Happy New Year!

It's about 3 hours 45 minutes until the New Year where i live (Cincinnati Ohio, EST time), and I, like always, refuse to make a New Year's resolution.
Looking for a larger post? Well, I've been writting the Realist political theory section of Wikipedia's little book (wikibook) on political science. I also re-wrote the rather tiny introduction to the two main international relations theories - liberalism and realist. The earlier introduction thing introduced the theories well, but I thought it might be better to tie both of the together in a way that would show both to be useful. That tiny discussion can be found here (I only worked on the second half of the page, I didn't touch the part entitled "Introduction"). As the Realist theory section states, more updates will come soon, it takes a bit of time to write this stuff.

The News of 2004, in short

I want you to try to recall everything important that happened in 2002. What comes to mind? Maybe Martha Stewart, some other nasty executives, a bit of Afghanistan and Iraq, perhaps? That's not much for an entire year. What has been on the US media this year? Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Scott Peterson, more Martha Stewart, a solid month of Florida Hurricane coverage (non-stop coverage, in fact), and the US election. That's leaving a lot out. What happened to the media fascination with that hiker who got trapped in some canyon and cut his arm off, or was that story in 2003? You probably have no idea whom I'm talking about, and I barely even remember him, but he covered the television for at least a week; I think he even went on David Letterman's show.
If you go through a history book, you realized that a ton of important things happened in each and every year. However, those events seem very different from what we watch on the news. They seem different because they are different; the media reports anything that will draw ratings, not what is actually important. Scott Peterson, Martha Stewart, Ken Lay, and the like will never be mentioned in a respectable history book, or at least not based on what they've done so far.
I want to tell you what happened in 2004 that will, or at least should, go into the history books. These events are important because they either change the world or mark a change in the world. Wikipedia, which I am repeatedly amazed by, probably has a better compilation here (I'll use Wikipedia a bit for my compilation).


Where to start? Though the 9/11 Commission got off the ground in late 2003, it wasn't kicking much until January 2004, when it decided to request an interview with Bush and asked for an extension that allowed it to write its well-known (and also well-selling) book.
Then, in March, NASA announced that it's Opportunity rover landed in a place once drenched in water. You probably only remember speculation that the rover was on top of a once water-filled area, but apparently NASA confirmed its speculations, though after the US media lost interest in Mars.
Then, the Madrid train bombings, on March the 11th.
Shortly after the Madrid bombings, Israel assassinated Ahmed Yassin. I have an analysis into the event here, and that analysis was written many months after Yassin was taken out.
On the 29th, NATO expanded, accepting 7 former eastern-block nations.
Finally, on the 31st of March, four American contractors are killed in Iraq. Their burned corpses were mutilated and hung above a Fallujah street.

On May 1st, the European Union admits 10 new nations.
On the 17th, Massachusetts legalizes same-sex marriage.
On the 29th, the National World War II Memorial, in Washington DC, was dedicated.
On the 30th, citizens of Hong Kong demonstrate on the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Throughout the rest of China, there are no demonstrations. Plain-clothes police officers patrolled the Square, while the number of uniformed officers at the square was not changed, in an effort to act as though the massacre never happened.

On June 11th, Ronald Reagan is buried. Additionally, the Cassini-Huygens spacecraft makes its closest approach to one of Saturn's moons, Phoebe.
On the 21st, SpaceShipOne makes its first spaceflight.
On the 28th, the Coalition transfres sovergniety of Iraq to an interim government.

July 4th held the groundbreaking of the Freedom Tower, at the site of Ground Zero, in New York City. The tower is planned to be the tallest building in the world, reaching a patriotic height of 1776 feet.

On Spetember 1st, Chechen rebels take control of a school in Beslan, Russia.

On October 5th, a fire erupts on the the Canadian submarine HMCS Chicoutimi, killing one crewmember (more information here). The diesel-powered (outdated) submarine was purchsed from Britain, which spent several years repairing the ship. The submarine was one of several ships purchased by Canada, after the urging of right-wing members of Parliament, and the entire deal was seen as an excellent bargain. The MPs who urged the purchase argued that Canada had little or no ability to defend itself, and Canada had been cutting military budgets for several years, and continued cutting the budget when most agreed that the military was substantially underfunded.
On the 9th, Afghanistan has it's first democratic elections. Hamid Karzai, the forcast winner, did not dissapoint his supporters. A slight incident involving ink, which was painted on the thumbs of those who voted to ensure that none could vote twice (Afghanistan doesn't have many resources or computers, of course), was exagerrated by the US media, but caused no substantial problems in Afghanistan. There were no known attacks during the election.
On the 20th, Indonesia has it's first direct presidential election. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was the victor.
On the 29th, the European Constitution was signed, after much debate, speculation, and wories about the inevitable divisions between the members of the EU.

November 2nd, George W. Bush is reelected. Though Bush won Florida by several percentage points, the election depended on Ohio. Ohio, which counted slowly, consistently leaned Bush (as it did in pre-election polling), but the first news station to call Ohio for Bush was Fox News, at the time where Bush was ahead by aproximately 3% and about 96% of the votes were counted. No other network had the balls to call Ohio or the election for Bush for 12 more hours, allowing Fox News to further improve it's election credibility that was built in the turmoil of 2000. John Kerry is said to have given a nice concession speech, though I admitedly didn't hear it; but John Edwards confirmed my belief that he is unwilling to do something for the country if he can do something for himself instead by attempting to pressure Kerry into waiting for a recount, not to mention a poor concession speech.

On November 16th, China invests $20 billion in Argentina. China wants to secure all the resources that it can, so that the nation's gigantic economic growth is not threatened. China also has deals with Sudan, which it has protected from UN action against the genocide in Darfur.

