Machiavelli's The Prince, Chapter III (part 2)

Chapter III (continuation of previous post)

When a territory that has a different culture is conquered, luck and hard work are needed to pacify the population, and the best way to pacify the people is for the king to live in the new territory. When the king lives on his new land, he can find and rectify disorders quickly. However, if the king rules from far away, he is not informed of problems until it is too late to fix the problems. Additionally, the presence of the king prevents corrupt officials from pillaging the land. The population will be satisfied by the king's prompt reaction to injustices, and those who wish to be good have reason to love the king while those wishing to rebel will have more reason to fear the king. Because of this, the territory can easily repel an enemy's military.

Another option is to send subordinates to the conquered villages to rule in the kings name (a worse option is to send an army to control the province). Subordinates are inexpensive, and they aggravate only a few people when confiscating lands from peasant to build their own manor (similar to a mansion, estate, or plantation). The few offended people remain poor and unorganized, so they are not a threat to the king, while the rest are pacified, and do not threaten the king because they fear the nobleman may also confiscate their lands. Thus, subordinates are cheap, loyal, offend few people, prevent the offended from posing a threat, and discourage resistance to the king. That being said, the population must be either treated well or crushed, because a well-treated population is not prone to rebellion, and a massacred population does not have the power to resist, but people with slight injuries have a reason and the power to rebel.

The final option, keeping a military in the province, is the most expensive and will consume the king’s entire budget, in which case the conquered lands harm the kingdom rather than help it. A garrison must be manned by nobles, and these nobles must be replaced because they must manage their own provinces. As a result, the entire kingdom is faced with the difficulties of pacifying the territory, and the nobles may become hostile. For these reasons, a garrison is as useless as a colony is useful.

A king who controls a new territory different from his own should make himself the leader and defender of his neighbors, and should weaken his most powerful neighbors. This ensures that a foreign leader does not earn the respect of the new territory, in which case that leader would pose a great threat. Once a powerful king enters his neighbors land, he is respected by the provinces, which resent their own king. In this case, the provinces rally behind the invader, who profits with very little effort. The invader merely needs to prevent the provinces from gaining too much freedom, and he can easily suppress anyone who would oppose his authority. However, one who does not manage territories properly will soon lose those new territories, and he will have endless troubles managing them in the meantime.


All that follows are the examples of Rome and Louis XII of France. The examples show Machiavelli’s ideas in context, but I do not think they are critical to an understanding of The Prince, so I will not attempt to summarize them.

Machiavelli's The Prince, Chapter III (first in a series of chapter III posts)

Chapter III: Concerning Mixed Principalities

New principalities present the greatest challenge to a new ruler. In new principalities, peasants change their rulers willingly in hopes of a better life, and this hope inspires them to resist new kings. However, the peasants are deceived by their fantasies, because experience dictates that life will go from bad to worse. The desire for change is bolstered by the ruler’s need to suppress the peasantry of his new lands.

In this way, a ruler has made enemies of all whom he has oppressed. Additionally, you are not able to satisfy your supporters in the new land because they want more than you can give, but you cannot take measures against these supporters because you feel grateful to them. Thus, a ruler must always be popular in a territory before he can conquer it.

When a new territory has a culture and language similar to that of the conqueror, the population is easier to control because the conqueror will cause few changes. If a king annexes a territory similar to his kingdom, he simply needs to eradicate the family of the former nobility and not alter laws or taxes, so the population remains unaffected and, therefore, will not resist the new king.


Updates to come later. It is somewhat difficult to understand Machiavelli, and even harder to explain him, so it takes a while to modernize the text.
There seems to be little of note in the news, with the exception of the elections, which everyone knows about already.

Is Arafat Dying?

Belmont Club article
This is one of many articles that advances the theory that Arafat is dying. An Arafat death may stir some things up in the election, but I don't see how it would cause any real change in poll numbers. However, it may really shake up the mid-east. The probable result would be an even less stable Palestine, one which has a complete lack of central authority. A lack of central authority means that Palestine can not operate as a nation on international terms, because international bodies and foreign nations will work only with a government or a single, united leadership. This would end almost all hope of co-existing Israeli and Palestinian nations under the current plans, and it would be very difficult to develop a new strategy. There is a slight chance that a new, better Palestinien leader could emerge (or be propped up), but their chance of success would be miniscule with groups like Hamas and local militias fighting for control.

Bush October Surprise: On Drudge Sunday Night, Wash. Post Mon Morning

Power Line: We just Got a Tip... is one source, and there are several others. Many say the story will run on Washington Time's front page Monday morning (top of the page, too), but the claim that Drudge may get the scoop does not have as much support.

It seems that the Bush campaign may have used the 'missing explosives' story to time how long it takes to rip up a (bad) October Surprise in this election.

Arab World Awaits US Election

Arabs Worried About The Impact Of 'Second US Civil War’, by Amir Taheri

That next week's presidential election is the closest in US history seems certain. What is causing concern in Arab and other capitals is that the intense passions unleashed by both sides could provoke instability and violence regardless of who wins.
...
"The prospect of the US being unable to take urgent decisions for months [due to a dispute over election results] cannot be taken lightly," suggests an Arab diplomat. "Such paralysis could be dangerous in our region where the situation remains volatile. The war in Iraq, the dispute over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the UN fight with Syria over Lebanon, and the Israeli plan to withdraw from Gaza cannot be put on the backburner for months."

To me, this is actually a good sign. I did not read the article considering the US election; but, rather, pondering the future of the mid-east over the next decade, no matter who wins the presidency. The mere fact that the Arab world could be put on hold or descend into chaos tells me that the American role in the mid-east has become indispensable and irremovable.

America is the only superpower, and the mid-east has recognized it as such. This recognition means many things (assuming the mid-east is right):
First, Arab nations will not strongly oppose the US, as they fear the unrestrained power of the American military (‘unrestrained’ by international or foreign bodies, to be exact).
Second, America’s word may be as powerful as America’s military, because America has an unlimited ability to back its word with a military.
Third, America no longer needs the highest GDP or greatest production capacity in the world to remain the economic superpower. This is because American currency will be the strongest in the world, American industry will be the safest and most reliable in the world, and technological advancements will ensure that the US military is the best in the world while guaranteeing new markets for which only American companies can supply.
Fourth, Atlas cannot shrug. America can’t ‘drop the ball’. More simply, America’s presence in the world must be constant and influential, so that international relations will work in harmony with the current structure of global politics. If America does not act like the only superpower, the position which America is stuck with, the world will completely ignore American influence and, therefore, the US will not be able to do what it must do on the international scene. This is comparable to a football referee who does nothing in the first half of a game, and is ignored by the players when he tries to do something in the second half, because the players no longer believe that the referee has any power. Simply, the power of the United States must be recognized by the world, and the US cannot fail its global responsibilities.
Fifth, the responsibility of the United States is not the task of ensuring internationalism. Internationalism simply for the sake of internationalism will set a precedent that the US should not be limited to. Internationalism because multi-national measures are needed is fine, but American power must be distinct and completely effective as a unilateral force. If America were to follow a policy of internationalism, America would be guided by the rest of the world. This contradicts the global balance of power, which shows that the US has the ability to lead the world. “Leading the world into internationalism” is not leadership; it is helping the world circumvent American power.


These points are, of course, based on my limited knowledge of international relations, and have a considerable possibility for error. In fact, I’ve never heard of a good “bullet points for an unopposed superpower”, but this post presents an interesting theory/theories at the least.

The Tragedy Of Blogging

American Digest: Blogger's Head Explodes

I won't quote any part of this, because the article is simply too great to allow readers to think that snipets are ample qualities of this post. Just read the article.

Boston Wins World Series

Boston beat the Cardinals 3-0 in the last game of the World Series.
A more complete article is here.

Russia Moved Iraq's Explosives Away?

From Drudge:

GERTZ // THURSDAY // WASH TIMES: Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned. John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, “almost certainly” removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.

According to Glenn Beck, it would take 100 men and 40 dump trucks, working 12 hours a day, about 10 days to haul all the explosives away.
After US forces checked the weapons facility (which was supposed to be guarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency, a UN division), they found that the weapons were gone. The IAEA had decided to 'secure' the compound by putting a chain over the door, and attaching an IAEA seal to the chain. Needless to say, the chain and seal were gone when the US troops arrived.
Interestingly enough, US troops secured the road to and from the compound after leaving the building. This means that, though the building was not secured, there was no way that 40 trucks could travel to and from the compound over 10 days to move the explosives.

It looks like it will turn out that the IAEA, and therefore the UN, is actually responsible for not securing the explosives, rather than the US or the Bush administration. And, considering Drudge's incredible accuracy (believe it or not, he is more accurate than almost any other major source), it is likely that Russia helped move these explosives. I do not know why Russia would do this, or how Russian troops moving explosives in Iraq would go unnoticed, but I get the impression that a second Bush administration would use this to slap the UN and Russia whenever the we feel like they need a good whack in the head.

From Kerry Email: 'Quick, Get Fanatical!'

I am on the Kerry emailing list because I want to read the “we lost” message after the election. However, these guys send many emails (even though I attempted to unsubscribe a while ago, but I have decided to stay on recently). Now, they have sent an amusing “we only have one week left! Get fanatical!” message. Let me just illustrate how energetic the Kerry camp tries to be:
Sentences that end in with colon: 4
Sentences that end in with a question mark: 4
Sentences that end with a period: 8
Sentences that end with an exclamation mark: 33

Only punctuation marks that are used with their most common purpose are counted. For example, “WE WILL WIN THIS ELECTION!!!” and “VOTE!!!” (caps are in original) are counted to have three exclamation marks each, because a string of exclamation marks emphasizes the exclamation. However, a string of three periods, like in “Each volunteer can make a difference…just imagine” is not counted, because three consecutive periods indicate a pause, lapse in time, or the exclusion of a portion of a quote. Additionally, the line “But time is running out….” Does count for one period, as the last of these four periods signifies an end to the sentence (in special cases, it may mean that the sentence, paragraph, or entire text will never be finished. This was used at the end of a famous historian’s book when he was executed by Nazi’s mid-sentence).


I already know that the Kerry campaign can't use proper grammar, but this email was a bit too much.

Classic Works In Modern Language: Machiavelli's The Prince, Chapters I & II

In order to move away from 24/7 election coverage, but because the mainstream media reports nothing except the election 24/7, I have decided to take a tangent from commenting on recent events. I will, instead, re-write some notable works that have formed the foundation of politics, but which tend to be centuries old and use antiquated grammar structures. I hope to make these documents readable, and may build a “political theory” section of this website to organize them (but that is not in the near future). However, I believe this project may also improve my own understanding of these documents, and I can cite them whenever I want to defend an argument.

I will start with, perhaps, the most reasonable source for modern political theory; Machiavelli’s The Prince (link is to table of contents). Written around 1505 in Italy, and translated by W. K. Marriott (whom I believe did a good job). Please note, however, that I am doing little more than paraphrasing Marriott and Machiavelli, and probably not even doing so with great accuracy. I am merely trying to convey Machiavelli’s ideas in a way that modern people can easily understand.

First, some explanation: Machiavelli wrote The Prince not as a timeless work for political theory, but as a guidebook for the Medici family, whom he hoped would unite the many Italian provinces. The Medici family was one of the richest and most powerful in all of Italy, but they had little power beyond their single province. Machiavelli, in Florentine, intended members of this Medici family to obtain and use his book and finally unite Italy. However, the Medici family did not use Machiavelli’s work, and Italy was not united until the 19th century. The Prince remains an example of politics carried out not through morals, but through calculations and cunning to achieve the desired end regardless of what means must be taken.
Note: As I define it, “end” regards the final goal, while “means” are the methods or steps used to reach that goal.

The Prince, Chapter 1; How Many Kinds Of Principalities There Are And By What Means They Are Acquired

All governments are either republics or principalities (similar to monarchies, or ruled by a king).
Principalities have either been ruled by the same family for many generations or the ruling family is new.
The ruling family of principalities is either entirely new, or the principalities may be annexed by a larger nation which has an old ruling family.
The annexed principalities are either accustomed to living under a prince or king, or they may have lived in freedom without a royal family. Also, the principalities were either acquired through military means, or through peaceful means (such as becoming the ruler of the new principality when the original royal family dies out).

Chapter II; Concerning Hereditary Principalities
I will ignore the republics, and instead explain principalities. I will explain, in the order described above, how these principalities should be ruled and maintained.
It is easy to preserve lands that have been ruled by the prince’s family for many generations because the prince needs only to repeat the actions of his predecessors and fix isolated difficulties as they arise. A mediocre prince will, therefore, be able to rule his land easily unless he is conquered by a powerful military. However, the prince can easily regain his land once the conqueror has bad luck and his power is unstable.
An old royal family has little reason to disturb the province, so it will be favored by the peasants. And, unless the ruler has terrible flaws, the peasants will be naturally supportive of him. In generations of rule, the peasants forget their reasons to desire change, because one change always leaves a desire for further changes (this particular sentence is difficult to summarize. It basically says: “without a change in leadership, the population will be accustomed to life without change” The W. K. Marriott translation is “in the antiquity and duration of [a prince’s] rule the memories and motives that make for change are lost, for one change always leaves the toothing for another.”)

