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?

The NIE Iran Report

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

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

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

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