On the 21st, Viktor Yanukovych wins a rigged election in Ukraine. After much protesting and international involvement, Ukraine decides to hold another election on December 26th.

On December 26th, pro-western challenger Yushchenko is elected president of Ukraine. Additionally, an earthquake in the Indian Ocean creates Tsunamis which are believed to have killed more than 100,000 people. Many more deaths from disease are expected.




I have to admit that Wikipedia really amazed me with their work. They included all the things that I intended to include, and a lot more (they reminded me of most of this, I admit). They also have an excellent summary of the important events each day, I might add, and may become a reputable news source.

Texas Wants To Put The "Super" Back In "Superhighway"

a news article

In what sounds like another tall tale told by a Texan, the Lone Star State has embarked on an audacious project to build superhighways so big, so complex, that they will make ordinary interstates look like cowpaths.
The Trans-Texas Corridor project, as envisioned by Republican Gov. Rick Perry in 2002, would be a 4,000-mile transportation network costing an awesome $175 billion over 50 years, financed mostly if not entirely with private money. The builders would then charge motorists tolls.
But these would not be mere highways. Proving anew that everything's big in Texas, they would be megahighways - corridors up to a quarter-mile across, consisting of as many as six lanes for cars and four for trucks, plus railroad tracks, oil and gas pipelines, water and other utility lines, even broadband transmission cables.

Some official information is available here. A group supporting the highway can be found here.

I'll give you a summary. This thing is expected to have about 6 lanes for cars, four lanes for trucks, train tracks, and all the utilities that it can run next to the road. It will be built with private money, if possible, and be funded by tolls. The Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) is part of a planned Canada-US-Mexico superhighway that runs through Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The highway is expected to be an important part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and will create a single route between Canada and Mexico.
Of course, as most of this highway looks like it will pass through the US, the US probably stands to benefit the most (but also pay the most). Further, the highway should divert some shipping from west-coast ports, which have gone on strike, costing California and the shipping industry billions. Additionally, an international project of this scale may be seen as a forerunner to a new canal bridging the Atlantic and Pacific, as the Panama Canal will break given enough time, because the government of Panama has made no effort to maintain the canal (control and responsibility for the canal was given to Panama fairly recently).

Now, I love all things big, new, and built with an eye at least a decade into the future. And I definitely love this highway.
Once the highway is built, hundreds or thousands of little towns and cities will sprout up along it. Additionally, it may be an excellent step in reforming the national power grid. Proposed reforms have been halted in congress for many years; one of the recent opponents of the reform (both before and after the giant blackout in the Northeast) has been Hillary Clinton.

Obvious News: Airlines Have Problems

article

As can be expected, airlines have problems, especially computer problems. In this case, something caused over 1000 flights to be cancelled.

The airlines, I must point out, are encountering these problems because of their earlier idiocy. In the late 1990's, at least one airline was told by an expert hired as a consultant (my very own dad, to be exact) that they needed to cut the salaries of everyone earning more than $20,000 by 10% and to stop buying new equipment. The consultant knew that the airlines had a capacity that was greater than the number of people who would fly on airplanes, because air travel had stabilized over the earlier years (it increased slightly with population). Thus, the airlines were making more expenses than necessary, and they would not collect the income they expected to collect. The airline, however, in an effort to look good to investors and increase stock price, gave everyone a 35% raise and bought tons of new equipment.

Nowadays, those airlines are paying millions of dollars to maintain the equipment that they shouldn't have been purchased, and they are dismissing the employees that didn't need to be hired, and they are cutting the salaries that shouldn't have been increased in the first place.

While the airlines were buying new airplanes, they were not upgrading their computer systems, which they should have been upgrading. Airlines need to realize that customers don't want to carry around a large paper ticket, which is expensive and easy to lose, but rather that they want much of the information on the ticket to be stored in a computer network, if not all the information. The paper ticket should have all the information that the customer wants to know, like the gate where the airplane is, flight date and time, seat location, meal/movie information, and also include some identification information (the passenger's name and some tracking number for the ticket). The computer network should have the same information, as well as everything the airline needs to know, so that the ticket can easily be reprinted if it's lost and the lost ticket can be invalidated.
That type of thing should not be difficult with the help of a modern computer network. In fact, it would probably be easier, faster, and a bit more secure, all while making things easier for the customer (not to mention airline employees who deal with customers who have ticket problems).
Having all the tickets stored on a computer network will make it easier to coordinate all flights through the same computer network.