That ends chapter 2. Chapter 3, however, is quite long, and may take several posts to fully modernize. Plus, chapters 1 and 2 will likely need some corrections, because translation/modernization is a pain.

From Drudge: CBS Planned Stolen Explosives For Election-Eve

Article (the article may not last long, and is subject to frequent updates).

60 MINS PLANNED BUSH MISSING EXPLOSIVES STORY FOR ELECTION EVE

News of missing explosives in Iraq -- first reported in April 2003 -- was being resurrected for a 60 MINUTES election eve broadcast designed to knock the Bush administration into a crisis mode.

Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday edition of 60 MINUTES, said in a statement that "our plan was to run the story on October 31, but it became clear that it wouldn't hold..."

Elizabeth Jensen at the LOS ANGELES TIMES details on Tuesday how CBS NEWS and 60 MINUTES lost the story [which repackaged previously reported information on a large cache of explosives missing in Iraq, first published and broadcast in 2003].

The story instead debuted in the NYT. The paper slugged the story about missing explosives from April 2003 as "exclusive."

An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.

According to NBCNEWS, the explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived. (VIDEO CLIP)

It is not clear who exactly shopped an election eve repackaging of the missing explosives story.

The LA TIMES claims: The source on the story first went to 60 MINUTES but also expressed interest in working with the NY TIMES... "The tip was received last Wednesday."

CBSNEWS' plan to unleash the story just 24 hours before election day had one senior Bush official outraged.

"Darn, I wanted to see the forged documents to show how this was somehow covered up," the Bush source, who asked not to be named, mocked, recalling last months CBS airing of fraudulent Bush national guard letters.

Apparently, CBS revived an old story, and planned to release it like breaking news right before the election, before actual facts or context had any time to come out. If this is true, I'm not very pleased with CBS, to say the least. In fact, this would be clear and blatant election tampering, in my opinion.
Now, one interesting point from the CNN article linked to in the quote:

Prior to the Iraq war, the high-grade explosives at Al Qaqaa had been under the control of IAEA inspectors because the material could be used as a component in a nuclear weapon, IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said. IAEA and other U.N. inspectors left the country in March 2003 before the fighting began on March 19.

(underlining done by me)

So the media finally admits that Saddam had some suspicious materiel?

If Drudge is right, and it looks like he might be, I have little care for the continued existence of CBS. Getting a story or two wrong is unavoidable, and every single media outlet makes tons of accidental mistakes. However, purposefully manipulating this story, and after already fabricating the Bush National Guard memos, is despicable, unethical, and makes CBS unworthy of being called a “news source”. The Onion is more accurate than CBS, and The Onion makes their articles up!


Has America actually reached a point at which the media will blatantly lie to the public in order to give a politician a few extra votes? It was supposed to be the media that prevented this from happening, that’s why freedom of the press is in the First Amendment; so the media would be protected when they reveal a controversy.

A New Ballot Controversy - Debunked

from Glenn Beck.

This is an absentee ballot from Cuyahoga, Ohio. The instructions read "To vote for President and Vice-President, punch the hole beside the number for the set of candidates of your choice. Your vote will be counted for each of the candidates for presidential elector whose names have been certified to the Secretary of State".

If you wanted to vote for Bush, you would punch the box which the arrow in the Bush/Cheney cell points to, right (the box which is green)?
Look closer. A lot closer. In fact, look at the ballot as though it is meant to decieve you, and you may see the error. The number in the Bush/Cheney cell is 4, but the box which the arrow points to is box 14. In order to vote for Bush on this ballot, you actually have to punch the red box, which is numbered four, and located above the Kerry/Edwards box.
The source for this ballot asked many people in his building how they would vote for Bush on this ballot, and not one person actually voted for Bush correctly. Don't get excited about a controversy until you read the next paragraph.

There is one problem, however, with the claim of an anti-Bush conspiracy: the sheet listing the candidates is not attached to the sheet that is supposed to be punched. In other words, there is actually no problem with alignment between the arrows and punch-holes, because the two are not lined up.


However, there is certainly reason for confusion, because the absentee ballot has no reason for arrows (the arrows are for the normal ballot, and those line up correctly with the to-be-punched holes). Additionally, I cannot fathom why the particular numbering order is used on this ballot. I would think that Bush/Cheney or Kerry/Edwards would be first, followed by the third-party candidates. This would make the ballot a lot simpler, though the changes are cosmetic, and have almost no chance of affecting votes. And, of course, the "candidate disqualified" slot on the ballot is entirely useless.
Thanks to Power Line for taking apart this controversy. The Glenn Beck website is updated only once per day, and I assume that it was not known that the ballot is ectually in two parts when it was origionally posted (the ballot was also reported on Glenn Beck's national radio program at around 9:10 AM EST). So, now you know the rest of the story.

Brainiac + Dead Rats + Petri Dish = New, Interactive Mini-Brain

here, and here . From the first article:

A University of Florida scientist has grown a living “brain” that can fly a simulated plane, giving scientists a novel way to observe how brain cells function as a network.

The “brain” -- a collection of 25,000 living neurons, or nerve cells, taken from a rat’s brain and cultured inside a glass dish -- gives scientists a unique real-time window into the brain at the cellular level. By watching the brain cells interact, scientists hope to understand what causes neural disorders such as epilepsy and to determine noninvasive ways to intervene.
...
[DeMarse's] experimental "brain" interacts with an F-22 fighter jet flight simulator through a specially designed plate called a multi-electrode array and a common desktop computer.

“It’s essentially a dish with 60 electrodes arranged in a grid at the bottom,” DeMarse said. “Over that we put the living cortical neurons from rats, which rapidly begin to reconnect themselves, forming a living neural network – a brain.”

The brain and the simulator establish a two-way connection, similar to how neurons receive and interpret signals from each other to control our bodies. By observing how the nerve cells interact with the simulator, scientists can decode how a neural network establishes connections and begins to compute, DeMarse said.

Now this is simply incredible. I didn't even know scientists could keep neurons alive in a petri dish for a decent amount of time, much less hook them up to a computer and let them learn how to fly. The brain can only control the pitch and roll of the aircraft in simulated weather ranging from perfect weather to hurricane-force winds, but that's not bad for about 25,000 neurons in a petri dish wired to a common desktop computer. Additionally, these neurons were originally inside rats, so they aren’t a particularly brilliant type. However, the neurons technically do not sit in a petri dish, they have a petri dish-like glass plate with electrodes attached to it.

The scientist hopes to “get ideas from this system about how brains compute and process information”.

According to the article, all this was done with a $500,000 grant to “create a mathematical model that reproduces how the neurons compute”.


Give a scientist $500,000, and he grows a brain that can fly a bit. Give a man $20 million, and he will build a safe, reusable spaceship. Not bad!

Unfortunately, government likes to spend money on other things, like The National Endowment for the Arts, which spent $1,500 for a poem “lighght.” That wasn’t a typo, and it’s not even the poem’s title. That is the entire poem. If I say “brighght.” to The National Endowment for the Arts, the unpronounceable quasi-word might also be worth $1,500.

Perhaps it’s time to scrap The National Endowment for the Arts and replace it with a National Endowment for the Sciences.

Walk A Mile In The Other Party's Shoes.. Or Shirts

Political Poseur - Pretending to be a Republican in Blue California, By Richard Rushfield

This article is brilliant and hilarious. Richard Rushfield, of California, decided to wear the paraphernalia of each campaign in areas heavily supportive of the opponent. He went to malls, coffee shops, and the like, and staid away from places like campaign headquarters. He documents his experience as a ‘political untouchable’ in the excellent article (‘untouchables’ were people with diseases so bad that they carried a bell to warn others of their presence, so people could flee and the disease wouldn’t be spread, to the best of my knowledge). I won’t blockquote in order to better use space.

Inside The Republican Haven:
--------
“In my Kerry-Edwards shirt, I enter Red America certain that I am on the verge of inciting to rage a gang of angry yachtsmen who would soon be strapping me and my lefty leisurewear to their mizzenmast. Instead, I encounter only shades of indifference—head shaking, "crazy idiot" expressions from older, very wealthy, very white folks in Newport Beach; terse nods from the middle- to working-class citizens of Bakersfield, which seem to indicate that people here have much bigger things to worry about than whatever is on my stupid T-shirt. In Bakersfield, surprisingly, there's little indication that we are near the eve of an election: I see a total of two campaign bumper stickers, one for Bush and one Kerry, and one elderly lady with a huge Bush button pinned to the jacket of her pantsuit. Despite a recent visit from Dick Cheney, presidential politics seems to have bypassed Bakersfield, and the locals are not about to let a mere T-shirt drag them into the muck.

“Toward the end of the day, I find one person on whom the election has a deep hold. Strolling past a sunglasses booth in the mall, I am spotted by a tall and exceedingly thin man in his early 20s, with a buzz cut that makes him look ominously like a shock-therapy patient. As I walk by, he fixates on my shirt and begins to follow me, seemingly mesmerized by the power of my Kerry-Edwards logo. I look back and see him trailing behind me, mouth agape, his eyes glued to my back. Whether the shirt identifies me as his leader or whether it is his Manchurian Candidate-like signal to kill, I can't tell. I duck into the mall's Starbucks and the spell seems to break; he turns and wanders away.”
--------
Aside from one stupid zombie, not bad. Sounds like this guy actually got better treatment than me on a normal day, when I don’t wear political clothes.

Now, for Land O’ Liberals:
--------
…
“Next up: Café Tropical, the gritty Cuban coffee house in old Silverlake. I park my Bush-Cheney festooned car behind a Volvo station wagon decorated with a bumper sticker that reads, "Ban war without end. Not in our name." I order an iced espresso and sit beneath a collage of Che Guevara photos. Customers accessorize their coffees at the condiment station in front of me. Suddenly I look up to see Latino man, who appears to be in his early 40s, rushing toward me, an enormous grin on his face. "Where do you get that shirt?" he demands. He continues: "I know only three Republicans here. Everyone else loves Kerry. The Spanish language TV is so filled with bias. They don't tell you that Mr. Bush is a gentleman." People standing nearby watch our summit with anguished there-goes-the-neighborhood expressions. As my new friend leaves, he stands at the front door and, raising his fist, yells, "Viva Bush!" Spasms of horror seize the store and pulse out to the community beyond.
…
“On Vermont Avenue, irony fades into gentrification. A fashionably dressed woman seated at a sidewalk table makes a disgusted face at the sight of me. On line at Psychobabble coffee house, another woman in a blue velour tracksuit rolls her eyes and grimaces at me with undisguised hatred. Realizing there are no seats but the one next to me, she stares intently into her cup, avoiding my polluting glance, until another table opens and she quickly relocates. Out on the avenue once again, I am gifted with my second "Asshole" of the day, this time muttered by a young man with bright dyed raspberry hair.
…
“I enter the faux-rustic Brentwood Country Mart, a collection of shops intended to look like an olde-time barnyard. On the central patio, I pass a woman who looks up from her gaggle of children to see me passing and exclaims, "Ick! God!" A group of teen skater boys waiting on line to buy the Mart's famed "Chicken Basket" discuss whether Bush will be removed from office by the time they turn 18, thus saving them from the draft. I sit down to eat. Dining nearby is a young girl who looks to be about 6-years-old; she gazes at my shirt with a look so forlorn, I expect to learn that Dick Cheney just stole her crayons. Her mother arrives and gives her a hug of consolation. The girl starts to talk, but I can only make out "Bush shirt," which she says to her mother as she points my way. The mother turns and glares, shaking her head at me. I start to wonder what sort of person I am to inflict this on a poor child.

“Up in the San Vicente shopping area, things go even less smoothly. At the first intersection, an older man in the weekend wear of the very prosperous passes me and yells, "Bush-Cheney?!?" as though demanding an explanation. At the Coral Tree Organic Café, a willowy, bookish woman seated alone glares at me from across the room. When I smile and wave to her, she puts on her sunglasses.”
--------
Wow, now those people are downright nasty. Then again, it is California.

As the author alludes at the end of the article, he is on the left wing. The right wing has claimed for a long time that the political left is the more rude of the two parties. Excessive Evidence for this claim is provided by the likes of Al Franken, who has tackled anti-Dean protestors and had to be carried away by security when he refused to stop pestering Sean Hannity after a show. Additionally, he has been known to try to incite people to get a story, including (I believe) saying “I’m listening to this Mormon ramble on and on..” at the recent GOP convention to get a response out of Glenn Beck, a popular (and my favorite) talk-show host. I believe he has also punched O’Reilly a few times, and that’s about as moronic as someone can get. Liberals are supposed to be the “violence never solves anything” types, and yet there are plenty of liberals who were overjoyed to hear that Franken hit O’Reilly.

But, in all the time Rushfield was in Liberal Land, how could he not tell one person off for being intolerant?

No Surprise Here - Liberal British Newspaper Wants Bush Dead

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

-originally from www.instapundit.com, which quoted this segment before the Guardian website went down.

Earlier, The Guardian attempted to interfere with the US elections. I commented on the idiocy of this attempt before the interference actually started, here. The title for my post is bad, I admit, but it's better than the Guardian's argument.

