouldn't their customer base drop off if they were really worked? Eventually, everyone looking for a soul mate will be happily married and won't need the business again. One exception would be is if their spouse died then they would use the business again.
• If people could record their nighttime dreams on DVD, it could be useful (you could playback a problem you solved for instance) and it could be potentially embarrassing (your erotic dream could get uploaded to Youtube). Either way dream interpretation psychologists would find the technology helpful to them in dealing with their clients' issues.
• Don't own a pet that can kill you.
• They should make alimony optional. From a feminist point of view I would think a man paying alimony to a woman would be disrespectful. I mean it says that a woman still needs a man monetarily even when they are divorced. Most women work now so why do women need alimony? Child-support I can understand. But alimony in this age where men and women are supposed to be equal? And what about a man getting alimony from an ex-wife who has more money or a better paying job than he does?
• The difference between a good man and an evil man is that a good man feels bad when he has to kill a person even in self-defense, war or in justifiable homicide.
• I wonder what a pro-abortion woman would think of a pro-life woman sacrificing her life for her unborn child. That is to say giving birth could put the mother at serious harm or even death. After all doesn't the mother have that (pro-)choice to sacrifice herself for her child?
• Two monkeys swinging in a tree is better than one monkey throwing poo at you.
• If everyone worked for the federal gov't then who would pay their salary? It is the private sector who pays for the federal employees salaries. Without the private sector there is no government workers.
• In the heart of every liberal lurks a Marxist anxious to come out.
• It is better to have the gov't poor than the private citizen poor. A rich gov't and poor citizens only leads to oppression. Like Cuba and the defunct Soviet Union.

Russia, Iran and Qatar Discuss Forming Gas Cartel

From Newsmax.com (October 21, 2008):

TEHRAN, Iran -- Russia, Iran and Qatar made the first serious moves Tuesday toward forming an OPEC-style cartel on natural gas, raising concerns that Moscow could boost its influence over energy markets spanning from Europe to South Asia.

Washington and Western allies worry that closer strategic ties between Russia and Iran could hinder efforts to isolate Tehran over its nuclear ambitions. In addition, the United States opposes a proposed Iranian gas pipeline to Pakistan and India, key allies. [more]

That sounds like something directly out of a Joel C. Rosenberg novel like The Ezekiel Option (a great novel by the way). In the novel, Russia and Iran team up against Israel (actually almost all the world is against Israel) and the president of the United States has to make a decision to support Israel or not. His novels are based on observations of the world and Biblical prophecy.

America only imports 18,352 million cubic feet of natural gas per year from Qatar. None from Iran and Russia. Most of the natural gas comes from Canada, Egypt, and Trinidad (yea, that's right Trinidad). The article mentioned Mexico but we only get 54,062 million cubic feet from them. Not bad, but not nearly as much from the above three. So that cartel won't hurt America too much. Although, The Wall Street Journal makes a good point that a natural gas cartel won't have much control over prices as much as an oil cartel does because the natural gas market is fragmented. This is just Russia trying to exert more control over their neighbor's economy. Iran maybe thinking the same way. Still, them teaming up in anyway makes me nervous.

This cartel makes sense politically. Russia and Iran has become partners in different deals so I can understand them teaming up. Qatar and Iran has teamed up too. June of last year they have backed a Hamas coup.

The Drive-by-Media Attacks Again

What the drive-by-media is doing to "Joe the plumber" (Joe Wurzelbacher) is just terrible. He is just a working guy that asked a politician a question and because of that he gets an anal exam from the media. Is he really a licensed plumber? Was he a Republican plant? All this is really misdirection from the media and the Dems. Look over here (Joe) and not at the real story (Obama showing his true colors). This isn't much of a story. It seems that either Obama is getting over confident about the polls and letting his guard drop or he must have not realized his conversation was being filmed. Either way Obama being a far-right liberal is not surprising to me. The American Conservative Union website rates Obama an eight from a scale of 0 (lowest) to 100 (highest) of being a conservative. An eight! Can you believe that? That's almost a Communist! On a side note Google's search engine got bogged down when users did a search for Mr. Wurzelbacher.

Mr. Wurzelbacher's dealings with the media reminds of another working guy that got overly scrutinized by the media: Richard Jewell. If you remember he at first was declared hero by the press because he found a pipe bomb at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia then later on the press declared him a suspect. He never was charged and later on was exonerated. He died in August 2007 from natural causes. He had diabetes, kidney disease, and severe heart disease. What the drive-by-media did to him did not help his situation.

In America the press has freedom from gov't influence, but it seems anymore they are abusing that right. It does not give them the right to ruin people's lives or give them an anal exam. There is such things as ethics and responsibility. The media never investigates their friends (Obama, Bill Ayers) but they will put a microscope on their perceived enemies or enemies of their friends. Or they will attempt to discredit people or events that could potentially negatively effect their friends. Mr. Wurzelbacher was just being an informed voter. He was just inquiring about Obama's economic policy in a calm respectful manner. What's wrong with that? We should all be that curious about people running for office. That's what makes the political system a better system. Mr. Wurzelbacher did not even say who he was voting for. For just being a curious and doing his civic duty he got a rectal exam from the media.

Anymore, the media is not about reporting the facts it is about agendas. One agenda being discredit your enemies and protect your friends. You don't have a genuine media anymore when you do that, you just have a propaganda machine. And that is just plane sad.

