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.