US Economy Advances At A Brisk Pace

The US GDP appears to be increasing at about 4% annually, which is excellent for the world's largest economy. Europe is stuck around 2% to 2.5%, and that drops when considering the overvalued euro.
Social Security will be a problem if it is not fixed, but it will not cause an economic crash. Healthcare and it's rising costs, however, will cause a crash if it's not fixed. Mind you, if you think healthcare's expensive now, wait until it's "free" (quote/paraphrase of someone whom I am unable to track down and credit). Personally, I think medical research and the rapid advancement of technology may be causing much of the price hike, but I have little data and no credible sources for this. However, much of the increase is also due to hospital expansion. Hospitals are expanding because Americans want hospitals to accommodate every potential patient at every time. This means that the hospital must be staffed and built to handle far more patients than they normally have. This is comparable to building an 18-lane highway, rather than a 10-lane highway, to make sure that traffic will never slow down at rush hour (this may be a bit of an exaggeration). Government mandates are also increasing the costs of taking care of patients. Finally, the cost of new drugs are not only due to research, but also to extensive testing, and as a safeguard in case there may be a problem and the drug company is sued for unreasonably large amounts of money.
Next, I want ANWR opened to oil drilling. All of ANWR, unless something spectacular like an alien spacecraft or ancient civilization of very advanced humans is found (they won't be found). It will take about 6 to 7 years for any oil to come out of ANWR once it is opened, but the drilling operations would create at least 250,000 jobs (that's just in the Coastal Plain area, which is only about 2 million of ANWR's 19 million acres), as well as tens of billions of dollars, and significantly reduce US dependence on foreign oil.
Additionally, I want minimum wage to rise by 75 cents to $1 per year for the next four years. Very few people get paid minimum wage, but those who do are getting ripped off, and too many people are getting paid something close to minimum wage. This would help reduce the disparity between the salaries of CEO's and the average employee in their company, which has grown disgustingly, even to a capitalist republican like me.
After that, I want executives to be held accountable for the 'accounting irregularities' of their companies. If a company steals from its customers, the executives go to jail, unless they can prove themselves innocent (either as individuals who had no relation to the theft, or as a whole, in the case that all the lower employees were steeling and the executives didn't know, which is unlikely. Trials should be held within a week so that people who are obviously innocent can get out of jail, while the guilty or possibly guilty have a later trial, so lawyers have more time to gather evidence and make a proper argument). The jail would be the prison near the company's headquarters to make things simple, and so that executives have a hard time going to a more relaxing prison.
Next, I want cable lines to be taken out of AOL/TimeWarner's hands, and opened to all companies, just as phone lines are. This case is going to the supreme court in a few months, and I really hope that TimeWarner looses, because that company needs to be destroyed. TimeWarner, because of its incompetence, stealing from customers, and terrible service, is in the way of a ton of development that the US needs.
I want no limits on the number of immigrants the US will accept; the only limits the US should have are to keep criminals and the like out of the country. A great way to stop outsourcing is to allow cheap labor to come to the US, so US companies do not move abroad for the cheap labor (wow, that seems incredibly logical, and I'm ashamed I didn't think up that line earlier). People will come into the US illegally anyway, so it's better to make sure that those who try to cross the border are the type that the US doesn't want, and border patrol agents are not restricted in catching the wannabe-illegal immigrants. Also, reform the immigration system, because it is failing at present. First off, those applying for immigration are treated poorly (they should be given the same respect as any American, as they will soon be an American), the system is slow, and it is a huge hassle for immigrants to go through. The immigration service should help those who want to become Americans. Some of the first things that the immigration service should do are helping the immigrant find somewhere to live, somewhere to work, and ways to adapt to the American culture. Some immigrants have little interest in adapting to American culture, but they should find that it is easier to spend the time to learn english because the immigration service will help them get somewhere to work and live in return.
While reforming immigration, we ought to send a lot of waterproof ziplock bags to Cuba. It's about time those refugees brought some cigars with them, so they don't have to live off the government or charity the minute they arrive.

These changes should help push the US economy from a brisk jog to a healthy sprint. Plus, the changes would simply be nice to have.

Yushchenko claims triumph in Ukraine

Yushchenko claims triumph in Ukraine: "Now we are free," he declares

The headline tells the entire story, the link gives the details.

Congratulations to Yushchenko and the Ukraine he will preside over.

Conservative students sue over academic freedom

article

the University of North Carolina, three incoming freshmen sue over a reading assignment they say offends their Christian beliefs.

In Colorado and Indiana, a national conservative group publicizes student allegations of left-wing bias by professors. Faculty get hate mail and are pictured in mock "wanted" posters; at least one college says a teacher received a death threat.

And at Columbia University in New York, a documentary film alleging that teachers intimidate students who support Israel draws the attention of administrators.

The three episodes differ in important ways, but all touch on an issue of growing prominence on college campuses.

First off, many of the people involved in these claims should grow up. If a teacher is liberal, get over it. If the teacher is harsher on you or lowers your grade because of political beliefs, chat with a school administrator, but double-check all of your facts first. Sometimes schools actually do something that reeks of bias, but such events are rare. My school actually has a diversity program, which has gone to the extent that a few schoolwide mandatory diversity presentations were held, and the school hired a diversity consultant. Personally, I'd like to find out what a diversity consultant actually does; is it really that hard to tell if someone is a minority? On a different note, I believe the definition of 'diversity' has changed from "consisting of a wide range of backgrounds, beliefs, traits, qualities, or any other aspect" to "without white people". The only problem I have with my school's diversity program, other than the mandatory junk, is that they only allow "ethnic clubs" to sell food during lunch. Those two "ethnic clubs" would be the Spanish club and the club for black people. Apparently, white people do not have an ethnicity. The Yiddish Appreciation Society is a bit iffy as to whether or not they can sell food, I believe. This wouldn't normally be a terrible policy, except for the fact that the school food is terrible, and they insist on selling it to people so they will not lose money. Considering the cost of the food compared to its indelibleness, I suspect that the school actually makes a profit from food.
Now, the policy at my school was probably made by someone who isn't quite right in the head. At the very least, the food is expected to get better in a few weeks. If not, I'll try to find some way to circumvent the school rules and properly display the spirit of capitalistic competition. I hope that other schools do not have similar policies.

College is a bit different. If you are required to read something you don't agree with in college (or even highschool), live with it, or get permission to not read it. If an elementary school is requiring kids to read books like Black Like Kyra, White Like Me (yep, a book about racism, and how all white people are the devil!), that's a very different problem. The term for that problem is probably "indoctrination of the youth".

So, as this story is about colleges, it's a bit of a non-story. If teachers have a bias and are being SOBs with it, go to an administrator. If the administrators are SOB's, then you can go to court. Or, you could protest, but that is unlikely to accomplish anything.

Scouts' sales tactic outside ACLU becomes pop smash

article

A friendly jab at the American Civil Liberties Union has turned into a financial bonanza for a tiny nine-member Boy Scout troop from Chesterfield County.

Troop 828, with an unexpected boost on Wednesday from nationally syndicated talk show host Glenn Beck, watched its struggling popcorn sales explode.