When I read this, I started liking Bush even more. This newspaper not only wishes for Bush to die, but it calls America uncivilized, claims a Bush victory would prove that there is no god (does that mean Bush isn't Satan? If there isn't a god, then I doubt the Dark Prince has a reason to exist, either), and falsely implies that Iraq didn't want to get rid of Saddam ("unwanted bloodshed" refers to this).
After The Guardian attempted to directly interfere with the US elections by having readers send mail to voters in Ohio encouraging Americans to vote for Kerry, I intended to ignore The Guardian entirely, and laugh at what they say when I can't ignore them. Well, I have laughed at this quote, as it brings me to joy to ponder the mortification of journalists when Bush is re-elected, but I was convinced to mention this newspaper again because the quote is simply too good to not repeat.

This journalist, like the rest of Europe, is suffering withdrawal symptoms. I'm not talking about any particular drug, even though there's good reason to expect The Guardian has a private meth lab and "botanical garden" for its reporters. Rather, I am talking about losing power and influence over the world. From the 1500's to 1988 (and also during the entire Roman era), Europe was the center of the world. Even during the Cold War, it was the fulcrum on which US and Soviet power balanced. But, over the last decade, Europe has finally realized that America is the one and only superpower, and it has left Europe in the dust. Europe’s new way of clamoring for power is claiming that everything must be “legitimate” – i.e., with Europe’s approval. The UN itself doesn’t matter to Europe, as the UN is merely a tool to help reach an end, because Europe was willing to go after Kosovo without UN approval. If the US were to strive for legitimacy, as Europe claims is necessary, then we would be shackled to a lazy and fallen superpower. The US has no good reason to drag Europe, kicking and screaming the entire way, by a chain around the leg of each in order to improve the nation’s place in the world - or to improve the world itself.
Europe’s international weakness is proven by the fact that much of the continent can only appeal to American popular opinion, which The Guardian’s actions are an example of.

On the other hand, there is a chance that The Guardian conducted a publicity stunt. Abercrombie And Fitch, for example, sold pornography to stir up controversy and got tons of free advertising (A&F spent almost nothing on commercials for a year or two).


In either case, I hope to never mention The Guardian again. Unless, of course, it’s really, really funny.

My Hometown Bush/Cheney Headquarters Robbed

Cincinnati Bush/Cheney headquarters robbed

Cincinnati's headquarters for the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign was broken into overnight.
Money and a sign were taken from the office, on Seventh Street near Court Street. The thieves got in by breaking out a window.
The office was also ransacked, officials said. It also houses other Republican organizations.

I'll turn on the local news and try to find some update-worthy material.

Ann Coulter Creamed.. Literally

article
In short, two men threw pies at Ann Coulter during a speech at the University of Arizona. Because these men are girly liberals, they couldn't throw straight, and only hit Ann's shoulder.

How immature can two guys be? Couldn't they at least target a guy, rather than a woman? Yes, Coulter is quite vocal, and she can even grate my nerves once in a while, but I would never consider throwing a pie at her. I wouldn't even throw a pie at Michael Moore, even though he would probably be overjoyed to have an entire pie stuffed in his face for free (OK, that was a cheap shot, but Michael Moore deserves a few cheap shots).

A Fantastic Read From a Canadian

An essay by a Canadian
Read the essay. It is too good for me to summarize, and I'd rather link to the essay than quote it because the margins on It Is What It Is are better than those on my website.

Good Summary Of Genocide In Sudan

The war in Darfur summary. Everything in the article looks fairly accurate, and the artilcle is simplified to explain the conflict to non-news-fanatics. It's a good read if you don't know much about the Darfur genocide.

Time To Talk About Norway And The Environment, But Mostly Norway

ENN: Environmental News Network article
First, let me explain a bit about Norway, where this article was written. Norway is rich and socialist. Norway manages to keep those contradictory traits because it is a major oil exporter. In fact, Norway has at least 50 years worth of oil in the reserves that are currently being used, and possibly centuries worth of oil in reserves farther north, but little surveying has been done to find those reserves. Norway is also very cold, and Norwegians love to joke about how they refer to -75 degree weather as "a bit nippy". However, Norway manages to have surprisingly good music (to the extent that a Norwegian won the "World Idol" competition, if my memory is correct. Additionally, I’m listening to some Edvard Grieg, Norway’s most notable composer, right now), and Norwegians who know English can write it better than the British.
However, the frozen nation of Norway has some race problems, and the population views black as a sub-class, dependant on the government or charity to survive.
Back to Norway being rich: the nation has way too much money, and a lot f spare electricity. Either earlier this year or late last year, Norway actually shut down one of its largest hydropower plants for nine hours to tune a piano. The auditorium was carved into a mountain by the power company (yep, carved into the mountain), but the hum from power generators did not allow an expert to properly tune a piano in the auditorium in preparation for a major concert. So, the company turned the generators off for nine hours, long enough for the piano to be tuned and for the concert.
That’s Norway in a nutshell. A very cold, very rich, very socialist, and a bit racist nutshell.

Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry has won plaudits abroad for his promises to fight global warming but could find his hands tied at home if he wins next month's U.S. elections.
An ideological chasm separates the environmental policies of the two candidates, with President George W. Bush favoring more use of domestic coal and oil to cut dependence on Middle East oil, while Kerry seeks a shift to clean energy like solar or wind power by 2020.
…
"Kerry would engage with other countries about what would come after 2012 in a way that the Bush administration wouldn't," said Eileen Claussen, head of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. She said the environment came far behind Iraq, terror, and the economy in voter priorities.
The Republican president has derided Kyoto as too costly and says it is unfair because it exempts rapidly industrializing countries like China and India. "It's one of those deals where, in order to be popular in the halls of Europe, you sign a treaty," he said.
Kerry says Bush should have tried to renegotiate a "flawed" Kyoto rather than ditching it. Kyoto is set to enter into force in the next few weeks with Russian backing.
Kyoto aims to cut developed nations' emissions by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Many scientists say storms, rising sea levels, and desertification may be the biggest threat to life on the planet in the coming centuries, justifying trillions of dollars in spending to crack down.

What this treaty comes down to is how much each person cares about the environment. People like me, who want an ozone sunroof, couldn’t care less about a useless piece of regulation like Kyoto. Environmental fanatics, on the other hand, think Humanity should sacrifice modern economies to prevent a bit of carbon from entering the atmosphere.

Read the article if you want to. No one is really interested in global warming, though, so I won’t bother to analyze the story in this post. Instead, I actually enjoy talking about Norway a bit, and I couldn’t pass up a good chance to bring the subject up.

Europe STILL Wants To Give Iran More Uranium

USATODAY.com - Iran insists on right to enrich uranium

Giving Iran one last chance to avoid the threat of U.N. sanctions, Britain, France and Germany will offer nuclear fuel and economic incentives at a meeting Thursday in return for assurances [that] the Tehran regime will suspend uranium enrichment, diplomats said.
The offer came as Iran announced Wednesday [that it has proposed a compromise] to end the standoff over its nuclear program. But Iran insisted anew on its right to enrich uranium, which the United States [claims] is part of a covert attempt to build an atomic weapon.

Iran vows to continue it's nuclear program, which the nation claims is intended only for generating electricity. This vow is a setback to European diplomats, who had hoped to prevent Iran from enriching uranium.

The line above is a paraphrase, because I find it oddly difficult to understand what the journalist has written. The original sentence used pronouns in a somewhat-cryptic way.

So, Europe wants to give Iran nuclear fuel in exchange for an assurance that Iran won't make nuclear weapons. A logical person would require Iran to give up machinery that can make nukes, or maybe exile some nuclear scientist, but these diplomats seem happy with the promise of a dishonest nation.

It was a deal like this that allowed North Korea to obtain nukes. And, I believe it may be a deal much like Europe's that also allowed Iran to build a nuclear program.


Let me explain this in a non-international-relations way. Suppose someone breaks into your house and tries to steal a lot of your property. You catch them and threaten to force them out. However, the thief insists that he still wants your stuff. To reach a compromise, you help him fill his truck with your stuff, and you do not call the police because he left peacefully (with a lot of your stuff, but you helped him steal it). A week later, the thief comes back with a bigger truck and starts emptying your house. Again, you agree to help him fill his truck so the thief doesn't damage your house (as the thief doesn't care about tearing up the house). So, the thief again drives away with more of your stuff, and you don't call the cops. This goes on until your house is empty, and the thief has all of your stuff.
If you didn't help the thief, he wouldn't have come back, so you would only lose some of your property. Also, because you helped the thief, he didn't really commit a crime because you willingly gave up your property. Also, had you called the cops, the thief would be arrested and everything would be replaced.
However, because the homeowner is naive and doesn't consider the future, he is left with nothing and has only himself to blame.

Europe is, in effect, the naive homeowner. Europe is willing to give Iran a greater ability to build nukes (or more advanced weapons, like hydrogen bombs), in exchange for a false promise of future good behavior. If this process of appeasement is allowed to continue, Europe will sacrifice everything to threatening nations. Once Europe sacrifices enough, the appeased will become more powerful than the appeaser. Then, the appeased is free to do whatever it wants, and may even conquer the former appeaser.

Brilliant Way To Prevent Sign Theft

The reason I am running this story is because it reveals a great method of preventing sign theft. The article is
Rocky Mountain News Article (it doesn't discuss the method, only hints to it). So, I'll explain the method.

The first thing you do is put your sign in the middle of some area with a very hard surface. If you have a way to put the sign in your driveway or on a patio, do so. Make sure that the hard surface covers at least a seven foot radius around the sign (this may not be necessary, depending on various conditions). Put some stakes into the ground, and run a chain through them, going around the sign but at least seven feet away from the sign itself.
Now, if someone tries to take your sign, they will trip over the chain and hit the ground fairly hard, which may be ample punishment. You want to keep the chain a decent distance from the sign because you do not want the thief to impale themself on your banner, which could lead to lawsuits or imprisonment due to "wrongful death" laws. Besides, convicted felons can't vote (but people charged with felonies, but not yet convicted, can vote), so impaling the thief wouldn't help your cause very much.
You may want to remove the stakes and chain early each morning, then replace them once it's dark, so you are certain to catch the thief by surprise.

Keep in mind, however, that signs are getting stolen pretty evenly for both Republicans and Democrats. However, I suspect that Nader signs have, by far, the shortest lifespan.

Iran Endorses... Bush?

The Globe and Mail article

The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday that the re-election of U.S. President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbours al-Qaeda terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.
Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.
“We haven't seen anything good from Democrats,” Mr. Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.
Iranian political analyst Mohsen Mofidi said ousting the Taliban and Saddam Hussein was the “biggest service any administration could have done for Iran.”
And Mr. Bush, he said, has learned from his mistakes.
“The experience of two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the responsibility Bush had, will make it a very remote possibility for him to risk attacking a much bigger and more powerful country like Iran,” he said.
Mr. Mofidi added that “Democrats usually insist on human rights and they will have more excuses to pressure Iran.

I will have to rethink my entire analysis of Iran. This re-analysis has nothing to do with the possibility that Iran actually supports Bush; rather, it is because I thought Iran acted in international affairs based on rational calculations. I will agree that ousting Saddam Hussein had a positive side-effect for Iran, as the two have been at odds since the end of the Iran-Iraq War (which Saddam ended unexpectedly so he could use his entire military for the Gulf War). However, a democratic, non-fundamentalist neighbor is not good for Iran, especially because the people of Iran do not support the government.
It also seems that Iran does not realize the power and plans of the Bush administration. No matter how much better the Iranian military is than that of Iraq, they can be destroyed just as decisively, if not more so, than the Iraqi military in Gulf War II/Iraqi Liberation. Not only does the US have great experience in mid-east warfare, but we’ve also been improving weaponry and will not make many of the mistakes (though they weren’t very costly by military standards) of Iraq.
Bush seems quite determined to keep forcing democracy down the throat of Arabs. I suspect that Iran may be next. Perhaps Syria is a target, and the US would love to topple the Saudi royal family, but Iran is a big and easy target, especially now that over 100,000 US troops are right next door in Iraq.

British Politician Comments On Sudan

'If this isn't genocide, then what on earth is?'
I'll keep this post slightly toned down, because I don't want to describe genocide. But, just so you know, I believe journalists have a rule of thumb when reporting genocide: if the Nazis did it, then it's reportable on primetime TV. If the Nazi's didn't do it, stick with cable/satellite, a late-night report, or ignore the gory details altoghether. There are many details that don't get reported.

So, to quote parts of the article:

A traumatized, helpless mood of resignation simmers in the [refugee] camps. Sometimes it boils over, as, for instance, at Otash camp, near Nyala, where a policeman was lynched. A woman had recognized him as one of those who massacred her family
I understand why Tony Blair wanted face-to-face discussions with President Omar al-Bashir when he visited Khartoum this month. But before we shake too many hands in Sudan we should remember the blood on them.
Britain refuses to follow America's lead in saying that what is happening in Darfur is genocide. The Government's line is that it would not help it in its efforts to put pressure on the Sudanese Government.
. . .
Above all, [the refugees] told us, the genocide must end. One, Sheik De Allah, said poignantly: "We are a simple people. We know our farms and cattle and that's all we want. The Government created Janjaweed and has created this situation. We are desperate and pray that the international community will intervene."