A Conservative Candidate Strategy

Here is a tip for a republican or conservative candidate that is running for office:
Differentiate yourself from your opponent. A political candidate is like a product you would buy. If you are buying a car and two cars are very similar to one another it does not matter very much which one you buy. You have to stand out from your opponent. Glenn Beck said about the second presidential debate it was like watching a Marxist (Obama) verses a bad Democrat (McCain). Don't be your opponent!
The way to differentiate yourself is to talk about conservative principles passionately in your own voice without using the word conservative. People who aren't politically savvy do not know what a conservative is. Talk about how entrepreneurs are the engine of the nation. That we should not punish the successful by raising their taxes. Control gov't spending. That gov't isn't the solution to most problems. That the rich, the poor, and the middle class are all Americans. Playing divide-and-conquer helps no-one other than the divider himself. President Ronald Reagan did not have to mention the word conservative. He did not have to. What he said resonated with most Americans because most believed that America is an exceptional country like he did. He got his message across without worrying what the press thought of him.
Secondly, a conservative needs to go on offense. Put the liberal on defense. Make him show his true ideology. What do you have against wealthy people? How are you planning to pay for all billions of dollars given to the United Nations for the poor overseas? Name three things you love about America?
One last thing, Reagan did not worry about the independent vote. If an independent is a conservative he will vote for a conservative candidate anyway.

The Intelligent TV

Here are some of my idea for the intelligent TV. This TV could:

• Turn down or mute the volume when a commercial comes on.
• Turn itself off when there is no-one in the room. It could do this by reading heat signatures in the room. There could be a time delay before it turns itself off.
• Mute/turn down the volume/turn itself off if all the viewers fall asleep. You don't want this action happening if someone is still watching the TV. Again a time delay could be set.
• Mute itself if a phone rings in front of the TV and you pick up the receiver. The trick is having the TV unmute when you hang up or if you don't pick up the receiver.

All functions above can be toggled.

Son of Stimulus Package

If Nancy Pelosi is talking about another huge ($150 billion) stimulus package (like the first one worked really well) what the gov't should do to get people to spend money is to send out a gift card to a store of a taxpayer's choosing. Otherwise if you just send out a check the taxpayer would just deposit it in their bank account. This is how the idea would work. When the taxpayer fills out the tax form (s)he can indicate what store (s)he wants the gift card from. The only problems are is that it will take longer for gov't to get the cards from a specific store and the store may not have a gift card in that exact mount. The gov't may have to send out out multiple cards. Hat tip from the Glenn Beck show about this idea although the guest's suggested was to send out coupons to the taxpayers. I think the guest was joking. But sending out coupons to the taxpayer restricts the taxpayer to one particular product.

Actually better idea is to send out a debit card with the exact amount of the "refund." That way the gov't does not have to worry about what stores the taxpayer goes to.

An even better idea than the above two is just scrap the stimulus package and cut every one's (not just 95% of the population) taxes and cut the payroll tax too.

Elderly riots?

Bill Clinton crony James Carville has suggested that if Obama loses by a close margin that "it would be very, very, very dramatic out there." Hmmm. Sounds like he is suggesting (and other Libs are suggesting this too) that there will race riots.

What about the flip side? What if McCain loses by a small margin? Couldn't be possible that the elderly would riot? I could see hordes of elderly people entering the streets very slowly with their canes and walkers about to protest Obama getting elected then forgetting what they came out in the street for in the first place.

The question is would Obama do the Al Gore and have a recount and turn the country inside-out if he does loose by a close margin? It depends on how power hungry he is.

Operation Chaos Part 2

If Obama becomes president and the Congress and the House become even more liberal, what the conservatives could do to possibly block stupid spending bills from passing is to put innocuous riders on them that will tick off the libs. For example, a national holiday for President Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, and President George W. Bush (the holidays do not have to be on all on the same bill). See what happens when you don't have line-item veto? Operation Chaos continues!

Putting A 'Korset' On The Spread Of Computer Viruses

ScienceDaily (2008-09-15) -- Prof. Avishai Wool and his graduate student Ohad Ben-Cohen of Tel Aviv University’s Faculty of Engineering have written a program called the "Korset" to stop malware on Linux, the operating system used by the majority of web and email servers worldwide. They have modified the kernel in system's operating system so that it monitors and tracks the behavior of the programs installed on it. Quoting from the article:

If the kernel senses abnormal activity, it stops the program from working before malicious actions occur. “When we see a deviation, we know for sure there’s something bad going on,” Prof. Wool explains. [more]

Interesting article. Their approach could probably work on PC's, Apple computers, cell phones, or any other computerized device that contains software. I have always thought that individual software programs could use a similar approach by monitoring their pgm size and date modified. If either of the two have changed since installed on the computer then the pgm would not run and alert the user of a possible virus attack. Of course, if the pgm gets updated then the pgm would take this into account. On a similar note, I found this patent on the web:

A computer virus trapping device (10) is described that detects and eliminates computer viruses before they can enter a computer system and wreck havoc on its files, peripherals, etc. The trapping device (10) creates a virtual world that simulates the host computer system (28) intended by the virus to infect. The environment is made as friendly as possible to fool a computer virus into thinking it is present on the host (28), its intended target system. Within this virtual world, the virus is encouraged to perform its intended activity. The invention is able to detect any disruptive behaviour occurring within this simulated host computer system. It is further able to remove (52) the virus from the data stream before it is delivered to the host (28) and/or take any action previously instructed by a user (38).

Both are good ideas. Instead of removing a specific virus by its "DNA" or virus-print, you are removing any virus by its behavior. If a virus changes then the anti-virus companies have to update their anti-virus pgm. They always have to play catch-up.

Computer Hardware 'Guardians' Protect Users From Undiscovered Bugs

ScienceDaily (2008-10-01) -- As computer processor chips grow faster and more complex, they are likely to make it to market with more design bugs. But that may be OK, according to researchers who have devised a system that lets chips work around all functional bugs, even those that haven't been detected. [more]

This is pretty cool. Here is more from the article:

The approach keeps track of all the configurations the firm did test, and loads that information onto a minuscule monitor that would be added to each processor.

