Rudy Giuliani's 12 Commitments

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

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

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

Hydrogen From Salt Water

From Bierbart.com:

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

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

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

Destroying Bin Laden's Image

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

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

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

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

Edits in The Bin Laden Videotape

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

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

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

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

Test Scores and Parenting

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unsolved History: Killing Hitler

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

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

Spotting Tell-Tale Signs of A Possible Terrorist

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

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

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

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

Endgame: American Options in Iraq

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

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

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

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

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

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

Youth Suspended Over Sketch of "Gun"

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

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

Terror Group Converts Gaza into Hamastan

From The Israel Project.org:

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

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

Examples of Hamas's Islamic authority include:

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

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

Bishop Urges Christians to Call God 'Allah'

From WorldNetDaily.com:

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

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

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

President Bush's Charleston AFB Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Bush could have added:

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

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

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

Does that quote above sound familiar?

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

Dog Gives Birth To a Kitten

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

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

Universal Health Care: A Bad Idea

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

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

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

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

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

The 20/20 Stossel-Moore Interview

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

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

Earth Much Warmer in the Past

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

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

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 7

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

Happy Birthday America!

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

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

God bless this great country!

Future Versions of the iPhone

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

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

No More Power Cords?

From Ananova.com: "Scientists say they have made a breakthrough which could lead to the end of the electric plug and power lead. A team from Massachusetts Institute of Technology say their 'WiTricity' can 'beam' power across a room, reports the Daily Mail. In the first successful trial of its kind, the team was able to illuminate a 60-watt light bulb seven feet away."

The article says that the WiTricity produces a a 'non-radiative' electromagnetic field that does not harm people, but makes pets and plants crazy (just joking about the pets and plants!)

WiTricity will be great for desktop computers. There is already wireless keyboards and mice and soon there will be wireless monitors. A company from Palo Alto, California is already working on that. The company thinks they will have the technology ready by the end of this year. Cool!