That summarizes the situation as cleanly yet accurately as possible. If you want a more accurate description of what's happening in Darfur, you will have to read about some very horrific events, as genocide can not be separated into politics and crimes, as required for a family-friendly article.

"Help, I Can't Get HBO!"

TV Calls Air Force for Help

An Air Force search and rescue alert was trigged by Chris van Rossman's flatscreen Toshiba TV. It has a built-in VCR, DVD and CD player. And an undocumented feature that has authorities scratching their heads.
Some sort of electric glitch was causing van Rossman's TV to transmit on the international distress frequency. The signal was picked up by a satellite and relayed to the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center in Virginia.
Van Rossman had no idea until airmen, deputies and Corvallis, Oregon, police were knocking on the door of his apartment. The errant signal was traced to his TV set.
Van Rossman was warned to keep the TV off or face a $10,000 fine for sending a false distress signal.
A spokeswoman for Toshiba says they've never heard of this sort of problem before. But the company is promising to give van Rossman a new TV.

I wonder how strong a distress signal must be for a satellite to pick it up.
And, rather than forcing the TV to stay off with the threat of charging $10,000, can't they find some material that would block the distress signal?

I won't bother fact-checking this story, because it's probably impossible to fact-check. Besides, t's simply too funny to take seriously.

Make A Note: AIDs Protesters Are The Worst

21 Arrested in Arlington Protest of Bush Administration AIDS Policy

Arlington police arrested 21 protesters yesterday after they chained themselves to the front door and one another at Bush-Cheney campaign headquarters during a demonstration against administration policies.
About 120 protesters took part in the demonstration outside the building on Wilson Boulevard that houses the campaign headquarters, police said. The protest began about 2 p.m. and lasted 90 minutes, they said.
The protest was organized by ACT UP and Housing Works, a nonprofit agency that provides social services, housing and health care to people with AIDS in New York, said Robert Cordero, director of federal advocacy for Housing Works.

I believe ACT UP was the same organization that got several protesters into the RNC Convention while Bush was speaking. About three of these protesters were carried out by a platoon of Secret Service officers.
These guys have become dangerous because of their actions. By disrupting the Bush speech, they could have caused a lapse in security. Additionally, they caused as much chaos as possible outside of the convention. Of course, the Secret Service prepares for fanatical protestors like these, but they certainly are not appreciated, and their antics cause a lot of trouble.

I suppose that the protesters do not realize that HIV/AIDs is receiving more funding from the federal government, per infected person, than any other major disease. In 2003, HIV/AIDs research received nearly 2.8 billion in federal funding. This translates to $5,500 for every person identified as having AIDs (which kills about 14,132 per year). Heart diseases, which kill about 700,000 per year, receive only about 2.1 billion in federal funding.
In other words, HIV is disproportionably funded to an extreme. Compared with other common causes of death, it is quite overfunded. The deathrate due to HIV has been plummeting since 1995, from 45,000 in 1995 to 15,000 in 1999 (I am unable to find more recent data).
In 1998, more people of every 5-year age group (one group is 0 to 4 years old, the next is 5 to 9 years old, the next is 10 to 14 years old, ect) died due to suicide rather than HIV/AIDs. With the exception of groups within the 30-year-old to 64-year-old bracket, more people died due to homicide (murder) than due to HIV/AIDs. And, within the 30 to 64 bracket, the death rates are quite close. source. That source may take a while to load, as it is a large Centers for Disease Control document.
So, HIV-positive people not only have an overfunded infection (according to the data), but their disease actually doesn't kill very many people in the US.

Don't get me wrong, every person knowing they are going to die abnormally soon has a right to be unhappy. However, unintentional injuries (which tend to come out of nowhere and with no warning at all) kill far more people than HIV/AIDs does. I believe the protesters had a far greater chance of being killed by a car (accidentally) when leaving the Bush-Cheney HQ than they were to die of HIV/AIDs at the Bush-Cheney HQ. The likelihood that many protesters were not HIV-positive makes this possible.

Keep in mind, somewhere between 2 and 8 people die each year by being crushed by a giant roll of paper. Another 2 to 8 (at the least) are killed by giant spools of wire in a similar fashion.

There are plenty of ways to die, and HIV is a less-common one. However, government insists on ending it with incredible amounts of money, giving the shaft to people with cancer or heart diseases, along with many other fatal problems.


To me, it seems that these protesters are simply fanatics who want to disrupt the democratic process. Actually, that’s exactly what they are, and HIV is an unrelated factor.

Revolutionary New Idea: Replace Machines With Humans

Ottawa Citizen article

Scientists have discovered a way of manipulating a gene that turns animals into drones that do not become bored with repetitive tasks. The experiments, conducted on monkeys, are the first to demonstrate that animal behavior can be permanently changed, turning the subjects from aggressive to "compliant" creatures.
...
The experiments -- detailed in the journal Nature Neuroscience this month -- involved blocking the effect of a gene called D2 in a particular part of the brain. This cut off the link between the rhesus monkeys' motivation and reward.
Instead of speeding up with the approach of a deadline or the prospect of a "treat," the monkeys in the experiment could be made to work just as enthusiastically for long periods. The scientists say the identical technique would apply to humans.

News flash for the scientists: monkeys are stupid. Humans, on the other hand, are naturally greedy and have this thing called "being self-aware", which means humans can consciously use their brain (to some extent), and might insist on a reward for their hard work, anyway. Monkeys just learn a habit. In this case, the monkeys don't realize that they won't get a reward.

Congratulations to these scientists. They have managed to make monkeys stupider. Instead of dropping the monkeys on their heads when they are young, the scientists spent a lot of money and time to isolate and manipulate a "misled idiot" gene to greatly improve the chance of obtaining properly retarded monkeys.

This is exactly what humanity needs, isn’t it? Even dumber people with absolutely no ability to learn anything new.

They could have found a cure for baldness. But, apparently, science desperately needs a way to reliably and humanely retard monkeys.


And, just so you know, I have no idea what these scientists really did. I’m simply making this stuff up as I go. Maybe these scientists have found a universal cure for depression and ended inefficiency to greatly improve humanity’s desire for a better future. If this is the case, maybe they will get a Noble Prize. However, I find it comical to discuss the possibility of more-retarded monkeys. By the way, I have nothing against the mentally impaired/challenged/handicapped/handicapable. It is simply fun to joke about new scientific discoveries and theorize (technically, “hypothesize”) how useless they could be.

Just How Many Bills Has Kerry "Passed?"

Factcheck.org article

At the final presidential debate, Bush said Kerry had passed only five bills during his career, and Kerry said he had passed 56. Actually, we found eleven measures authored by Kerry have been signed into law, including a save-the-dolphins law, a law naming a federal building, a law giving a posthumous award to Jackie Robinson last year, and laws declaring "world population awareness weeks" in 1989 and 1991.

Bush counted only measures technically defined as "bills," leaving out four "joint resolutions" that also have the force of law, and he also omitted two laws whose House versions were adopted in a form nearly identical to Senate versions authored by Kerry.

When Kerry said "I've actually passed 56 individual bills that I've personally written" he was counting everything that had passed the Senate, whether or not it cleared the House. He also counts 24 resolutions that have no force of law.

If a senator makes $158,100 per year (according to this), and Kerry has been a senator for 20 years, he's made $3,162,000 to: save several dolphins, authorize $53 million in grants for woman-owned small businesses, name a federal building after Fredrick C. Murphy, fund the National Sea Grant College Program, and grant a visa and permanent US residence to Kil Joon Yu Callahan.
However, Kerry also made two bills almost identical to the House version, and the House version was passed in the senate to avoid compromises between the senate and house. These bills: awarded a congressional gold medal to Jackie Robinson (posthumously), and Increased the maximum research grants for small businesses from $500,000 to $750,000.
Kerry also passed 24 Senate resolutions that had no chance of becoming laws. These resolutions include a ban on commercial mining of minerals in Antartica, encouraging Europe to ban driftnets for European Community fishing fleets, and to rename the Committee on Small Business.
Additionally, Kerry passed bills in the senate to allow 10 foreign-built vessels to transport cargo or people along the US coastline. Because there were 10 different ships, Kerry passed 10 different bills, one for each ship. None of these passed the House.

I'm sure people wonder who Kil Joon Yu Callahan is, or why Kerry thought any commercial company would even want to mine in Antartica, or why Kerry bothers with foreign fishing nets and a few dolphins. I have the same questions. IN 20 years, couldn't Kerry have passed just one big peice of legislation?

Interesting poll analysis

USS Clueless -- Poll Trends

Not bad. This article brings up some good points, all of which seem fairly accurate.

Sudan Update

Article

China is trying to stop the United Nations imposing sanctions on Sudan over the crisis in the Darfur regionto protect its oil imports from the country, say western diplomats.
For the past six years Beijing has been the Sudanese government's main backer, buying 70 per cent of its exports, servicing its $20bn debt and supplying the Khartoum government with most of its weapons.
...
The UN Security Council is committed to reviewing the situation on a monthly basis. Given the stream of bad news, it could soon move to embargo Sudan's oil exports. China's ambassador to the UN, Wang Guangya, has already threatened to veto any such resolution, but diplomats say Beijing may have to give in to mounting international pressure.
Beijing is already under fire for its support of Burma, North Korea and Iran, countries also accused of breaches of international law. China was also singled out in the recently released Charles Duelfer report on Iraq's WMD, along with Russia and France, for breaching the UN sanctions against Iraq and subverting the oil-for-food programme. But China is almost alone in supporting Sudan. After the US imposed sanctions in November 1997, the rest of the world - apart from companies from Pakistan, India and Malaysia - have kept their distance.

Indeed, China has been friendly with Sudan because of oil. Over the last few years, China went from a major oil exporter to a major oil importer, and it has every intention to use more oil. In addition, China has been investing heavily in Austrilia to develop the mining industry.
China's industrial growth depends on availability of foreign resources, and the Chinese government can not afford an economic collapse.

Update On 'Voter Outreach' Trashed Ballots Story

After nearly 24 hours for this story to pass through the media, few realize that the story is fake. The forgery of this story has been determined by a few individuals (including me), while many others have also found reason to suspect parts of the story. Also, any existing organization of a decent size seems to be listed in a google.com search. With the incredible number of people writing about virtually anything, it is very difficult for something not to appear on google.

Klas-TV, in Las Vegas (aptly nicknamed the "city of sin") has run three stories alleging that a group named "Voters Outreach of America" has deliberately destroyed registration forms made by democrats. Destruction of registration forms is illegal, as well as a potential dirty trick. Klas-TV, in its two earliest articles, claimed that Voters Outreach of America is also known as America Votes (the reference in the first article shortly after I emailed Klas-TV requesting that they recheck their facts, no other part of the article was changed).
Oddly enough, America Votes, which certainly does exist, has absolutely no relation to the RNC, and probably has absolutely no affiliation to any republican at all. America Votes was created by AFL-CIO, the Media Fund, moveon.org, and over a dozen other liberal organizations in order to coordinate the actions of the founding groups. The president of America Votes was Deputy Chief of Staff to Nancy Pelosi, a notable democrat (if not outright liberal). This information is from the official America Votes website, and is backed up by a credible non-partisan source (ww.opensecrets.org) as well. Klas-TV claimed that Voters Outreach of America is "largely, if not entirely funded, by the Republican National Committee". It is certain that America Votes was funded entirely by the groups that its official website links to, none of which can claim to be right-leaning and are despised by the RNC. Additionally, there is no consensus on the name of this Voters Outreach, as some call it Voters Outreach of America while other refer to it as Voters Outreach for America.
Actually, let me quote the DNC itself for the Voters Outreach-America Votes link: "In Oregon, 'Voters Outreach', also known as 'America Votes,' has been linked to Sproul & Associates, a firm that has been paid some half a million dollars by the RNC. from here. This is part of a letter from Terence R. McAuliffe, Chairman of the DNC, to the chairman of the RNC. Additionally, the mere title of the article, “McAuliffe Letter Demands Answers from Gillespie On RNC Funded Voter Fraud” is innacurate. There is no “voter fraud”, as “voter fraud” does not nclude destruction of registration forms, to the best of my knoweldge.
Additionally, this story happens to coincide with an article here; “RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie issued the following statement today regarding a Kerry/DNC campaign document that instructs Democrats to make up charges of voter intimidation even if no signs or evidence of voter intimidation actually exist”. This story was also run by Matt Drudge.

When this story was first released, "Voters Outreach of America" and "Voters Outreach for America” had about four results in google.com, with at least one of those results being the news article. The closest things that can currently be found is a careerbuilder.com form here. Oddly enough the group that filed the form is in "US-MO-Springfield" (US standing for United States), while the Voters Outreach cited in the article is in Nevada. I am under the impression that the description under the form might not be entirely accurate, as that description ends with “Source - Reno Gazette Journal - Reno, NV”. I do not believe a normal description ends with a “source”, especially a media source.


But, there is still the question on Voters Outreach of America. A google search simply on "Voters Outreach" turned up few results. That was, at least, until a few hours ago. Since then, tons of people have been mentioning the group in story after story (including dailykos.com, which receives about 500,000 visits per day). One of the first results was National Voter Outreach, which claims no affiliation or relation to Voters Outreach of America and/or Voters Outreach for America.