The monitor, called a semantic guardian, keeps the chip operating within its virtual fence. It works by switching the processor into a slower, bare-bones, safe mode when the chip encounters a configuration that has not been validated. In this way, the monitor would treat all untested configurations as potential threats.

Who Caused the Economic Crisis?

FactCheck.org lists on their website who they think caused the economic crises. Guess what, it's almost everyone. Below is their list. Count how many times the gov't is listed.

• The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
• Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
• Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
• Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
• The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and down payment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
• Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
• Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
• Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
• The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
• An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
• Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

I counted six times the gov't, three times the private-sector and once the consumer. The last one included everybody. Will the economy eventually recover? Of course it will. It is a dynamic non-linear system. Those systems have a strong tendency to self-correct. But if you tamper or mess with them too much they can become chaotic and never recover their previous state. When it comes to the economy, it is the gov't (especially Congress because they enact the laws) is the one who can really make things worse. Gov't can screw up the natural workings of the economy if they do not know what they are doing. Which is most of the time.

Obama's Four Point Financial Plan

Here's is Barack Obama's four point to deal with the financial crisis:

1. Obama calls for subsidies to "working families" to beat high food and energy prices. That only drive up the price of food and energy even more because the suppliers of both will know that families are getting the subsidies, so they can raise their prices more. Also, does this include all working families? Or is there a income limit? Isn't this just wealth re-distribution? You want lower food prices then stop all subsidies to farmers. You want lower energy prices then increase the supply for energy like oil, nuclear, compressed natural gas, etc. And how about lowering the tax on gasoline.
2. Banks would subsidize bad borrowers to "protect homeowners and the economy." Why stop there. Let's have banks subsidize people borrowing money for cars, motorcycles, motor boats and other expensive items. Maybe the banks should not have gave loans to people who can't repay them. Normally, banks don't do this but in the 90's the gov't put pressure on banks to give loans to borrowers who couldn't pay off the loan because of political correctness. Think about it. Why would banks give loans to the poor? Banks like any other business are there to make a profit. The borrower has to show he can pay the loan off. It's called collateral. I suppose there are some unscrupulous bank loaners who gave loans to people just to resell their home when the borrower defaulted. If the bank had unscrupulous business practices it would not be business very long. Word would get around. A bank does not really want someones home. They have to pay someone to mow the lawn and do other upkeep on the home to sell it. There also has to be a market to sell the home. Banks really don't want to be bothered with that. Keep in mind nobody forced borrowers to borrow money. It's called free will. And along with free will comes personal responsibility. A borrower should know if he can pay back a loan or not. If you have the bank subsidize financially stupid borrowers then you are encouraging bad behavior. The borrower will not learn a lesson. It's funny banks are accused of being unscrupulous for making loans to bad borrowers but it is okay for states to have lotteries. You know who buys lottery tickets? The poor or working class. Very few rich people buy lottery tickets. They don't have to. Isn't the state taking advantage of the poor?
3. Obama seeks "new oversight and regulations of our financial institutions." More bureaucracy. Great. It is the gov't that caused the housing mess in the first place.
4. Obama seeks to empower unelected foreign entities to the same "globally coordinated (rescue) effort." Yea, right. How is Obama going to persuade other nations to help out? By sure will alone? I can see Iran, Russia, China and other dictatorships like them helping out. Friendly nations may help out but they have their own issues. The UN has been completely impotent where comes to world affairs. Iran anyone? America does not need another bureaucracy in the mix. One is enough. Then Obama wants to give billions to the UN to feed the poor countries. That's like throwing money into a black hole. Plus the leaders say that will only screw up their economies. Any corrupt regime who gets any money will take it for themselves. The starving people won't see any supplies or food.

Barack Obama Test

The Barack Obama Test which was written by Bradley S. O'Leary who is the author of The Audacity of Deceit (I have not read it) tests to see if your beliefs/positions are in align with with Obama's beliefs. I took the test and my beliefs/positions are not in align with his. According to the polls that Mr. O'Leary uses it seems that neither are America's positions are in align with Obama's either. Only one question (Defense question #2) did Obama agree with majority of Americans.

What is interesting about the test is that Obama says doctors should not give medical care to a fetus that survives an abortion. I thought universal health care means everyone. Then again he is pro-abortion and said he did not know when life begins. Er, okay. According to a Zogby poll 67.8% Americans and 68.1% of American woman think that an abortion surviving fetus should be given medical care. I do too.

And then there's this question: Do you agree or disagree that it should it be illegal for convicts on probation or on bail to have contact with a street gang? Obama agreed with 12.4% of Americans polled that said it is okay if a convict on probation or on bail to have contact with a street gang. Is this just common sense? Why would anyone want a convict on probation to associate with fellow gang members? They might hide him out somewhere. Actually, if the person is a threat to society or a flight risk he should not be given bail period. I think I get it though. Obama (and probably most liberals) say they have a constitutional right to do so. I don't know about that. If a convict does this and he is on bail he is stupid to do this illegal or not. Because doing it shows his guilt right away.

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Money to Legislators

It's no wonder why Congress won't have investigative hearings on Freddie and Fannie like they do the oil companies. They are taking money from the two. OpenSecrets.org reports that Freddie and Fannie have given the total of $4,844,572 to the 354 legislators. 57% of that sum goes to Democrats. Like one of the comments noted on OpenSecrets.org this should be a conflict of interest since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is a gov't created organization. Here are some notable legislators:

Dodd, Christopher J.	$165,400
Obama, Barack	$126,349
Kerry, John	$111,000
Reid, Harry	$77,000
Clinton, Hillary	$76,050
Pelosi, Nancy	$56,250
McCain, John	$21,550
Hatch, Orrin G	$18,250

Congress won't investigate because they would have to investigate themselves.