Scouts at a downtown booth had to call for fresh supplies. A Web site was flooded with orders from buyers in 39 states.

At last count, sales had topped $28,000. That set a record for the Boy Scouts' Heart of Virginia Council.
[...]
The windfall came after Beck got wind of the Scouts' decision to set up a booth near the ACLU's Virginia headquarters in downtown Richmond.

For years the ACLU has raised legal questions as to how closely the government should be aligned with the Boy Scouts of America.

In a brilliant marketing maneuver, this Boy Scout troop decided to sell popcorn, which they often sell as a fundraiser, outside the Virginia headquarters of the ACLU. Glenn Beck, the only radio host whom I give 3 hours of time to listen to (I have signed up for the 'insider' thing, so I can download the radio broadcasts, both broadcasts from earlier that day to ones that are a month old), took notice of the troop, and bought $380 worth of popcorn for $450; the price increase was by his own suggestion.
Beck also announced the website where people who couldn't attend the sale can buy popcorn and give the standard commission to the troop, www.trails-end.com. The popcorn distributor is www.orderpopcorn.com, and the buyer can choose to donate to troop 828 by entering the troop's order key, TE3Y29 (caps not required).

Yushchenko was poisoned, with dioxin

Yushchenko apparently was poisoned, according to some Austrian doctors, with Dioxin. I'm no expert on poisons; but, from what I hear, dioxin is one of the most powerful poisons in existence.
Let me show you the change in Yushchenko's appearance, so you can see how much a little dioxin can do.
Before:

After:

As you can see, Yushchenko took a lot of Dioxin. In fact, the bottle of the toxin is shown in Yushchenko's right hand (we see the hand as on the left).


Obviously, the second picture is fake, as this post is about half parody. The image is actually from the movie The Mummy.

Yushchenko says that he wants an investigation into the poisoning, but will wait until after the election. It is currently believed that Yushchenko was poisoned while eating dinner with a Ukrainian official, a former KGB member, at the time. It is also believed that the two did not have an enjoyable dinnertime conversation.

Some new statistics on party membership, and it turns out that values were unimportant in the election

article
It's a short article, so I'll quote most of it:

Even as a new Gallup poll shows that the public values “values” less than November exit polls suggested, another survey from the same outfit released today showed a historic surge in Republican party affiliation.

In Gallup's latest poll this month, those identifying themselves as Republicans jumped to 37% of the public, with Democrats now clearly trailing with 32%.

Democrats have long held more party members than Republicans. During the Clinton years, the bulge was about 5% to 6%. As recently as late-October of this year the Democratic edge was 37% to 34%.
[…]
Another Gallup poll also released today showed that, contrary to many press reports, “values” ranked well behind the war in Iraq, terrorism and the economy as a prime concern of Americans.

This is one of those rare articles which shows that the media, someday, may realize that Bush won because he's a better candidate. However, the media's current attempts to explain their loss are comparable to playing "Where's Waldo?" with a blank sheet of paper. Bush won because he was the better candidate. It's that simple. Good candidates are likeable, present good points and issues, argue their points and sides on issues well, can use a campaign wisely, and can both encourage people to vote for them and encourage moderate supporters to vote. Thus, the better candidate will almost certainly win a fair election.

Now, this article does redeem itself by providing new, useful information. Increased republican party membership shows that the democrats have repulsed non-members during the campaign, and probably in the run-up to the campaign (the primaries and that incredibly long pre-primary debate season in which all 10 democratic wannabe-candidates debated at once. Not to mention the "what did he know and when did he know it?!" era). This means that republicans should do well in the next election, either holding or increasing their numbers in Congress, unless some incredible idiots appear in high positions and screw everything up, but that's unlikely.
Additionally, the democratic party needs to rethink its platform. Do democrats really want to prevent domestic oil drilling, when almost every smart and informed American agrees that we should depend less on the mid-east for oil? Do democrats really want to federalize the school systems, though many studies have shown that schools under local control do far better, and for less money, than schools under federal control? Do democrats really want to socialize healthcare when the prototype, Tennessee's Tenncare system, crashed due to huge costs, and both European and Canadian healthcare systems are les effective than America's? Do democrats really want to strengthen controls on pollution, and encourage fear over phantom environmental problems (like disposal of depleted uranium, which I discussed in my earlier post), when American industries are falling behind? Of course, I could pose similar questions to republicans; who should work to shrink the influence of stock over a company, and hold bosses accountable for the problems of the company (rather than impose a fine on the entire company, which harms the employees, as the boss will ensure that he keeps a high salary).

Personally, I hope that the democratic party can really shape up, and focus on improving America as a whole and for the long-run. If such happened, I would be happy to join the democratic party, because I'm not a blind partisan who thinks my party is better because it's my party. I will support the party that I believe will be better for America in the long-run, and I hope that other Americans use the same simple, accurate logic.

What I Want In 2005

After the success of my "Most Important People of 2004" list, I've decided to make a list of the things that I hope to see in 2005. Many of these are unlikely to happen, even though most or all of the technology for these things already exists. This is subject to updates and revisions, and may re recycled into a "What I Want In 2006" post if few or none of these things are done.