This story has done exactly what I feared it did when I finished my last article: explode.
In only 24 hours, hundreds of websites have brought up this story, and it certainly looks like evidence is being fabricated (like that job application I mentioned earlier). I assure you, this ‘evidence’ did not exist 24 hours before I wrote this article.

Additionally, many have incorrectly connected the group mentioned in this story to another group falsely claiming to be America Votes in other states. I have no good reason to believe that Voters Outreach is connected to any of these other groups (one of which includes a prominent republican, the Sproul mentioned in the DNC letter). It seems that these groups were found when people searched for America votes controversies, and they were able to find several less-than-respectable groups that are unlikely to be involved in any nation-wide controversy.


I did, and still do, believe that this story is fraudulent. Since its release, it has exploded, and that explosion created ‘evidence’ that did not exist before. Many dots have been connected, though those dots have reason to be connected. I have found no evidence that Voters Outreach existed before Klas-TV published their article, with the exception of documents that are most likely fraudulent.

This story is still developing and expanding, so I can not hope to cover all necessary details after I publish this post. Many individuals, such as Michael John McCrae, have done excellent work checking this controversy, and they deserve quite a bit of credit. I must, however, note that this story is still developing and therefore quite prone to errors. Readers are more than welcome to share any new evidence in comments, and I can be contacted through the email address in the column on the right.

Voter Registrations Possibly Trashed - Or Liberals Fabricated Controversy

Article
I intend to fact-check this story a bit.

I believe the journalist made a few huge errors. The group accused of trashing ballots is called "America Votes", and the reporter, at the end of the article, writes:

The company has been largely, if not entirely funded, by the Republican National Committee. Similar complaints have been received in Reno where the registrar has asked the FBI to investigate.

(underlining done by me)
However, on the America Votes website, the group shows a partnership with many (if not entirely) left-leaning and outright liberal groups.
These groups include: ACORN, AFL-CIO, AFSCME (I believe these guys officially endorse Kerry), America Coming Together (ACT) (which has run anti-Bush commercials), American Federation of Teachers (almost every teacher organization is left-wing), Association of Trial Lawyers of America (definitely for Edwards, and almost certainly for Kerry), Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Clean Water Action, Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, Democracy for America, EMILY's List, Environment2004, The Human Rights Campaign, League of Conservation Voters (note: "conservation", not "conservative", it's an environmental group), The Media Fund (ran possibly the most vehement and inaccurate commercials against Bush), MoveOn.org Voter Fund (the biggest, or at least best-known, anti-Bush group active today), Moving America Forward, Music for America, NAACP National Voter Fund (NAACP ran some nasty commercials against Bush last election, and they hate him more this time), NARAL Pro-Choice America (pro-choice as in pro-abortion. Definitely a Kerry group), National Education Association (another teacher union), National Jewish Democratic Council, National Treasury Employees Union, Partnership for America's Families (has a misleading graph on their website claiming Bush's economic plans failed. The graph, of the unemployment rate, is misleading because it stops in September 2003, after which the unemployment rate fell. Pro-Kerry beyond the reasonable doubt), People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood Action Fund (probably America's largest pro-abortion group), SEIU, Sierra Club, USAction, Voices for Working Families, Young Voter Alliance, and 21st Century Democrats.

The president of America Votes is Cecile Richards, who served as Deputy Chief of Staff to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.

This group is the farthest thing from being republican or GOP-funded.


I have good reason to believe that the entire article is BS. When I read the first few paragraphs, before fact-checking, I was outraged that a group would destroy democrat registrations. I may be right-wing, but I have said quite a bit against interfering with the election, and my statements go for both parties.

I have emailed both Klas-TV and drudgereport.com, from which I found this article, to inform them of the major error(s).


I will be very interested in how this unfolds, especially if members of America Votes deliberately lied to reporters in order to attack republicans, the GOP, and Bush. This might blow up in the face of America Votes and its supporters.


Update: in the last hour, the article was updated. It used to say "The focus of the story is a private registration company called Voter’s Outreach for America AKA. America Votes" Now, it says "The focus of the story is a private registration company called Voters Outreach of America."
They simply removed "AKA. America Votes". That's a very big change in content, despite the update being a deletion of a small phrase.
Still, the follow-up article here still states “Eyewitness News has spoken with employees of the private voter registration company called Voters Outreach of America, also known as America Votes.”

However, this still doesn't explain why I can't find anything called "Voters Outreach of America" on a google search, which usually turns up anything that exists. If Voters Outreach of America was capable of registering hundred of people per day, I think they would be mentioned somewhere on the internet before this controversy appeared.
Also, I have found someone who may have dug through this article before me, and in much the same way, here. This person went after the long list of “affiliates” that America Votes has. I have emailed the author of this article with hopes of finding some new information. We both published our articles on the same day, but he may have published before me, because I expect it took a few hours for me to get a link to his article.
I am about to email the GOP to try to find out if they have funded Voters Outreach of America, or even if they have an idea that the group exists.

Canada's CXrackdown On Free Speech

Article - man told to pay gay man $1,000 for comment

Quebec's Human Rights Commission has ordered a used car salesman in Sorel to pay a gay man $1,000 for a derogatory comment made three years ago.
In 2001, Marcel Bardier [called] the man's travelling companion.. a french word that equates to "fag".
The man, who cannot be identified because of a court order, filed a complaint with the Commission which said the comment caused him to feel dehumanized, humiliated and degraded.
Bardier told the Commission that he had nothing against homosexuals, but was simply acting in a fatherly way to the man's companion by warning him of his sexuality.
The Human Rights Commission ruled that the term was an inappropriate way of referring to homosexuals and shows a lack of respect for the human dignity people are entitled to.

1 grand for calling someone a fag. How can the Canadian government actually allow these types of laws?

David Bernstein has a good article about this here.

I simply find it degrading to prevent one person from disliking another. Sure, the world would be great if people had no grudges, but that's a utopian ideal. I'll quote Bernstein:

A great deal more censorship in Canada seems inevitable. For example, British Columbia's extremely broad hate-speech law prohibits the publication of any statement that "indicates" discrimination or that is "likely" to expose a person or group or class of persons to hatred or contempt. The Canadian thought police are on the march. Hopefully, it is not too late to stop them.

Colorado Finds Record Registration Fraud.

article

It appears that quite a bit of fraud was caused by registration campaigns, in which workers may get paid depending on the number of people they register. One person, it seems, has registered 35 times.

The US really needs a 20th century voting system. Then, maybe, we might be able to upgrade to a 21st century system. If you can register many times by changing a few slight details, there is a major problem. Can't registration be based on something that people can't change, like a social security number?
Actually, the voting system needs to be nationalized, because many people have been able to vote in one state while recieving absentee ballots from a different state. For example, thousands of New York voters also cast (or were able to cast) absentee ballots for Florida in 2000. New York, by the way, happened to be quite pro-Gore, so no one can claim these guys "stole" the election for Bush. Additionally, hundreds of convicted felons have registered, and many voted in 2000. Convicted felons are not allowed to vote, and they tend to be on the democratic side.

Beforee the 2008 election, thew entire system will desperatly need an overhual and a huge networking project to ensure that each voter is allowed to vote and each voter casts one, and only one, vote.

Bush-Cheney Requests AFL-CIO Stop Intimidation

GeorgeWBush.com :: Letter on Voter Intimidation to AFL-CIO President John Sweeney
Description:

Below is the text of a letter sent by Bush-Cheney '04 Campaign Chairman Governor Marc Racicot to AFL-CIO President John Sweeney via fax at 10:15 a.m. today. The letter asks Sweeney to put an end to protest activities that have led to injuries, property damage, vandalism and voter intimidation at Bush-Cheney '04 and Republican Party offices around the country.

Bush-Cheney '04 has created a hotline for victims of voter intimidation to report what happened. The hotline, 1-888-303-7125, will begin operation at 11:00 a.m. today.

letter

Over the past several weeks, acts of violence and vandalism have occurred at Republican and Bush-Cheney campaign headquarters across the country. In addition to the injuries, property damage and disruption associated with these acts, these events have created a threatening and intimidating atmosphere abhorrent to our democratic process.

On October 5th, according to news reports, witnesses, police reports and admissions of your members, the AFL-CIO, as part of a national strategy, protested at more than a dozen of our campaign and party headquarters across the country. In many locations, the protestors attempted to enter, or entered, campaign or party facilities. As one protestor said, "Actually, we're storming into an office." In Orlando, Florida, injuries and damage were sustained. Protestors forced their way into the facility, fracturing the arm of one staffer, and vandalized the office. In Michigan, protestors entered a headquarters and engaged in activities apparently intended to disrupt volunteers trying to make phone calls.

Protests by your organization come on the heels of several other incidents at Bush-Cheney '04 offices around the country, including a break-in at our Seattle office where laptop computers were stolen from the Washington State Bush-Cheney ’04 executive director and the state Republican Party 72-hour director. Just last night in Canton, Ohio, a Bush-Cheney '04 staffer was forced to lock herself in an office while another break-in was in progress. The facility was seriously damaged and property was stolen. Additionally, gun shots have been fired into Bush-Cheney '04 offices in West Virginia, Florida and Tennessee, windows broken in West Virginia and campaign staffers threatened. In Wisconsin, a supporter of the President had a swastika burned into his front yard simply because he had a Bush-Cheney '04 lawn sign. We urge your support in helping us ensure the safety of all individuals working on our campaign and others as we are making every effort to secure the safety of all participants in the political process.

I hope you will put an end to protest activities that have led to injuries, property damage, vandalism and voter intimidation. We will hold you and your organization accountable for the actions of your members and urge you to immediately discontinue any coordinated protest efforts that result in damage to our facilities, or injury to people who may hold different political views than your members, but who share an equal right to be involved in the political process without suffering violence, intimidation and threats.

For those who don't know, AFL-CIO is a union of unions, and vehemently anti-Bush. In fact, they claim on their website that Bush wishes to physically abuse workers, while they portray Kerry as a saint. For example, AFL-CIO calls Bush's change to the overtime tax law as an "overtime pay cut", while more respectable sources (such as myself) have actually checked a few facts from the bill and noticed that it greatly increases overtime pay rights and provides a needed update, as the bill was written in the 1940's and had little or no change until Bush overhauled it.

I have sent an email to the AFL-CIO in hopes of getting a response to these allegations, as their website does not even mention the incident. I expect some completely irrelevant information such as claims that Bush is evil, there is no relation to the AFL-CIO's protestors and the AFL-CIO, or just some fluff masquerading as a response. However, I may be surprised.

But, if the AFL-CIO has the same type of internet staff as the Kerry campaign, I’ll be lucky to get a response spelled well enough to read. I’ve had some bad experiences with the Kerry campaign, but it would have to go into another article.

Afghanistan Experiences Elections, And All Its Troubles

overly-pessimistic news article

Afghanistan's historic presidential election turned sour Saturday when all 15 candidates opposing U.S.-backed interim President Hamid Karzai withdrew in the middle of voting, charging the government and the United Nations with fraud and incompetence.
In the end, faulty ink - not Taliban bombs and bullets - threatened three years of painstaking progress toward democracy. The opposition candidates claimed the ink used to mark people's thumbs rubbed off too easily, allowing for mass deception.

To be honest, I don't see how this differs greatly than Florida in 2000. In Afghanistan, some claim black ink wipes off. In Florida, some claimed black voters were wiped out.
In Afghanistan, bitter losers don't want to recognize the rightful winner. In Florida, a bitter loser still has difficulty recognizing the winner.
In Afghanistan, the minor candidates whine that the major candidate had too many votes. In Florida, a major candidate whined that minor candidates had too many votes.

Now I see why Muslims resisted democracy. You have to deal with a lot of politicians, rather than one dictator. Plus, in a democracy, the population has some minor responsibility for whatever goes wrong, though they hate to admit it. In a dictatorship, they know whom to blame, and they are hacked to pieces if they admit it.

Just imagine how bad it would be if many Afghanis had television...
"Do you live in a mud shanty, but want your children to own a hovel, made partially out of rock? Do you want national health benefits like painkillers for amputations, malaria-free needles for tuberculosis vaccinations, and uninfested food for those with malnutrition? Do you want a president who believes strongly in Islam, but wont execute your family? Then vote Hamid Karzai, they guy who's currently in charge and will probably win, anyway! Hamid Karzai is a veteran of the anti-Taliban war, and rode a camel through dangerous sand dunes. Hamid Karzai is firmly anti-Taliban, unlike some candidates who change positions every day. Hamid Karzai will create one job in Afghanistan each and every month that he is president. Hamid Karzai will also protect our lakes and forests.. if we ever get any, that is. Vote for Hamid Karzai for President, or he will tell the US you are hiding terrorists and they will blow up your house. Hamid Karzai, America’s choice for Afghanistan’s president.”

I couldn’t resist. I know it's incredibly insensitive, but I had to joke about political campaigns. And, jokes about foreign campaigns are more effective than jokes about the US election, because American's don't have an opinion on Afghanistan's election.