Why Government Can't Create Private-Sector Jobs

To run a business is not an easy job to do. You have to have business know-how, a viable vision of what your business is going to produce, and certain traits to succeed. These traits include (among other): individuality, problem-solving, self-confidence, realistic outlook, conceptual ability, drive, determination, patience and a positive attitude. Also, as part of the business know-how a successful entrepreneur has to hire good management, find sufficient capital, find a good location, don't over expand the business too fast, and have a realistic business plan. Sorry, I don't see how government can create entrepreneurial jobs with what I described above. What does gov't know about realistic business plans? No fast over-expanding?, Good management? Individuality? Very little. It's not in its vocabulary especially the over-expanding part.

Even if gov't somehow created a business with the right management are they going to insist management pick certain employees? And how is gov't going to guarantee the business survives if the business does not have customers? Give it loans or grants? That's just burning tax-payers money. The Soviet Union tried testing people for certain jobs. It did not work. Mainly, because even if you find someone who has know-how to run a business, (s)he might not have the drive or passion to be an entrepreneur.

Not everyone can be an entrepreneur. It takes a very special individual to be one. Honestly, I don't think I could be one. I admire anyone who uses his own money to start a business and tries to fulfill his dream even he fails.

The best thing gov't can do for the private sector is to just get out of the way. Let the free market decide. It may not be perfect, but gov't is even less perfect.

'Sexist' witch burning banned

From Ananova.com:

Government busybodies have ordered a medieval village to drop a witch burning drama from its birthday pageant - because it's too sexist.

The spectacular blaze - featuring dummy witches - was to have been the highlight of the fair to celebrate the 900th anniversary of the ancient Polish village, Zielona Gora.[more]

Monika Platek, head of Poland's Association for Legal Education said this about the witch burning drama: "The stakes where women were burned were the result of profound misogyny [hatred of women], discrimination against women and ignorance." First, these gov't busybodies are just plain cowards. Then again they are bureaucrats after all. Second, how do you get profound misogyny and discrimination against women from witch burning? I can see ignorance. This was the middle ages after all. But misogyny and discrimination? Come on! If women were burned at the stake because of the two above reasons then there would have been more woman burned that there was. Also, there would have been no "warlocks" killed (the male version of a witch) if the reason was because of sexism. And there were "warlocks" killed. The generally accepted reason people were burned at the steak was because the Puritans thought they were devil worshipers. I think Miss Platek is being way too sensitive.

Interestingly enough, Donald Tyson in his article "The Truth About Witches" said that "a charge of witchcraft was an easy way for a rural woman [my italics], who usually possessed little or no power, to destroy another woman she hated." Hmmm. Let's see, maybe the accuser pointed at the accuse and yelled out in front of a group of people: That witch stole my boyfriend! The group of people heard the word "witch" then the imaginations of the crowd got going. And if the accuse was strange looking and had hardly any status in the community... You can see what happened next.

By the way, it was not only Christians that had witch hunts. Fundamentalist Muslims do it to this day. Look up Fawzi Falih on the Internet.

Solving Complex Problems

The worst way to solve a technological problem is to treat a particular solution as the final solution. That is to say you look at the "solution" as the best solution without looking at other potential solutions. In algorithmic terms this is called a depth-first search. You basically go down a path until you come to a dead end. If the dead end is not your solution then you back up and go down another path. This is fine if the problem is simple, but if it is complex then you need another kind of search called the bread-first search. In this kind of search you search in parallel--you search all paths at one time. This is what the free market exactly does when developing a technological solution to a specific problem. More than one technology competes until the best technology at the time is chosen to solve the problem.

Now, enter the government. Let's say there is a problem called it 'A' that the gov't wants to solve. There are ten potential solutions currently to that problem. Each solution is a business that is just in the developing stages of a solution. The gov't encourages potential solution 1 by giving it a subsidy and ignores the other solutions. To the other businesses this is unfair. But not only that but what if it turns out solution 1 had very bad side effects once it is completely developed or one of the other solutions was better at solving the problem with fewer side effects. The taxpayers' money just went down the drain. Keep in mind as knowledge increases technology changes. Because of that gov't (or anyone for that matter) cannot possible know everything about a particular problem at a given time. Also, by gov't endorsing a particular technology that sends a signal to businesses to stop researching a particular solution that is not endorsed by the gov't. Especially if there is money involved. Using my search analogy, the gov't was using a depth-first search by endorsing only one type of technology. The free market should decide the best-suited technology. If a business can get private individuals or organizations to give or loan it money to research and develop a particular technology, that's great. All the power to the business. The taxpayers does not have to foot the bill and a best solution was reached efficiently.

Five Pillars Policy of Iran

These five pillars are found in Jerome R. Corsi's book Atomic Iran (2005). These policies have been set in stone, determined and agreed upon by the Iranian gov't as directed by Ayatollah Khamenei. They are: (the bold face is mine)

1. Rule with an iron fist. Commit any crime necessary, steal children or whatever; do anything required to retain power.
2. Buy time. The Iranian gov't is winning as long as the world is kept off balance.
3. Do everything possible to destabilize the United States in Iraq. Destabilize Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan.
4. Develop nuclear weapons in Iraq.
5. With nuclear weapons in hand, Iran will assert its power and will upon the world.

You could say that this policy is Iran's equivalent of Mein Kampf. They are spelling out what their plan is. Anyone (especially gov't leaders) who doesn't take Iran's gov't seriously is naive at best; stupid at worst. Hitler was almost able to activate his plan because leaders at that time thought he was just a harmless kook. Let's not make that mistake again.

Code of Decency--The Marion Star

The following below is a code of decency from The Marion Star newspaper circa 1920. It was written by President Warren G. Harding when he was editor of the Star.

