Solving Complex Problems

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

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

Five Pillars Policy of Iran

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

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

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

Code of Decency--The Marion Star

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Scalia: Terror Ruling ‘Endangers Lives’

From Newsmax.com (June 18, 2008):

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

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

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

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

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

No Occupational Diversity in Congress

Look at these statistics: Currently there are

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

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

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

Slogans You Can Believe In

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

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

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

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

Questions That May Haunt You

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

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

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

Blocking Stupid Spending Bills

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

Hillary Clinton as an Independent Candidate?

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

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

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

Ten Truths about American History

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

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

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

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 11

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

ANWR, Eskimoes, and Caribou

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

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

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

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

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

Congressional Investigation Ideas

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

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

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

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda

From WorldNetDaily.com (May 19, 2008):

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

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

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

Sea lions likely died from the heat

From the AP:

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

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

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

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

Wrongly Defining Militant Jihadism

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

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

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

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

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

New Is Not Always Good

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

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

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

The Sarcastic Architect

From Ananova.com:

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

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

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

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

Show Me The Money, Hillary and Barack

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

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

Say, $20 million. [my italics]

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

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

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

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

A Day in a Bureacracy

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

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

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