If you Don't Follow This, Read Some International Political Theory

Saddam worked secretly on WMDs - The Washington Times article

Saddam Hussein's goal through the 1990s and until the 2003 U.S. invasion was to end U.N. sanctions on Iraq, while working covertly to restore the country's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction, a report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector says.

"Saddam wanted to re-create Iraq's WMD capability — which was essentially destroyed in 1991 — after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities," the report said.
...
With Iraq's economy badly damaged and U.N. sanctions, Mr. Duelfer's report says, Saddam's plans for a skeletal weapons program that could be mobilized quickly led him to pursue the needed materials through illegal and indirect channels.
Starting in 1997 and peaking in 2001, he developed a giant smuggling operation that hinged on the establishment of "a network of Iraqi front companies, some with close relationships to high-ranking foreign-government officials," the report says.
...
Syria was Iraq's "primary conduit for illicit imports" from late 2000 until the start of the U.S. invasion last year, according to the report, which also maintains that the Iraqi Intelligence Service set up front companies to buy prohibited arms from a Syrian totaling $1.2 billion.

To summarize, according to the Washington Times Article, Saddam was planning and preparing to rebuild his weapons programs after sanctions ended. That explains why he retained many scientists who would work on WMD's. Additionally, there is a growing belief that Saddam tried to convince others that he had WMD's, despite not having them. In Realist political theory, this isn't very unreasonable. Let me quote The Might of Nations, by John G. Stoessinger (3rd edition, there are latter editions as well): "The psychological aspect of power is crucial, since a nation's power may depend in considerable measure on what other nations think it is or even what it thinks other nations think it is." (italics in original). I believe Sun Tzu also states something to the effect of "if you are strong, make the enemy think you are weak. If you are weak, make the enemy think you are strong". Since Iraq was weak during the inspections, it might have created an image of strength by acting like it had WMD’s. The military effect of a false impression of strength can be found in Benedict Arnold’s success in scaring a vastly superior British force by convincing the British (and their Indian allies) that a giant army was heading towards them.
So, there is good reason that Saddam would claim to have weapons, and even convince inspectors that he is hiding weapons, if necessary. If this is true, it is impossible to claim that Bush lied to the American people. Instead, one must claim that Saddam lied to the world, and the world fell for it. He who sows the wind reaps the whirlwind, I believe.

A Chance for Afghans to Test the Magic Key

Article, by Amir Taheri

Just a couple of years ago the suggestion that Afghanistan might one day hold elections would have sounded fanciful. The Taleban, representing one of the most vicious forms of religious fascism, regarded any participation by the people in decision-making as “un-Islamic”. All power belonged to Mulla Muhammad Omar, the self-styled Emir Al-Momeneen (Commander of the Faithful) who claimed infallibility. Matters got worse when Osama Bin Laden, the now fugitive terrorist mastermind, soft-soaped the one-eyed Mulla into fancying himself as a caliph for all Muslims.
In a recent statement , apparently Xeroxed somewhere in Pakistan, the disappearing mulla threatens to kill not only the candidates in [today]’s elections but also anyone who dares go to the polls. The remnants of Osama’s gang have added their voice to Mulla Omar’s threats to disrupt the election tomorrow.
The remnants of the Taleban and Al-Qaeda are not the only ones who see elections as the death of their dreams for a return to power in Afghanistan. [Today]’s election could close a chapter of Afghan history in which different brands of despotism competed for power. The various leftist groups that had plagued Afghan politics since the mid-1950s until their defeat in 1992, see the election as the end of the road for them. Afghanistan will never again become a “people’s democratic republic” ruled by “the vanguard of the proletarian revolution.” The election will also bury religious fascists such as the so-called Hizb Islami (Islamic Party) of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and its splinter faction led by Yunus Khalis. The election will also write the political obituary of so-called moderate Islamists such as Burhaneddin Rabbani, who served as president of a coalition government in Kabul in the early 1990s.
Since its liberation from the Taleban, Afghanistan has embarked upon a slow but steady recovery from almost three decades of foreign occupation, civil war and fanatical rule. This year income per head per annum rose to $240, compared to under $200 in 2001. Unemployment, meanwhile, has fallen from an estimated 60 percent of the labor force to around 40 percent.
More importantly, perhaps, Afghanistan has managed to absorb almost four million refugees returning home, mostly from Pakistan and Iran.
There is no doubt that terrorists of all denominations will do all they can to disrupt [today]’s election, especially in the southeast of the country where central government forces have only a tentative presence. The terrorists have already killed 12 election workers and injured more than 100 others. But they failed to prevent the main candidates from campaigning.

The current interim President Hamid Karzai is expected to win today.

Societies that adopt elections as a means of resolving political conflicts and broadening the base of decision-making do so at great risk to their peace and stability. And there is no guarantee that a society that has adopted elections will not, in a moment of disappointment with democracy, not revert to dictatorship in one form or another. After all Hitler won the 1933 election at a time Germans saw “too much democracy” as symbolized by the Weimar Republic as the cause of all their woes.
Having said all that it is important to remember where Afghanistan was two years ago and where it is today. Afghanistan’s first ever election should be a source of inspiration for all those who believe that a judicious mix of military force, economic aid, and political will can produce miracles in nation-building.

Amir says it better than I can, so the best I can do is quote him.

ABCNEWS Tells Reporters To Not Hold Both SIdes Equally Accountable

DRUDGE REPORT Article
The memo includes

The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.
Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.
We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.
I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.
It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.

I don't know if this memo is a complete fabrication, or it it's actually real. If it is real, ABC is telling it's reporters to defend Kerry and attack Bush in a completly biased and unethical way. If this memo is real, I want Mark Halperin, who supposedly wrote the memo, fired.
You can find a copy of it here, I believe. It is somewhat possible to read this degraded photocopy if you already know what it says (you can verify what it says, really).

If this memo is true, I can't imagine what will happen to ABC. It just admitted a huge bias and a complete lack of credibility.

Yahoo! News - FTC Files First 'Spyware' Case in U.S.

Article

The Federal Trade Commission on Thursday filed the first case in the country against software companies accused of infecting computers with intrusive "spyware" and then trying to sell people the solution.
The commission accused the companies of infecting computers with unsolicited software, showering computer screens with pop-up ads and then trying to get consumers to pay $30 to fix it. It is seeking an injunction to get the companies, owned by the same person, to stop, and to offer restitution to consumers.
The FTC requested a temporary restraining order from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire against Seismic Entertainment Productions Inc., Smartbot.Net, Inc., and Sanford Wallace.

This is the best news I've seen all day. This is a milestone in internet law, web-culture, and the internet in general. I hope the FTC wins its case, assuming it has proper evidence and reason to target this specific person.

Stupid Criminals Resort To Unprecedentedly Low Profit Margins

Article

The Centre Police Department warns residents about counterfeit dimes that have been circulating in the area. Investigator Arlon Reed with the Centre Police Department said the fake dimes have been discovered in at least two local establishments with almost 30 dimes being discovered at one location.

No idea where this takes place, but it is hysterical. Counterfeiting dimes! Did they run out of green ink for the printer, or can they not make proper molds for quarters? At the store where they unloaded most of their counterfeits, they only bought $3 worth of stuff. If you go through the effort to make a fake currency, especially for a coin, I'd think you would get more than $3 out of it.

2nd Debate Is In Half An Hour (9 PM EST)

Personally, I hope Bush does better in this debate. I don't want him to destroy what Cheney built up. However, debates seem notoriously difficult to predict. It is also very difficult to determine a winner immediatly after a debate, under most circumstances. I will, of course, be taping the debate and posting my analysis, and I hope to improve my 50% record from the last two debates (technically, I don't really have a record of sucess, as picking a winner at random would give me 50% accuracy). I am likely to say Bush is the winner because I am rather right-leaning, but I try to be objective.

I like this Star Wars..

Military Begins Missile-Defense Exercises
In case you didn't know, the US military, and a few other militaries (Israel, and maybe a few other nations), has been working on intercepting missiles. US-Israeli projects with ground-based lasers have shown that lasers are capable of disabling artillery shells in the air.
Now, the US is working on missiles that can intercept ICBM's (inter-continental ballistic missiles. These are the really big missiles, and include nukes). Though this project is against the anti-missile defense treaty (which I think Bush refused to sign, for good reason), the US will surely be safer with a shield from North Korea. Had the US signed the treaty, we would be as vulnerable as any other nation, even though the US has the resources to defend itself. And, when a nation has the resources to defend itself, it should defend itself. At least according to the Realist theory of international relations, that is.

Soon, the US will not be vulnerable to attacks from North Korea. There is always the chance that the shield malfunctions and the US gets hit, and that risk makes the shield only partially effective at best. However, once the US has a shield strong enough to convince North Korea that we can go after them without fear, North Korea will be forced to either give up or do something really stupid, like nuking someone. But North Korea is already likely to do something stupid, and the missile shield just makes sure that the US won't be the target. Protecting the US is the job description of the military and the White House.
This shield is a good thing, no matter what internationalist socialists or diploma-mill political theorists may think. The vast majority of sane American political theorists should see this shield as a very good thing, unless my understanding of international political theory is terribly flawed.

In the past, the US preferred to avoid international relations whenever possible, and stayed out of Europe until the World Wars. Now, the US may be able to protect itself in a world packed with international issues. This would certainly give the US an ability to exercise influence with less fear of a response (like, if we put Kim Jung Ill's feet over the fire, he might not be able to hit back). However, all nations worry about hostile reactions, so the US will not act as a hegemon, as some have feared. In fact, the US was quite safe until Pearl Harbor, because no nation could transport a military 3000 or more miles to attack the US. Pearl Harbor showed that no nation could be impenetrable or indifferent to international events. The US is just restoring a bit of the security it had before WWII and the Cold War.
And security is something that I like to have.

For Those Who Say Saddam Isn't Corrupt

article

It is a well-known fact to news fanatics that Saddam illegally sold and/or gave oil to people in France, Russia, and other countries, probably in an effort to lift sanctions and encourage them to look kindly on Iraq. Parts of a document (far better authenticated than Dan Rather's documents) were even published online with translations, naming individuals and the value of the oil they received. This included a French minister, whom I believe made several million dollars from this particular bit of corruption.

Now, some major news sources finally realizes that Iraq was abusing and circumventing the oil-for-food program. This fact has been known practically since the start of the oil-for-food program, and considerable evidence appeared shortly after US troops entered Baghdad. The AP also neglected to note that Iraq held some weaponry that it was not supposed to have. One such weapon is a pretty powerful airplane. Or, more accurately, this airplane:

A copy of the story involved is here. It was posted on that website because the original source deleted it, as most newspapers do to save money. Ignore the comments at the end. That jet is a Mig-25. I'll quote a description:

MiG-25 is very well-known aircraft. It was the aircraft that caused quite a commotion among Western defense analysts and the US Air Force generals when it first became public. The aircraft was conceived as a response to the US XB-70 Valkyrie supersonic strategic bomber project. With time the MiG-25 developed into a leading supersonic reconnaissance platform. The MiG-25s from Egypt and Syria for a long time operated with impunity over Israel gathering photo intelligence used for planning the 1973 war. A MiG-25 was taken to Japan by a Soviet defector VVS pilot Belenko, who later served with the USAF. To this day the MiG-25 is operated by Russia as a reconnaissance platform and it is still one of the fastest military aircraft in the world. Over Israel a MiG-25RB was clocked by the Israelis at Mach 3.1. A MiG-25 was the only Iraqi fighter to ever score a victory against a US fighter (a USN F/A-18) during the first Persian Gulf War.

Iraq was not known to have any two-seated Mig-25, but it did. The media, however, did report that the US dug up (literally, they were buried) about two dozen Iraqi jets after Baghdad fell. These aircraft were found because an American base was built nearly on top of them. Many of the jets were operational when recovered.

So, Iraq was known to be exploiting the oil-for-food treaty and possessing very advanced, very expensive weapons that it should not have had. Several dozen jets don't get overlooked in a slight paperwork error. Nor are they buried, with delicate parts preserved adequately for years under sand, by some minor accident. Also, billions in kickbacks and bribes arn't caused by accidents, especially since Saddam's government ensured profits from tose kickbacks.

Also a little-known event; Saddam insisted payment in Euros for his oil when the US started talking about an invasion. This helped the European economy. In addition, Saddam offered a few cents discount per barrel for those who purchased with Euros. That alone is a bit illegal.


There is tons of evidence to say the oil-for-food program was corrupt. I am amazed that the major news sources are finally reporting this, after ignoring it for years. You have the link to the report and my comments, which are far more comprehensive. Make your own opinion about how corrupt, if at all, Saddam and his Iraq were. You might want to post that opinion in a comment, too.