1: my cellphone to do everything that wireless networks allow. I'm not talking about better "calling areas", or whatever those can call/can't call zone restrictions are named. I am talking about listening to the radio on my phone, watching TV on the phone, and attaching my phone to a laptop via a USB port to access a WiFi (wireless internet) network – or even have 56k+ internet access directly from the cellphone network. For this to happen, phone companies simply need to shape up and fix their networks, and add a headphone jack, radio antenna, USB port, WiFi signal thing, TV antenna (if they can be made fairly small but still good. If not, I want TV to come from the wireless network), and a bigger and better screen. Actually, make that 2 or 3 USB ports, because I want to attach a keyboard, mouse, and LCD screen of a good size to the phone. If you only have space for two ports, make keyboards that have two USB ports (Apple keyboards were, and maybe still are, made like this).
Additionally, if an iPod can hold 60 gigabytes, why can't a cellphone hold 5 or 10 gigabytes, rather than the few megabytes they seem to have now? With complete and quality internet access from the wireless networks, I want a cellphone to have the capabilities of an iPod, though they don't need as much harddrive space, in order to decrease costs.
And, here's the part that the industry should be ashamed for abusing: I don't want to pay $100 more for a phone that doesn't look ugly. MAKE EVERY PHONE LOOK NICE, NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY COST, YOU MORONS! Price should be based on functionality, not cosmetics, because cosmetics are cheap, but people like to have a phone that looks nice, rather than like a 20th century relic.
And that's not all. I want to put AA (commonly called "double A") batteries into my cellphone. These AA's aren’t to be the main power source for the phone; they are to recharge the phone's better (hopefully), internal battery. If my phone runs low on power, I don't want to turn it off or run to the car to plug it into the recharger, which would mean that I can no longer use the phone to access a WiFi network. I want to buy a pack of Duracells, plug one or two batteries into the phone (one would be fine, to save some space and keep the phone small), and recharge the phone. In fact, I'd like to keep a fresh AA battery in the phone to work with the permanent battery, and be able to replace that AA easily. And, you should be able to recharge the AA batteries along with the cell phone, when the phone is plugged into a car or home recharger thing. Or, just use AAA batteries, which are smaller, if you are determined to keep a tiny cellphone.

2: cameras and computers in every streetlight. This is not to catch speeders or people who disobey traffic signals; rather, it is to eliminate the desire to disobey traffic signals entirely. When I stop at a red light, and I am the only person at the intersection, there is no reason for me to wait for the light to turn green. The lights are meant to control traffic; when there is no other traffic, the dictations of the light should either be ignorable or adapt to the current situation (make the light green as I approach it, if there are no other cars at the intersection). Traffic light were originally made for safety, or at least that's what people have told me, so they should be upgraded with modern technology to allow for both safety and speed. And, there is one beautiful thing about this idea: it should severely reduce the number of people driving through a red light, because the light would be green under the conditions that many people would drive right through it. And, if the light stays red, the driver will know that another car is approaching the light from a different lane, so they should be more likely to stop than if they saw a red light but no other cars near it (in which case they may incorrectly assume/take the chance that no other cars are approaching).
This system wouldn't simply change depending on whether or not cars are approaching or waiting, it should change based on how many cars are approaching or waiting. The lights should follow some principle of "the shortest wait for the greatest number of people", with some adjustments so a single person does not wait for 20 minutes while a long line of cars goes through another lane.
Additionally, the lights should be interconnected. On one of the streets I often drive through, congestion is usually caused by the traffic lights (placed about every 100 feet), because they do not work in sync. In other words, your light turns green when the next light is still red, and a line of cars extends from that light to your light. In other words, you still can't go, because you would be stuck in the middle of the intersection.
And that's not all. If here is a crash ahead of you in your lane, maybe the lights in that lane should blink red to warn you, and tell you to take a detour. Of course, you could just add a little sign that says "detour" with an arrow pointing in the recommended direction (based on the amount of traffic in the alternate routes), but that improvement might be more expensive, and used only infrequently. Most private companies could probably add the sign and arrow cheaply, but the government would find some way to make it cost a ton.

3: cars to park themselves. You can buy those electronic measuring things that use sound waves to measure very accurately for something like $25 at a local hardware store. And, some cars already have 'collision detectors', or whatever they are called, to warn the driver when they are about to back into another car. I think this technology ought to be used so that a car can determine the surroundings and park itself properly; i.e. perfectly aligned between other cars. This would solve the problem of idiots parking 2 inches from the driver side of your car, while another idiot did the same on another side, thus forcing you to enter your car through the trunk. And, you can only enter through the trunk if you have an SUV or minivan, because many of the coupes/compact cars do not have a trunk that you can crawl into the backseat from. Now, you may think that buying a motorcycle would circumvent this problem, but you'd be wrong; the idiots would drive over your motorcycle. So, combine sensors with a computer that can drive the car a few feet into the parking space, and cars will start parking perfectly.
If this technology got really good, cars might be able to remove themselves from a parking space, when the driver simply presses a button on the automatic lock thing on the keychain.

4: nuclear power. It's safe, clean, cheap, and relatively easy to use. Nuclear power plants don't put out much waste, no matter what environmentalist protestors claim, and that waste is actually quite easy to dispose of and not very harmful, again, despite what environmentalist protestors claim. Depleted uranium is a very strong material, the US military actually uses it on tanks to protect them from RPG's, and it will not break up. An area may be contaminated by uranium when the uranium breaks into small pieces that are spread throughout the surrounding land; as depleted uranium is incredibly difficult to break into small pieces, it is very difficult for depleted uranium to contaminate an area. Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, depleted uranium is far less radioactive than normal uranium, hence the term "depleted uranium". And, uranium is a natural element; it's already in the environment in the natural, more harmful, form.

5: a big bomb to drop on the Saudi royal family. It's about time we give those assholes what they deserve. Once the Saudi royalty is dead, the US should take everything they own, and use the assets to fund the reconstruction of both Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

6: Taiwan to have some great military defenses. If China wants to annex Taiwan, then it must be willing to put up an incredible fight and suffer heavy losses. The biggest deterrent to China's desire to annex Taiwan must be the Taiwanese military, because it will use every weapon it has to the maximum effect if the nation is threatened with destruction. The US, Japan, and South Korea may put up substantial, but limited, resistance, and China would eventually win because it can outlast the US, Japan, and South Korea.
This point may be impossible, useless, and maybe even unnecessary, depending on the real actions and intentions of China. However, I would like a strong Taiwan, just to take some precautions against possible Chinese aggression and expansion.