• Remember there are two sides to every question. Get them both.
• Be truthful.
• Get the facts. Mistakes are inevitable, but strive for accuracy. I would rather have one story exactly right than a hundred half wrong.
• Be decent. Be fair. Be generous.
• Boost--don't knock. There's good in everybody. Bring out the good and never needlessly hurt the feelings of anybody.
• In reporting a political gathering, get the facts: Tell the story as it is, not as you would like to have it.[my italics]
• Treat all parties alike. If there is any politics to be played, we will play them in our editorial columns.
• Treat all religious matters reverently.
• If it can possibly be avoided, never bring ignominy on an innocent man or child, in telling of the misdeeds or misfortunes of a relative.
• Don't wait to be asked, but do it without the asking.
• And, above all, be clean. Never let a dirty word or suggestion story get into type.
• I want this paper to be so conducted that it can go into any home without destroying the innocence of any child.

Source: The Words We Live By by Brian Burrell (1997).

You think this code is taught by any journalism school? It should be. It's good advice. By the way, The Marion Star is still in business. It is based out of Marion, Ohio. Here is current code for the drive-by-media:

• Remember there are two sides to every question. Get your friends (ie Liberals) side and distort the other side.
• Be truthful if you want. No need to report all the important facts. Downplay any fact that does not fit your agenda.
• Opinions, polls, and innuendo are more important than the facts.
• Be decent, fair and generous only to your friends.
• Always hurt the feelings of people you don't like (ie the Conservatives). There is never good in them.
• If Democrats are getting together make sure you spin it toward the positive. If it is Republicans are getting together spin it toward the negative.
• If there is any politics to be played, we will state our opinion in any story we print.
• Portray all the religious right as nuts.

Anyway, as always, that is my opinion of the press nowadays.

Justice Scalia: Terror Ruling ‘Endangers Lives’

From Newsmax.com (June 18, 2008):

Scalia, in his blistering dissent to the constitutional decision, says the court majority is laying the groundwork for the early release of “some very dangerous people.” He cites a report by Senate Republicans that finds at least 30 prisoners have returned to the battlefield following their release from Guantanamo.

Scalia notes that one previously released prisoner from the detention camp in Cuba was found to have detonated a suicide bomb in Iraq in May. This "return to the kill," he says, happened even after the military had concluded he was not an enemy combatant. [more]

I agree with Scalia. He is dead on. The main purpose of a criminal trial is to determine guilt or innocence. Bin Laden has never denied he is the leader of Al Quada. Therefore he has confessed that he his guilty. To him he is not breaking any law--this is war to him and people like him. Since his guilt or innocence is not in question in my opinion we only have to decide his punishment once America captures him. A bullet in the head is what I choose for him. I don't think that is cruel and unusual punishment. It is quick and relatively painless.

Also, what happens if a terrorist is put on bail by a sympathetic judge? He won't just skip the country. He'll bring terrorism to this country. Homicide bombing anyone? This is what Justice Scalia is talking about. Homicide bombing is a better term than suicide bombing because the terrorist is not just killing himself.

Another issue is discovery. This is where the defense brings up evidence to support their case. That means bringing up sensitive to classified evidence about the terrorist and procedures of the military. Not to mention the defendant has the right to know who is accusing him. This ruling is a bad idea all around.

No Occupational Diversity in Congress

Look at these statistics: Currently there are

• 197 attorneys in Congress
• 6 doctors
• 92 people in business
• 2 accountants
• 6 bankers

Why are these stats important? The stats are important because the Congress represents everyday people of America. Everyday people have occupations in the private sector. If the majority of people in Congress are attorneys then is that a fair representative of the people? I know attorneys work in the private sector (except of course for court appointed ones) but attorneys don't get business owners or doctors. They just know how the law works. Next time if two people or more are running for office and given that all else is equal vote for the non-attorney. 197 attorneys is plenty.

Source: The stats are from Congress Merge.com. You can select different criteria about a Congressperson not just occupation.

Slogans You Can Believe In

Is it me or is John McCain's slogan similar to Barack Obama's slogan. McCain's slogan is: Leadership you can believe in. Obama's slogan is: Change you can believe in. Both have the "you can believe in" part. McCain's slogan is not too bad although still kind of abstract. Obama's slogan is really meaningless. What kind of change are we talking about? Here are some better slogans for Obama following the same "you can believe in" template:

• Liberalism you can believe in. Oh, that's right you cannot imply Obama is a liberal. Okay, then how about this slogan:
• Marxism you can believe in. Better?
• Big gov't you can believe in.
• High taxes you can believe in.
• Over-regulations you can believe in.
• Class warfare you can believe in.
• Surrendering you can believe in.
• Disarming you can believe in.

Hillary Clinton could have used this slogan: Pant-suits you can believe in.

Actually, not only politicians can use this template but so could the private sector. An automobile manufacturer could say: A car you can believe in. A hamburger franchise could say: A hamburger you can believe in. You get the point.

Questions That May Haunt You

Here are answers to some questions that may haunt the reader:

• Can you cry under water? Yes, but the tears wash away.
• How important does a person have to be before they are considered assassinated instead of just murdered? I think you have to be a somebody high up in gov't like a president or Congressman.
• Why do you have to "put your two cents in"... But it's only a "penny for your thoughts"? Where's that extra penny going to? The extra penny goes to the federal gov't.
• Once you're in heaven, do you get stuck wearing the clothes you were buried in for eternity? I hope not. Who would want to be stuck wearing the same clothes for eternity.
• Why does a round pizza come in a square box? Square boxes I believe are easier to make than round boxes.
• How is it that we put man on the moon before we figured out it would be a good idea to put wheels on luggage? I don't think the Soviet Union at the time were racing to put wheels on their luggage. There wasn't a luggage race.
• Why do people pay to go up tall buildings and then put money in binoculars to look at things on the ground? They are either suckers or they are looking into the windows of buildings.
• Why do doctors leave the room while you change? They're going to see you naked anyway. Doctors are taught in medical school that it is rude to laugh at their naked patients while they are in their presence.
• Why do toasters always have a setting that burns the toast to a horrible crisp, which no decent human being would eat? It's because the companies who make toasters are controlled by a strange secret group of people who like burnt toast.
• If Jimmy cracks corn and no one cares, why is there a stupid song about him? Because it was Jimmy who wrote the song.
• Can a hearse carrying a corpse drive in the carpool lane? Probably, but it would tick off the other carpoolers because the hearse would be in a funeral procession going real slow.
• If Wile E. Coyote had enough money to buy all that ACME crap, why didn't he just buy dinner? Because Wile E. Coyote is an obsessive/compulsive coyote. That and trying to kill the Roadrunner is funner than going out to eat at least to Wile.