Kerry Claims US Elections Are Corrupt

the title may be an exaggeration, but it conveys the point properly.
Yahoo! News - Kerry Accuses GOP of Suppressing Voting

Republicans have been trying to suppress voting in states where the presidential race is too close to call, Democratic nominee John Kerry said Sunday at one of the city's largest predominantly black churches.
"In battleground states across the country, we're hearing stories of how people are trying to make it harder to file for additional time, or how they're making it harder to even register," Kerry told an enthusiastic congregation at East Mt. Zion Baptist Church.
"We're not going to let that happen because the memories of 2000 are too strong. We're not going to allow 1 million African Americans to be disenfranchised."
...
"We're seeing efforts by the Republicans, unfortunately, in various parts of the country to suppress votes and intimidate people, to do things that bring back memories that are pretty bitter in the American mind from the year 2000."
...
"Like so much of his campaign, John Kerry's false charges of voter intimidation are baseless," said [Bush-Cheney] spokesman Steve Schmidt. He said Democrats rejected a GOP offer to put a lawyer from each party in every voting district across the nation on Election Day.
Kerry said he has his own team of lawyers "of all color and all mix" examining possible voting problems to try to prevent a repeat of the 2000 election disputes. He also has said he has thousands of lawyers around the country prepared to monitor the polls on Nov. 2.

AFL-CIO has also claimed that its members will try to monitor elections. The conduct of AFL-CIO has been noted on this blog at least once, and you can scroll down to find an article about AFL-CIO members raiding a Bush-Cheney campaign headquarters.

What Kerry has said is against just about everything that I, and this blog, stands for. There was no racial disenfranchisement in Florida. The closest thing to disenfranchisement was the Clinton administration's ignorance of military ballots, resulting in thousands of them entering Florida after the election, but during the recount. Somewhere between 65% and 70% of the military voted for Bush, and even more are expected to vote for him in the 2004 election. Gore ended the recounts before these military ballots were included, because it would result in an obvious defeat for him.
There were not a million disenfranchised black voters in Florida. It is possible that there was one black woman turned away from the polls, at closing time, due to her ethnicity. Her complaint is based on the possibility that a white male was allowed to vote when she was turned down. Notice, this was at closing time for the polls.
This is according to the actual authorities in Florida who analyzed the speculated discrimination in a legal, and accurate, fashion. While some blacks were also excluded because their names matched those on a list of convicted felons, twice as many whites were excluded for the same reason. However, many felons on the list actually did vote (they are not supposed to), and the majority of them voted for Gore.

Now, back to the main point. Claiming that the US elections are corrupt will destroy the entire democratic process if enough people believe it. Some studies show that 4 in 10 blacks believe that their votes are not counted. They think that, somehow, their ballots are excluded from the counting machines or destroyed entirely. Allow me to illustrate the threat of this in a similar, but more common, issue.
Ballots work a bit like currency. At one time, the US currency was only gold and silver coins, and their dollar value was equal to (and backed by) the value of the metal in the coins. It took a very long time for the US to finally print paper money, which does not have its value in the cost of the materials, but the US still collected enough gold and silver to back the currency (Fort Knox, which is loaded with gold, is a modern artifact of this era). In modern times, the US currency has barely any backing in precious metals (I think 1 out of every 10,000 dollars is covered by the US’s gold reserves). I do not know of a modern currency that is based on any real item of value.
As a result, currencies are subject to fluctuations based on perception of the value of money. While gold coins have a clear value (based on the gold in the coin), the actual value of a dollar is determined by what it can buy. If the American public starts to believe that the dollar has no value, then inflation will skyrocket and the dollar will become useless, because no one would accept it as payment for anything. After all, why should a store accept money that has no value? It would be no different than accepting bad checks or maxed-out credit cards.
This phenomenon is illustrated in Germany’s rampant inflation after WWI. The inflation got so bad that money, literally, wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on. People were using money as wallpaper, fuel for fires, and toilet paper because it was cheaper than normal wallpaper, wood, and toilet paper. The money required to buy bread actually weighed more than the loaf of bread, regardless of the denomination of the currency (denominations are like $1, $5, $20, ect. They are the units in which currency is counted) All this was caused by a complete disbelief that the German currency actually had a value.

Similar can happen with votes. If enough people think their votes are not counted, then the US will be threatened with a revolution, just like a currency crashes when people don’t think it has a value. Once enough people think the election system has no value, the system will crash, and American democracy will suffer terribly as a result.


John Kerry is exploiting the fear that votes will not be counted to get a few more people to the polls. This is reckless, dangerous, immoral, and incredibly irresponsible. As a senator, Kerry should know that American stability lies in the strength and reliability of our election system. America was founded on the belief of popular representation, and has worked very hard to equalize that representation. If America losses sight of its founding principles, this nation is condemned to rampant corruption and failure.

Though I have gone on quite enough tangents already, I wish to end this post with one more, a quote from Cicero, Rome’s greatest orator:

It is by our own moral failure, and not some accident of fate or chance, that, while we retain the name, we have lost the reality of a republic.

Around the year Cicero said this, every person elected to the Senate used a violent mob to ensure that they were elected. Leaders of Rome’s two greatest families were killed when their mobs clashed. Julius Caesar had no difficulty controlling the republic, because the Senate made itself impotent with its own corruption and moral decay.

If You Can't Can Spam, Go After Spyware

CNN.com - Bill imposes hefty 'spyware' fines - Oct 5, 2004

Companies and others that secretly install "spyware" programs on people's computers to quietly monitor their Internet activities would face hefty federal fines under a bill the House passed Tuesday.
The most egregious behaviors ascribed to the category of such software -- secretly recording a person's computer keystrokes or mouse clicks -- are already illegal under U.S. wiretap and consumer protection laws.
The House proposal, known as the "Spy Act," adds civil penalties over what has emerged as an extraordinary frustration for Internet users, whose infected computers often turn sluggish and perform unexpectedly.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Mary Bono, R-California, provides guidelines for technology companies that distribute software capable of most types of electronic monitoring. It requires that consumers explicitly choose to install such software and agree to the information being collected.
The House voted 399-1 to approve the bill.
The chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said Goodlatte's anti-spyware bill was preferable because of its criminal sanctions, and Barton said he will work to combine both proposals for a final vote by year's end.
Barton acknowledged that experts had recently found more than 60 varieties of spyware installed on the panel's own computers. He said all the spyware programs had been installed without the permission of computer users.
The committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, called the proposal approved Tuesday "a bill whose time has come."
"People are increasingly finding their home pages have been changed or their computers are sluggish," she said. "Their computers are no longer their own, and they can't figure out why."
The House bill approved Tuesday explicitly permits snooping software built by the FBI or spy agencies secretly collecting information under a court order or other legal permissions affecting federal departments.
The bill's bans against spyware would begin 12 months after it becomes law and would automatically expire after 2009.

Sadly, this ban won't do much. The companies can move overseas, unless the law is enforced with unexpected strength, and there will likely be loopholes or industry can circumvent the laws. Still, I hope this law passes and removes a lot of spyware, which is one of the largest threats to the internet and computers in general.

Often, this spyware (called "adware" by those who make it) is poorly created. The flawed coding results in computer crashes, sluggish processing power, and a wide range of other problems. Additionally, many spyware programs forcibly redirect a web surfer to a commercial website (frequently a search engine, which are rarely suspected and can garner great profits if run inappropriately). The result is often a useless computer, at least until the operating system is reinstalled (which results in the loss of all saved documents and files) or practical inability to use the internet.
In the end, this costs the computer and internet industry a lot of money. And, without new restrictions, those costs would continue to increase so that a few despicable companies can get easy money. It’s like a mechanic who refuses to return your car unless you pay for repairs that were unnecessary and probably not even done.
My apologies to mechanics, as they have been rather unfairly labeled by this comparison. I know that most mechanics are great workers and honest, but I can not think of a more suitable illustration.

WorldNetDaily: Is this one of Saddam's mobile bio-weapons labs?

WorldNetDaily: Is this one of Saddam's mobile bio-weapons labs?
A lot of people don't trust Worldnetdaily, and I often doubt many of their articles (is is the first time I have ever cited them), but I also know that many of their articles show excellent amounts of research and include quite a bit of evidence.

Recently, they are running a report on a mobile biolab (biological weapons lab stuffed inside a trailer), which was found last year. The trailer was investigated shortly after its discovery, but it was wiped clean with some very powerful detergents. These are nothing like dish detergents, some of these chemicals can take color out of clothes in about two seconds. Now, to quote some of the more definite evidence that the trailer is a weapons trailer:

The trailer itself has a metal plaque that says it was manufactured in 2001 by Iraq's Al-Naser Al-Adheem – a munitions company controlled by Saddam Hussein – and inspected in 2002.

OK, made by a weapons company. Some people claimed that the lab was used to make legitimate chemicals. It's incredibly expensive to use a mobile biological lab to make chemicals. Actually, it's difficult to make chemicals in a biological lab, period. Putting it on wheels simply increases the excessive cost exponentially. Now if this worked the other way, in which case this would be a chemical lab that made biological stuff, then some Iraqi scientists deserve the Nobel prize. It is quite difficult to make a biological organism when you only have chemicals, to the best of my knowledge. Actually, creating a living organism from chemicals is how life started, and the ability for such an event to happen again in nature or a lab would seriously damage religion, as it would prove that god did not necessarily create life.
So, this would have to be a biological lab to account for some of the biological equipment in the lab.

A U.S. Army Intel officer in Iraq said he was convinced the trailer was used to make biological weapons: "There are too many indications this was used for biological weapons. The tubing, the heating system, the exhaust system are specific to the kind of military-grade production we saw before the first Gulf War. Also, when you're conducting legitimate laboratory work, you want to do it in the most stable environment possible. Why would scientists work from a trailer?"

It is possible that biological things were made only when the trailer was parked. It would be a lot safer, also, as bioweapons tend to be dangerous if you accidentally puncture something when the trailer hits a roadbump. That might be why no one was found in the lab...

Simply irresponsible: factcheck.com sends visitors to George Soros site.

Yahoo! News - Cheney Slip Sends Surfers to Wrong Site
As many net-savy people have noticed, Cheney incorrectly cited factcheck.com, when he meant to cite factcheck.org. After the debate, factcheck.com received about 100 visitors per second.
Most people would expect a responsible company, which factcheck.com is not (Factcheck.com is an advertising company in the Cayman Islands, which is a noted tax haven), to redirect the visitors to factcheck.org. After all, factcheck.com did not want its bandwidth wasted by a political mistake. However, factcheck.com redirected to georgesoros.com. George Soros, who runs georgesoros.com, is a partisan liberal who has donated millions to moveon.org and similar less-than-credible organizations. He is also a billionaire (isn't it odd that a billionaire hates Bush, when Bush is supposed to be the president for the super-rich?).
In a commendable act of common decency, Georgesoros.com provides a link to factcheck.org and identifies it as the website Cheney intended to cite.

Factcheck.com people; I hope you're investigated for tax fraud (no evidence for this.. yet). And, Soros has become a half-decent person for a day or two, even though his political opinions are insane.

local6.com - Politics - Protestors Ransack Bush/Cheney Headquarters In Orlando

local6.com - Politics - Protestors Ransack Bush/Cheney Headquarters In Orlando

A group of protestors stormed and then ransacked a Bush-Cheney headquarters building in Orlando, Fla., Tuesday, according to Local 6 News.
Local 6 News reported that several people from the group of 100 Orlando protestors face possible assault charges after the group forced their way inside the Republican headquarters office.
While in the building, some of the protestors drew horns and a mustache on a poster of President George W. Bush and poured piles of letters in the office, according to the report.
"We told them to leave, they broke the law," Republican headquarters volunteer Mike Broom said.
Two protestors received minor injuries when the crowd stormed the building, including a Republican volunteer.
One of the protestors said she wanted to send a message.
"We want to send a clear message to Bush, we want him to take his hands off our overtime pay," protestor Esmeralda Heuilar said.
Local 6 News learned that most of the protestors were from the AFL-CIO and were taking part in one of 20 other coordinated protests around the country.
A spokesperson with the AFL-CIO told Local 6 News that the Orlando protest did not go as planned.

I had an article about that overtime pay which they protest. Sadly, these protestors don't even have the slightest idea what Bush changed in the overtime pay law. Someone told these people that Bush will take away their overtime pay. I wouldn't really doubt that it's AFL-CIO. My article is here. The AFL-CIO has actually been saying that Bush wants to beat workers. Seriously, they say he wants to allow companies to physically abuse workers, and is trying to weaken unions to allow this. They don't seem to realize that abuse is illegal in any situation. Very few people are actually being dropped from the guaranteed overtime pay list, while over 1 million workers will be added to the list.

But these protestors are idiots, and its no use trying to explain rational thought, especially since none of them will read this blog. This isn't the first time this type of thing has happened. Twice, bullets have been fired into GOP buildings. One event was right after the GOP convention, and the other was today or yesterday. Also, only a few days ago, a GOP office was raided and three computers were stolen (with some rather sensitive information that the GOP wants to keep private, for legitimate reasons). I can't believe this type of thing is actually happening. By election day, someone in a GOP office just may get shot or permanently injured. The right wing was sympathetic when Clinton got heart surgery. I simply wish the left wing can show the same respect, or at least ban those who go too far.

There is an excellent speech Reagan gave when a fellow politician (I think) was murdered. I'll try to dig it up. It is one of the best made-on-the-spot speeches I have ever heard.