Israelis Capture Major Hamas Mastermind

article

Israel's military has captured Hamas's leading operative in the West Bank.

Israeli officials said Imad Kawasmeh surrendered to Israeli troops in Hebron on Wednesday. The officials said Kawasmeh, 31, was regarded as the most lethal Hamas operative in the West Bank and responsible for numerous suicide strikes in Israel.

The last strike was the double suicide bombings of Israeli buses in Beersheba in August 2004. Sixteen Israelis were killed in the attacks.

"He was an arch-murderer," Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said. "I hope his capture will strike a blow to the Hamas infrastructure in Hebron and reduce attacks from that area."
[...]
Under Kawasmeh's leadership, the Hebron cell became the most active in Hamas's network in the West Bank. Kawasmeh was said to have worked with Hamas cells in Jerusalem and Nablus for attacks in Israel in 2003.

Several of the attacks planned by Kawasmeh failed. They included a June 2004 plot to carry out a suicide attack in Jerusalem. The failed attempt led to the killing of one cell member and the arrest of several others in Hebron and Jerusalem.

"After the suicide attack in Beersheba, dozens of Hamas terrorists were arrested and investigated," a military source said. "The results of the investigations showed that Imad Kawasmeh was the director of a wide network of terrorists and assistants guided by Kawasmeh to plan and carry out suicide and shooting attacks. Some of the terrorists were recently arrested and are now being questioned."

Israeli operations targeting specific terrorist leaders are not rare, my first post on this blog discussed the assassination of Ahmed Yassin earlier this year in some detail and with a lot of analysis into the background events, for very good reason. The targeting of specific individuals can help explain the basis and foundation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the wider Israeli-Islamic conflict; at least as I see it, that is.

However, most leaders are killed, not captured alive. Or, most of these events that the US public hears about are assassinations, not captures, so this event might only be unusual, not unique.


The effects on Palestine's Arafat-free government and reconstruction efforts (for lack of better term) should be interesting. This single capture will do little, but many similar captures may set standards for relations between Israel and Arafat-free Palestine.

What will European racism do for America?

For years, Europe has claimed that it's more tolerant than the US. Repeatedly, I have expressed my disagreement, and have cited Norway's black sub-class and the anti-Semitism of France and Germany as examples. Now, the populace of Europe has started a backlash against Muslims, and the spark for this appears to be the murder of Theo Van Gogh. Personally, I think the backlash may have started before the murder, but the symptoms (public and publicized racism) were a few months behind the events of actual importance. Europe can no longer claim to be more tolerant than the US.

Centuries ago, the greatest British thinker stated that the largest threat to British power was Britain itself, because British abuse of power was the only thing capable of destroying the empire, because it would encourage many nations to unite against what they saw as unjust use of British power. Please allow me to quote a section of Politics Among Nations, by Hans J. Morgenthau (Brief edition, published in 1993. Page 179):
-----------------------------------------------
The only nation that in modern times could maintain a continuous position of preponderance owed that position to a rare combination of potential superior power, a reputation for superior power, and the infrequent use of that superior power. Thus Great Britain was able, on the one hand, to overcome all serious challenges to its superiority because its self-restraint gained powerful allies and, hence, made it actually superior. On the other hand, it could minimize the incentive to challenge it because its superiority did not threaten the existence of other nations. When Great Britain stood at the threshold of its greatest power, it heeded the warning of its greatest political thinker—a warning as timely today as when first uttered in 1793:

Amongst precautions against ambition, it may not be amiss to take one precaution against our own. I must fairly say, I dread our own power and our own ambition; I dread our being too much dreaded. It is ridiculous to say we are not men, and that, as men, we shall never wish to aggrandize ourselves in some way or the other. Can we say that even at this very hour we are not invidiously aggrandized? We are already in possession of almost half the commerce of the world. Our empire in India is an awful thing. If we should come to be in a condition not only to have all this ascendant in commerce, but to be absolutely able, without the least control, to hold the commerce of all other nations totally dependant upon our good pleasure, we may say that we shall not abuse this astonishing and hitherto unheard-of power. But every other nation will think we shall abuse it. It is impossible but that, sooner or later, this state of things must produce a combination against us which may end in our ruin.

-----------------------------------------------
I should note that Politics Among Nations is a great book, but it is also somewhat difficult to read, as the earlier half of that passage illustrates.

Now, combine these two thoughts. America may be risking its own power with the occupation of Iraq by galvanizing much of the world to oppose the US. One of the leading claims against the US was (falsely) of racism.
However, it is becoming obvious that America is not the racist nation, and Europe is realizing that Muslim extremism is a problem. Europe's actions may be saving America from backlash to the possible over-eagerness to go into Iraq, because a racist Europe cannot lead a worldwide anti-US backlash.

Is this a good thing? For America, it is, at best, fair - America's allies become slightly less sane in exchange for America looking better. For Europe, this is almost certainly a bad thing, as this will set back their chances to compete on par with the US or to develop a US that they are comfortable with (perhaps that means they would want some control over America, or perhaps it means that they simply prefer we be less erratic and extreme in our actions).


In summary, I think that most fears that the US will inspire a global backlash can be alleviated. Some fears can remain, as they may have a basis in other issues. It's hard to determine what domestic effects this will have on both Europe and the US. Europe will probably have less immigration, tourism, and a slight drop in trade. The US should absorb the immigrants that would otherwise have gone to Europe, but that's about all that I can predict with any certainty at 1:20 AM. I will speculate that Europe may have to decide which it dislikes more; Israel or Muslims. That decision will be one of the largest factors (if not the largest factor) affecting the future of European involvement in the mid-East and, especially, the Israel-Palestine conflict.