There you have it. Now, you are less haunted.

Blocking Stupid Spending Bills

If Obama becomes president and the Congress and the House become even more liberal, what the conservatives could do to possibly block stupid spending bills from passing is to put innocuous riders on them that will tick off the libs. For example, a national holiday for President Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, and President George W. Bush (the holidays do not have to be on all on the same bill). See what happens when you don't have line-item veto? Operation Chaos continues! (Good thing I am not running for Congress or for the House.)

Hillary Clinton as an Independent Candidate?

If Sen. Hillary Clinton (HC) is not chosen or does not accept the position as VP she could run as an independent. There could be some reasons why this could be good:

1. The democratic voters in Florida and Michigan could vote for her in the general election and have their vote count.
2. She would not have to wait for eight years to run as president since Obama would probably run for another term if he won the presidency. If Obama does not win then she could be elected president or run again next time against McCain. Either way a win/win for her.
3. If HC ran as an independent then she can keep on the offensive against Obama. She would probably go on the offense against McCain too but that is the nature of the game.
4. HC would take votes away from Obama.
5. Running as an independent would cause strife and turmoil in the Democratic party. Operation Chaos continues!

If the independent party is already taken then she could run as the "pants-suit party" or something like that. Of course, she would have to pick a VP herself.

Ten Truths about American History

These ten truths are taken from 33 Questions about American History You're Not Supposed to Ask (2007) by Thomas E Woods, Jr. The truths are:

1. The Founding Fathers were generally wary of immigration and many of them warned about the consequences for the United States if immigration levels were not limited.
2. The American Indians practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, destroyed forests and grasslands, and wiped out entire animal populations.
3. A far greater scandal is that in his war against the Serbs, Bill Clinton aided and abetted the spread of Islamic radicalism into the Balkans.
4. Even in the absence of gov't, the old West was far less violent than most American cities today. Frontiersmen developed private mechanisms to enforce the law and define and enforce property rights.
5. Liberals supported all major American wars, including (initially) even Vietnam. On the other hand, traditional conservatives like Richard Weaver and Senator Robert Taft have been cautious about the use of military power, and skeptical of utopian claims about what it can accomplish.
6. As the US gov't has conceded only when forced to before the Supreme Court, the Social Security payments an individual makes are not an "insurance premium" but a tax, which does not give the individual the right to any benefit or earmark funds for him. The individual receives nothing but a promise "to tax your children to take care of you in your old age."
7. It was precisely Britain's own "living, breathing" constitution--and the oppressions it produced--that the Founding Fathers rebelled against.
8. Gov't intervention in the economy is counterproductive and ends up hurting the very workers it is supposed to help, as it hampers the very thing--capital investment--that raises our standard of living.
9. As a growing body of scholarship continues to show, the New Deal actually prolonged the Depression and crippled American capitalism.
10. Americans are actually less free as a result of changes in American labor law since the 1930s. It is simply a myth that workers have little to no bargaining power if they are not unionized.

An interesting book. If you get the chance, read it. I also have read his other book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History (2004). A good book too.

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...

The Compassion Forum and God

On April 13, CNN Hosted a Compassion Forum with Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton (John McCain was absent for some reason). CNN had the guests and the hosts ask the candidates questions related to religion. The co-host Jon Meachem asked this question:

Senator [Clinton], we've heard about HIV/AIDS. Many people here are concerned about Darfur and a number of other humanitarian issues. Why do you think it is that a loving God allows innocent people to suffer?

This is the Problem of Evil question paraphrased which is: God is good. God is omnipotent. Evil exists. Well, I believe, evil exists because evil is part of man. Man is both good and bad. We choose which path to take. And since governments are composed by men they can do evil too--even worse since they have power. That is why America's founding fathers created the Bill of Rights--to protect the citizens from a possible corrupt totalarist government. James Madison said it best in the Federalist Papers:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

The reader might ask why does not God stop evil in its tracks? Because that's is what freewill is for. God expects and wants people to be good. If individual people cannot stop evil on their own then benevolent freedom-loving gov'ts have to. Just like the Allied Forces did in World War II. Isn't that what the United Nations was for? To stop another World War? They have dropped the ball badly.

The Problem of Evil question is really too deep to be asking at a forum like this. There is not enough time to answer it. I probably did not do it justice. Then a question was asked which candidate would God endorse. A really dumb question. That is like asking which NBA team does God like. God does not play favorites.

Walking Through Virtual Environments

From ScienceDaily (2008-04-12) --

Imagine being able to take a step back in time and walk through the streets of ancient Pompeii hours before the eruption of Vesuvius. In April 2008, European researchers will demonstrate that walking through virtual environments is set to be a reality. In the virtual environment you have flight simulators, car simulators, but the most natural way of locomotion for humans is walking and this was practically impossible, according to the researchers. [read more..]

GPS Technology for Felons

I think dangerous felons should have a GPS device on their body. That way if they escape prison the police will be able to track their movements. Also, any felon dangerous or not who escapes prison and is captured will have to wear one of these GPS devices because he has shown himself as being an escape risk.