Halliburton: 1, Trial Lawyers: 0

At first, I was determined not to post much commentary on the VP debate, after my quite-inaccurate predictions for the first Bush-Kerry debate. However, I believe quite strongly that Cheney clearly dominated. He stayed on topic, had the question repeated to punish Edwards for straying from the topic, used some very short responses to get to more questions and more content ("thanks for the kind words about my family", to paraphrase, was used instead of a verbose 90 second response), and really seemed to have better style than Edwards.
Let me count some of Edwards' problems, to make them as clear as possible:
1: he blinked about 5 times per second. Excessive blinking is often a sign of a lie, or extreme discomfort. Cheney, however, seemed as calm as possible, and barely blinked at all when talking.
2: Edwards didn't really make eye contact all that often. It might have something to do with the blinking, but Cheney looked directly into the camera and was a lot more convincing.
3: what was with the paper tearing thing? Only a few minutes earlier, Cheney simply folded the paper over without causing any interruption in Edwards' speech. But Edwards simply had to tear the sheet off the pad, he was too good to flip to the next sheet (that was sarcastic, to emphasize the point). Maybe he thought flipping the paper over would be too close to another flip-flop?
4: Edwards was a bit too thirsty. Actually, he drank his entire mug of water (it technically was a mug, not a glass, due to the handle) by the midpoint of the debate. Plus, he looked rather stupid with that blue mug covering his entire face when Cheney was speaking. And, why couldn't he hold it by the handle? He held the mug like a glass, and the handle was sticking out to the opposite side of his hand. It looked quite out of place.
5: He shouldn't have questioned whether or not he had an extra thirty seconds to talk. He should have simply used it as best he could. By questioning it, and making himself look unsure of the timing, Edwards made himself look disorganized.
6: Edwards should have stayed on subject. He got himself into a trap by running out of content and reverting to Halliburton, Iraq, and Iran. He made virtually no point on the subject of AIDs in America (he talked about AIDs in Africa, despite the question's limitations), while his little speech on gay marriage is far less memorable than Cheney's lack of need to speak. By simply acknowledging that he has a lesbian daughter, Cheney looked far better suited to handle gay marriage. Edwards even brought up Cheney's daughter but wasn't really able to make a point involving her. He simply danced around the question a bit.
7: once the claim that 90% of the casualties was debunked, Edwards should not have used it again. He did. In fact, I think he used it twice more. Similar goes for several other "facts" brought up in the debate.

Those are all that I can compile at the moment. Edwards looked like a rookie, while Cheney clearly dominated the debate from start to finish. Cheney even presented himself as a kind, trustworthy guy! It took the democrats four years to make him look like Satan and claim he is running the White House through proxy. In an hour and a half, that’s all been undone, and Edwards looks like an amateur as well.

This will go very well for the Bush-Cheney ticket. Now, Bush just needs to do as well as Cheney to recover his prestige. Shame there won’t be a Cheney-Kerry debate.

Samarra Victory Encourages Iraqi Forces

Article

Bloodied by weeks of suicide bombings and assassinations, Iraqi security forces emerged Sunday to patrol Samarra after a morale-boosting victory in this Sunni Triangle city, and U.S. commanders praised their performance.
American and Iraqi commanders have declared the operation in Samarra, 60 miles northwest of Baghdad, a successful first step in a major push to wrest key areas of Iraq from insurgents before January elections.
...
Washington is eager to raise Iraqis' fighting ability to allow them to take a back seat in combat operations and eventually pull out of Iraq.
"It would be premature to say that it is wrapped up, because insurgencies have a tendency to wax and wane, but clearly, the really good news out of this is that Iraqi forces have fought alongside American forces, and ... they've done well," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on CNN's "Late Edition."

From what I hear, this is the first step in getting the Iraqi army prepared to take the more hostile cities, such as Fallujah. With any luck, all the insurgent-controlled cities will be cleaned out by Iraq's election in January.

Ansari X Prize finally won by Burt Rutan

Article
The Ansari X Prize is a 10 million dollar reward for the first private venture to launch a ship into space twice within two weeks. The prize was planned to encourage commercial space tourism, and many though it impossible to claim. SpaceShipOne, which made the trip to space on many occasions (this being the first time that two trips happened wihin two weeks), cost more than 10 million to build, but it was supported by funds from Microsoft's co-founder, Paul G. Allen.


Now, who do you think will get to Mars first, Rutan or NASA?

Now, Here's a Poll I Like More

After First Debate, Bush Still Leads Kerry(washingtonpost.com). I know it's not a good practice to select which poll I want to believe, but this poll seems to have more credibility.

In the aftermath of last week's presidential debate, Bush currently leads Kerry 51 percent to 46 percent among those most likely to vote, according to polling conducted Friday through Sunday. Independent candidate Ralph Nader claims 1 percent of the hypothetical vote.
But the president held only a 3-point advantage among all registered voters, down from 7 points in a Post-ABC News survey conducted before last week's presidential debate. Kerry is particularly popular among occasional voters -- a sign that the election may hinge for Kerry on his campaign's ability to get newly registered voters and those with only a spotty voting record to go to the polls.
...
A total of 1,470 registered voters were interviewed for the first wave of the tracking survey, including 1,169 who were determined to be likely voters based on voting intention, interest in the campaign and past voting history. Margin of sampling error for results based on either sample is about plus or minus 3 percentage points.

1470 people polled, and a 3% margin of error. Much better than the earlier poll of just over 1k, and with a 4% margin of error. At one time, these polls use to be of around 2000 people, but they slowly shrunk until covering just over 1000 in the months between the Kerry and Bush conventions.

You know, if all the news organisations would just group together to form a ABC/NBC/CBS/New York Times/USA Today/Zogby/Gallup/PEW/LA Times/Washington Post poll, they could cover around 5000 people quickly and at a fairly low cost. That would greatly improve accuracy, reliability, and end my habit of getting ticked off when a poll comes out and I don't trust it (even though the rest of the media does). But, there are probably good reasons why such a poll isn't being done.

OK, I was Wrong On Debate Victor, But...

It seems that I am probably wrong on who won this debate. That may be due to low expectations for Kerry and high expectations for Bush, both of whom performed fairly well. In this case, Kerry exceeded expectations and Bush didn't live up to his. A recent Newsweek poll suggests this. However, due to Kerry's apparent climb in almost every topic, I have suspicions. Let me quote one of the more disturbing parts:

But only 46 percent feel going to war was the right decision in the first place with just as many (45 percent) under the impression that the administration deliberately misled the nation into war with falsified evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

I really doubt that 45% of registered voters would say "the administration deliberately misled the nation into war with falsified evidence of weapons of mass destruction." The wording is far too strong to get much more than 35%. I think that the poll may have been titled (more democrats were polled than republicans, LA Times did the same thing several months ago). However, I can't get the percentages of registered democrats and republicans in the poll, though such information is usually released with poll results.
Ahh, here is some stuff from Powerline

[A]ccording to RealClearPolitics, Newsweek's most recent poll included 345 Republicans, 364 Democrats and 278 independents. This compares to Newsweek's published data for their most recent prior poll, which showed President Bush with a comfortable lead: 391 Republicans, 300 Democrats and 270 independents. Yes, if you drop 46 Republicans and add 64 Democrats, you will get considerably better results for the Democratic nominee. This is a good reminder of why poll data always need to be taken with a grain of salt, especially until you see the underlying data.

These polls are usually calibrated, so that if you question 300 democrats and 400 republicans, they may average the party affiliations out to the most recent good party membership statistics (about 33% of Americans are republicans while 33% are democrats, but there is some variation). This usually makes the poll far more accurate. However, I am not sure if Newsweek calibrates their polls like this.
Additionally, this poll was only of registered voters, not likely voters. Polls of registered voters are consistently less accurate, and have tended to lean towards Kerry recently.
Finally, the belief that a second Bush administration will reinstate the draft really ticks me off. Not only is this belief completely unfounded and false, but I refuse to believe that 40% of the public think Bush will bring back the draft. In fact, the bill to reinstate the draft was supported by 14 democrats (and about a year ago, I think), not republicans!

Meanwhile, Zogby has been showing Bush with a small lead over likely voters.


So, Kerry may have won the debate by exceeding low expectations and (finally) mentioning the issues once or twice, I don't think he won by as much as Newsweek claims he did.

Personally, I am displeased with Bush's lower-than-expectations performance. There were several points (like unilaterally talking with North Korea, instead of the current multilateral talks. Why does Kerry suddenly want to go unilaterally?) on which Bush could slaughter Kerry, but he didn't. Perhaps he plans to win decisively in the second debate. If that is true, he set low expectations for himself and made Kerry more popular. Bush does best with low expectations.
I hope he does slaughter Kerry soon. I can't stand jubilant liberals. I especially can’t stand this draft hysteria, belief that America is worse off for invading Iraq, unilateral talks will disarm North Korea (maybe that story about China preparing its military should imply that China is ready to threaten North Korea? That’d be a lot better than conquering Hong Kong or Taiwan, at least from the US perspective), and the entire ‘Bush stole Florida, lied, killed 1000 troops, raised oil prices, is a puppet for Haliburton, missed a perfectly good chance to catch Bin Laden’, and all that other junk. That “outsourced the chance to catch Bin Laden” was particularly stupid of Kerry, and Bush really should have gone after that claim, in my opinion. But, I’m no expert on campaign strategy, and can only speculate that Bush wants to look like the underdog for the next debate.

China gets army ready for.. Taiwan?

Article
It is likely that China would use military force to assimilate Taiwan, but the US is a bit protective over the island. I believe that China may be willing to use its military if Kerry were elected, because they know Bush is too aggressive and the last thing Kerry wants to do is deploy troops. Though China has a military modernization plan, that plan is expected to create a modernized army by the end of the century (yeah, the year 2100). I, however, believe that the plan would be shortened to 25 or fewer years, depending on the US's international power and willingness to intervene in a China-Taiwan fight. The US has sold Taiwan military equipment including early-warning radar hardware, and it took several years for Chinese diplomats to shut up about it.
You'd think that, with the number of copyright laws China violates systematically, the nation would shut up about a tiny technological trade with little Taiwan in no time. But, China is peculiar, and is likely the next rival to US superpower status. By the way, both France and Germany are trying to sell weapons technology to China. In other words, France and Germany are trying to help build the next superpower rival to the US, no matter how inhumane that rival may be. And those nations claim to be more 'evolved' and 'civilized' because they try to settle everything with money and signed pieces of scrap paper.

Now, I think China is more likely to go after Hong Kong. Hong Kong is the easier target, not under as much protection by the US, and only requires an army to occupy. Because it is an island, China would also need a navy to help in conquering Taiwan. The US has a much more powerful navy nearby to guard Japan, watch over the Koreas, and guard whatever it feels like guarding. The US has no troops protecting Hong Kong. Hong Kong, though very rich, is smaller than Taiwan, and not nearly as focused on independence.
Several months ago, China put its navy through a parade (literally, all the sailors were in dress uniforms) where it can be best viewed from Hong Kong, though the parade was quite illegal because China is not allowed to have its navy within sight of Hong Kong.

So, unless China is willing to face some heavy internationall retaliation, it would probably be very stupid to conquer Taiwan. At least while Bush is in office, that is.

Comptheftgate?

Bush's state headquarters for re-election burglarized
This type of thing seems too stupid for the DNC to try, so it's either a standard robbery or sabotage from some group of extremists (he Earth Liberation Front would burn the building down, for example, but I don't know who would limit themselves to three computers). Now, if this happened to be done by some political group, then this should be about the size of Watergate. Heck, the Watergate scandal didn't even reveal much, but computers hold a lot of data. And, in that case, the perpetrators should get life in prison. No one should be illegally interfering with the conduct of this election.
Today, far too many minorities think their votes are not being counted. I don't mean "their votes don't count", which is the case for a democrat in Texas or a republican in California, but "not counted", as in removed from the ballot box. Even Jimmy Carter has been saying that the US cannot hold fair elections, and he is saying this just to bolster his party the slightest bit. What Carter seems to stupid to realize, however, is that the entire American democratic system will crumble if people do not think their voices are heard. American politics is based on majority rule and voting! If people believe that the majority is ignored and votes are doctored, then they will determine that America no longer has a representative government. If that happens, there is a good chance that people could try to overthrow the government (a lack of representation kinda got America started during the Revolutionary War). This may sound far-fetched, and it is, because it would take at least a generation for America to believe that it is no longer democratic (or a Republic, which we technically are, but "democratic" is the more commonly used term). However, if this does happen, America will definitely be incredibly worse off. Yet these morons are still chanting "you're vote isn't counted"! Who reading this has actually checked the "discrimination" in the Florida election? Here is an excellent analysis of the Florida fiasco. It successfully debunks the claim that African-Americans were disenfranchised in Florida. Also, any ballot issue which did Gore a disservice in 2000 also harmed Bush, because both candidates were (obviously) on the same ballot, and both would therefore be effected by the same flaws. This seems to be a rarely mentioned fact.

Back to the main point. Now, if the thief had no idea that he was robbing a campaign building (which was entirely possible, as it has a low profile to discourage those annoying protestors), then he should get a normal, lengthy jail and/or prison sentence. Plus, the computers have to be retrieved without any evidence of tampering, and checked to make sure no sensitive information was released. If anything was released, there should be a long sentence for the criminal and a hefty investigation on whomever the info was leaked to.