US Delays Missile Shield Tests Because Of Bad Weather

article

The first flight test in nearly two years of a planned U.S. missile-defense shield has been scrapped two days in a row this week because of bad weather, the Pentagon said on Friday.

Strong rain squalls over the Kwajalein atoll launch site in the central Pacific caused the latest postponement, Richard Lehner, a spokesman for the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, said shortly after the decision to scrap the test. A new attempt might be made later in the day, he said.

The Pentagon had not previously publicized the test.

An exercise deemed successful may set the stage for President Bush to declare the system on alert to shoot down a warhead that could be fired by a potential foe like North Korea.

Bush's goal, announced in 2002, was to have a rudimentary ground-based shield in operation by the end of this month. But the timetable may slip, the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer, Michael Wynne, suggested earlier this week.
[...]
The test would be the first since a December 2002 failure in which the "kill vehicle" -- a Raytheon Co. -built 120-pound package of sensors, chips and thrusters -- failed to separate from its booster rocket. Of eight intercepts attempted so far, five hit their targets, but under highly scripted conditions.

Boeing Co. is the main contractor for the initial elements of the system. Northrop Grumman Corp. provides the command and control; Lockheed Martin Corp., a booster rocket.

The coming test features the first flight of the kill vehicle on a new, faster-flying, booster built by Orbital Sciences Corp. . It was to be launched from Kwajalein in the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

The target missile was to be fired in Kodiak, Alaska, to vary engagement angles tested in previous launches from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The first attempt to conduct the test this week was scrubbed by clouds over Kodiak.

The Pentagon's official goal for the test is a "flyby" to gather data on the new hardware linkups as well as on the nerve center, rather than to shoot down the target.

This is one of the rare times that the media reports on the Missile Defense Shield that the US is trying to build on the west coast. I believe I have a post which describes the effects of this shield, and why we want it, but can't seem to find it anywhere. So, I'll rewrite a bit.
This shield will allow the US to use very aggressive diplomacy with North Korea. Right now, Kim Jung Ill knows that he is safe from the US, because the US will not risk a nuclear missile strike to get rid of one little (and he is short. Actually, Kim Jung is very sensitive about his height; he grew that stupid afro to look taller) dictator, no matter how insane that dictator is. Though the US may not be able to destroy North Korea's nukes, we can prevent them from being effective. On the US, that is. Our allies are screwed.
Our allies are screwed because, once Kim Jung Ill knows that he can't hit the US, he will nuke some of America's allies, namely Japan and South Korea (Taiwan is a slight possibility as well). Poor Japan, that would be their third nuclear attack. How much would it suck to be the only nation on Earth to get nuked, not after only one nuke, but after three?
Anyway, our allies are ticked that only the US would be protected by the shield (we went out of our way to keep Canada vulnerable. No, I'm only joking, but Canada will probably be vulnerable because it would cost a ton to extend the shield up north, and the US doesn't want to pay more to defend Canada). They fear, quite reasonably and justifiably, that the US may get cocky and cause them to be nuked. It's safer to have a crazy, but pacified, Kim Jung Ill than it is to have a crazy, angry Kim Jung Ill who will shoot his nukes everywhere except the US.

That seems like a good summary of the political background for the Missile Defense issue. I may need to update later, but I'm too lazy to write several more pages tonight.

Selling Fangs to a Dragon

Article.

Despite US pleas, France and Germany want to end a European Union arms embargo of China. Fortunately, other nations in the EU are expected to nix the idea at a China-EU summit this week.

The embargo was imposed 15 years ago after the Tiananmen massacre. In addition to keeping the heat on Beijing over its constant human-rights violations, the EU ban on military exports also has slowed down China's rapid build up of its forces.

Germany and France don't seem to care, as the US does, about China's threats to take Taiwan by force, or that its ever more sophisticated ships, planes, and missiles may soon upset the current regional power balance.

China threatens commercial retaliation if the embargo isn't lifted. The US threatens to curb sales of sensitive military technology to Europe if it is. The Pentagon may also not award contracts to EU arms exporters.

The EU may try a compromise that promises a future opening of the arms door to China, but with a screening of all military sales under a loose ethics code. In addition, China would have to ratify an international convention on civil liberties.

But just as it keeps an arms embargo on Burma, Zimbabwe, and Sudan, the EU should not feed the forces of China's authoritarian rulers.

I've mentioned this subject in passing several times, and regret that I have yet to report on this issue (and what it relates to) in the detail that it deserves. For now, it may suffice to say that China is expected to be the next major rival to the US superpower status. With a population of five times that of the US, and a rapidly growing economy, China is well on its way. However, China may require a revolution before it can reach equal status with the US, because the technology that China will gain to develop the economy should also allow for anti-government opposition and development of some freedoms.
The US has China surrounded, but this containment process has been very quiet. We have been sending tons of aid to Mongolia (north of China, it is right between Russia and China), are good buddies with South Korea, have expressed an interest in a nation of Taiwan, and has been helping the government of Nepal defeat Maoist rebels.

Thus, the US does not want a likely future rival to buy military equipment from Europe, because those weapons may be used against us.

U.S. Consulate in a Saudi City Is Hit, Killing 9

article

Five attackers thought to be linked to Al Qaeda staged a daytime raid on the American Consulate here on Monday, storming through a fortified gate into the sprawling compound and starting a three-hour gun battle that left five consulate employees and four of the attackers dead.
[...]
A brief announcement from the Interior Ministry, carried by the official Saudi Press Agency, said that "members of a deviant group threw explosives at the gate of the U.S. Consulate." The terminology is the ministry's usual shorthand for the offshoots of the terrorist network Al Qaeda operating inside Saudi Arabia.