The GPS unit could be put on a fire-proof water-proof saw-proof metal band either around the ankle, wrist or neck. The only way to take it off--if for instance the prisoner was found innocent later on and released--is by unlocking it by using two keys that the guards would have. I originally thought that if the band was tampered with for instance if the prisoner tried to saw it off that it would explode. But then that would end up possibly hurting innocent bystanders.

Haunted Lawsuit

This is one of the strangest lawsuits I've heard of. It goes to show you just about sue over anything. From Telegraph.co.uk Mar. 31, 2008: In Rome, Italy a couple is suing previous owners of a house because they say it is haunted and the previous owners did not let them know. From the article here is phenomena happening there:

"The ghosts started their haunting on the first night," said Mr Bastianelli, a former long-distance lorry driver. "I woke suddenly at around one or two in the morning. There was water seeping from under the bathroom door.

"The hot water tap was pouring out boiling water and the room was full of steam. My wife was stunned, because she had turned off everything before going to bed."

He claimed that by next morning, malevolent spirits had left "luminous green mould all over the walls".

After that things got worse. He said the sound of chains rattling had alarmed his 10-year-old daughter, and claimed that the lawnmower and his wife's car had spontaneously combusted.

According to the article the house is built close to a disused cemetery and there was even an exorcism there at the house. Like I said the previous owners are now being sued because they did not let the current owners know the house is haunted. There is even an Italian law that says you have to notify the current owners if there is anything wrong with the house. Well, maybe, the previous owners did not see any paranormal activity to report. I've watched enough of Ghost Hunters to know that paranormal activity is sporadic. I would think the current owners would have to prove that there was paranormal activity when the previous owners lived there and that they knew about it and deliberately did not tell the current owners about it. Then there is the issue about the activity being paranormal. You would have to have different "Ghost Hunter" teams investigate the house. Maybe, that Ghost Hunter International team that is on the SciFi channel could come out.

Hillary Clinton, Obama and McCain

I distrust any politician who denies that he or she does not have a political belief system either way. Obama said he doesn't. Yea, right! He's as liberal (oh, I am sorry I mean regres-oops! I mean progressive--that's the term now days) as Hillary. Then Huckabee said he's a vertical politician on The Tonight Show. He wasn't to the left or right but vertical. Again, more double-speak.

McCain is okay. He's a decent guy. I don't like his stance on torturing terrorists. I think we should do more of it. We only did it just three times. I think when McCain was tortured it influenced his view on the issue. He thinks if we don't water-board terrorists the international community will like America more. Maybe, maybe not. Countries run by dictators like Iran will never like us. Maybe the citizens do but they only read what the gov't-controlled press tells them what the "facts" are. Any good America does will not be reported or downplayed and anything bad we do will always be reported there. Sort of like drive-by-media here depending on who is power. After all one-party rule countries cannot blame themselves for any mistakes. It is some other country's fault--in this case America. If a country is a true friend of America they will stick by us. Then McCain reached across the isle to the Dems too much. He never crossed the isle to his fellow Republicans that much. He is more moderate than I like.

I vote for who is going to look out for the best interests of this country. Not for the best interests of the UN or the international community. Not because he happens to talk about change all the time (change can go either way) or because she thinks she is the anointed one.

One final political thought: All three candidates are senators. That means they use consensus as a means of making decisions. Margaret Thatcher once said: "To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects." So, either way the country is screwed! (Just joking!?) Just something to think about. Or not.

Compulsive Gambler Sues Seven Casinos

From The Philadelphia Inquirer March 9, 2008: A woman gambling in Atlantic City is suing the casinos because she said they should have recognized her gambling addiction and prevented her from losing close to $1 million by cutting her off. She said the casinos should have noticed her "abnormal" behavior. According to the article, she "would go days at the tables without food or sleep, cleaning her teeth with disposable wipes so she didn't have to leave the table and sometimes passing out."

Well, unless she is wearing a sign or t-shirt that says, "Help me! I am a compulsive gambler! Please cut me off!" or tells them specifically to cut her off at a certain amount, it is hard to tell that she needed help. How is a casino supposed to diagnose a medical condition? How are they supposed to know that she has not been eating or sleeping? That's tricky. Maybe she is just an insomniac trying to pass the time away. Who knows. And if they did cut her off they might be sued for discrimination. Casinos are only looking for people cheating them or people disturbing other people.

This situation would be similar to a shopaholic suing a discount store for not stopping her stopping or a foodaholic suing a fast-food place for not stopping his eating. This lady with this so-called gambling addiction could just have as well sued the other patrons of the casinos for not stopping her. I mean she wasn't alone in these casinos was she? The patrons were around her more (especially the regulars) than the staff was probably. Then again she would make more money suing the casinos. Being a lawyer should would know that.

Where were her family and friends at to help her if she has no self-control? Instead of spending court costs to sue the casinos she would be better off taking that money and going to Gamblers Anonymous for help. States that have lotteries better hope she loses the lawsuit otherwise they could be sued for selling lottery tickets to someone with a gambling addiction.

A Parody of Obama's Pastor Sermon

Here is my impression of Obama's pastor (Reverend Wright) giving a sermon: [My comments in brackets.]

• The post office lied when they said they could deliver a package on Tuesday then it came on Thursday.
• Bob lied when he said he would pay me back the $100 he owes me and never did.
• The boneless chicken package lied when it said it was boneless.
• Al Gore lied when he said he invented the internet.
• Liberals lie when they say they care for the working man.
• Bill Clinton lied when he said he did not fornicate with that woman.
• Hillary Clinton lied in her book when she said she did not know about her husband's affairs.
• The scientists lied when they said global warming was man-made.
• Gerald lied when he said he lost weight just by eating Subways.
• OJ Simpson lied when he said he did not commit murder.
• The gov't lied when they said they put a man on the moon. [Why not this conspiracy theory?]
• The government lied when they said Oswald killed JFK by himself. [Gotta include this one.]
• FDR lied when he said Social Security was going to be optional.

I should say I think Obama's pastor is a fruit cake. Some of the parody is just wishful thinking on my part.

Political Campaign Rules

Politics is war. Any candidate who does not understand that should not be running for office, because he won't win. War has rules and here is what I think they should be in a political campaign:

1. You do not lie about yourself or your stance on issues.
2. You do not lie about your opponent or his stance on his issues.
3. You do not personally attack your opponent. You only attack his stance on issues or his political philosophy.
4. You do not attack his spouse or children unless they are "picking up arms" so to speak. If they are out on the campaign stump giving speeches for their spouse, for example, they are fair game. They just stopped being an innocent civilian--they just became part of the war.

The first two rules are the most important. People don't like political ads (or any advertisement for that matter) that are outright dishonest. They understand ads that show the opponent in a negative light--as long as it is truthful. It is part of the game. But start lying about yourself or your opponent then you lose your integrity.. In politics that's all you have in the end.

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 10

• If a dictator wants to stay in power he has to ban guns, keep people poor, and control the press.
• I am thinking about writing an unauthorized autobiography.
• You think there has been an opinion poll on polls?
• All rivals in a group "get" or understand each other. It does not matter if they are military rivals, sports rivals, political rivals, or what have you. They all understand the nature of the game and have the same mindset.
• I think Congressmen should not receive any gifts, trips, or favors from lobbyists. These "gifts" are just bribes, because Congressmen are public officials no different than policemen or judges. It is against the law to bribe other public officials. It should be against the law to bribe Congressmen. I don't think lobbyist or Congress would see it the same way though.
• Oliver Stone is making a film about President Bush. If he made a film about President Clinton what kind of rating would that film have? An R-rating? Maybe even an X-rating?
• Suspense movie plot: A serial killer goes after a person who steals his/her identity. Question: Who is the protagonist and who is the antagonist?
• I wonder if a socialistic liberal would ever hire a public defender if they got accused and arrested of a felony crime?
• I wonder if AARP is going to endorse John McCain for president. I think they should since they say they are an advocate for the elderly.
• A person without morality or self-control is like a vehicle without brakes. Sooner or later something bad is going to happen.

Crazy Man with An Axe Scenario

Imagine this scenario taking place. You are outside minding your own business when a crazy guy comes after you swinging an axe. You look in his eyes and there is madness in them. What do you do? Do you...

1. Yell, "stop or I'll shoot" if you have a loaded gun.
2. Run and hide.
3. Try to reason with the madman, or try to apologize to him thinking you must have offended him in someway.

If you are a police officer you would probably do the first option. You want to give him a chance of putting down the axe. If he still comes at you, you would probably just shoot him. The second option is understandable especially if you don't have a weapon or don't know any self-defense. Fight or flight is the instinct here. The only problem is he might still come after you so you better hope he runs slower than you. The worst choice is three. You can only reason with sane people. This guy might be hallucinating you're a demon or an evil alien that needs to be stopped. You do not know what is in his mind or what his motivation is. Apologizing to the madman is even more stupid. The last option will definitely get you killed. It is all about self-preservation and common sense.

Compact fluorescents bulbs can poison you

From WorldNetDaily.com (February 26, 2008):

Despite a congressional mandate banning the sale of common incandescent light bulbs by 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is warning that their compact fluorescent replacements are not safe to use everywhere.

The EPA says breakage of the energy-saving, mercury-containing CFLs can cause health hazards, especially for children and pregnant women, suggesting use of the bulbs over carpeted areas should be avoided.

For the Maine study, researchers shattered 65 compact fluorescents to test air quality and cleanup methods. They found that, in many cases, immediately after the bulb was broken – and sometimes even after a cleanup was attempted – levels of mercury vapor exceeded federal guidelines for chronic exposure by as much as 100 [my emphasis] times.[...]

Just think the Congress banned incandescent light bulbs by 2012. Nice job guys. Morons. Banning incandescent only benefits the manufacturers of compact fluorescents. When you ban a product you take choice away from the consumer. You are also insulting his intelligence by implying he cannot think and decide for himself.

At least you can't be poisoned by incandescent bulbs. Burned by them when they are on, but not poisoned. I hope by 2012 there is a safer alternative to compact fluorescents.

A Science of Reporting

In their book, The Elements of Journalism (2001), Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel talk about the principles of a science of reporting which are:

1. Never add anything that was not there.
2. Never deceive the audience.
3. Be transparent as possible about your methods and motives.
4. Rely on your own original reporting.
5. Exercise humility.

The first two principles I think are very important. Without them you just have fiction at worst. At best innuendo or gossip. Like the book says starting with the first element: Journalism's first obligation is to the truth. It should be anyway. There are other elements, the first four are the most important.

If all your information about the world is from the media and you never actually witnessed the news story first hand then what the media reports has to be accurate and objective because that is your only source. In a way they are like the Outer Limits: They control all you see and hear. The media can effect everyday events because they can influence perception of the world. So, what they report must be accurate and not have an agenda to it.

It's an interesting book that the media and even the media's consumers should read.

Glacier Woes Overstated?

From Science A Go Go.com (11 January 2008):

New research from the University of California - San Diego challenges the generally accepted belief that substantial ice sheets could not have existed on Earth during past super-warm periods.

The new study examines geochemical and sea level data retrieved from marine microfossils deposited on the ocean floor 91 million years ago during the Cretaceous Thermal Maximum (also known as the super-greenhouse). This extreme warming event in Earth's history raised tropical ocean temperatures to 35-37°C (95-98.6°F), about 10°C (50°F) warmer than today [my italics], thus creating an intense greenhouse climate. [...]

Hmmm. Glaciers surviving a global warming period. Interesting. If those glaciers could survive past global warming (caused by natural causes) then couldn't present day glaciers survive today's global warming?