The announcement said Saudi security forces wanted to assure the public that they were determined to stamp out anyone attempting to bring "schisms and corruption" into the country.

The attack brought a huge swath of Jidda, Saudi Arabia's financial and trade hub, to a standstill. News of the raid was also followed by a small jump in world oil prices.

During a news conference in Washington, President Bush thanked the Saudi government for responding to the attack quickly and vowed to resist pressure from terrorists.

"The attacks in Saudi Arabia remind us that the terrorists are still on the move," he said. "They're interested in affecting the will of free countries. They want us to leave Saudi Arabia. They want us to leave Iraq. They want us to grow timid and weary in the face of their willingness to kill randomly and kill innocent people."
[...]
The American government would not say how many employees worked at the consulate, but there is a heavy economic contingent here because of the amount of trade that flows through Jidda.

Five consulate employees were killed in the attack, and four were seriously wounded, the embassy said. While no Americans died, a few suffered minor scrapes and bruises. Those killed included a local security guard, and the rest were thought to have been drivers or other staff from the motor pool who appeared to have been caught outside.

The Saudi government said civilians had been wounded in the attack. It also said five Saudi security officers were hurt when they rushed the compound, though all were treated and released afterward. Officials said three of the attackers were killed at the compound, and a fourth died of his injuries later.

The statement said those killed were a Yemeni, a Sudanese, a Filipino, a Pakistani and a Sri Lankan, while those wounded included two Yemenis, two Pakistanis, a Lebanese, a Filipino, an Indian and a Sri Lankan.

At the Saudi Embassy in Washington, Adel al-Jubair, an aide to Crown Prince Abdullah, told reporters that the attackers had called an emergency line in the kingdom to announce that they were members of the Falluja Brigades and had seized about 15 hostages. But he and American officials said no hostages had been held at any time within the compound.

The American Embassy in Riyadh and the consulate in Dhahran were closed as a precaution immediately after the attack in Jidda started, and they will remain closed on Tuesday, Ms. Kalin said.

I wonder who was behind this attack. I, of course, believe it was a terrorist group, but I am suspicious as to if Saudi Arabia or the Saudi royal family may have links to the terrorists.

I'll have to check in the morning. I wish I could write more, but there is not enough time in the day.

Open Letter To the People of RIAA

As you know, your legal efforts have done almost nothing to stop music piracy. You may also note that piracy rates increase when sales increase, and decrease when sales decrease; piracy and music sales have a direct, rather than inverse, relationship. Allow me to explain why piracy is happening, tell you the best ways to increase your sales, and explain the limits that any of your legal efforts have.

To the music industry this should be obvious; the teenage to 25-year-old demographic loves to rebel. This is actually how modern music started. The recording industry has turned music into a highly-profitable capitalist venture. By doing this, the music industry has joined the 'institution' that your market wants to rebel against. Music piracy was, and still is, the only way to rebel against the institution while acquiring the foundation of that rebellion; music.
Your only way to curtail piracy is to stop acting like the institution that your customers hate. Your legal proceedings, though expensive, are in vain. Do you really think that the revolution-prone (for lack of better term) generation thinks "if I do this, I might get taken to court"? Getting taken to court is often the goal of rebels or protesters. In fact, I think the RIAA is placing bets on a terrible legal gamble; because you can win any number of cases against file-swappers with little effect, but a single ruling against you would destroy your chances of ending file-swapping in a legal fashion.
Your easiest way to increase sales is to outdo file-swappers at their own game, and allow peer-to-peer software to fall into disuse, thus destroying it (a network with few people isn't effective, as you should know). Offering free music downloads would not only bring back some customers, but it would make you stop looking like a money-hungry corporation. Let me give you a few examples, so that it doesn't sound insane for a corporation to offer free products or services.
Microsoft crushed competing web browsers by providing internet explorer for free. Many of the other types of browsers are made in an effort to oppose Microsoft's monopoly, not to make a profit.
AOL, though it is now a terrible and falling company, owes its success to saturating the American population with free disks and a free month of internet service.
Google is the most popular search engine because, for a very long time, it charged nothing from searchers or websites that wanted to be listed as a result. It still charges nothing from searchers or listed websites, will not accept money for a better listing, and is reaping in profits by an advertising strategy that many thought would be an utter failure. Oh yes, and the stock went from about $110 (after investors claimed the initial pricing was to high) to $180, and the two co-founders of Google are billionaires.
Pontiac donated about 280 cars to Oprah Winfrey, in exchange for the huge advertisement that Oprah's entire 19th anniversary show became, and the newspaper headlines for the next few days. The Pontiac G6 celebrated excellent advertising for a very low cost.
I hope that it is apparent that providing free items can reap substantial profits in the long run, if done properly. So, I encourage you to offer some popular songs for free, without any strings or contests attached. Such a marketing strategy is probably the best way to popularize a new band, as it is far more effective than expensive marketing. The failure of the recent Michael Jackson CD should provide ample evidence that marketing, no matter how expensive, will is useless if customers do not like the band or singer.

Your current legal efforts will, in the long run, do far more harm than good. After a single case is ruled against you, your legal power will be demolished, and your entire effort to combat piracy will be ruined. No matter how many cases you win against file-swappers, there will always be more, and you will eventually spend enough money in court to bankrupt the RIAA. As long as the recording industry looks like the institution that it's market hates, there will be people who pirate music, even if they do so merely to spite the industry. Thus, you must find other ways to combat file-swapping.

Allow me to explain what will happen if you do not handle this situation properly. The only limit of the internet is bandwidth; as a result, so-called 'hackers' are able to extort websites in exchange for not using all the bandwidth allocated to a website (rendering it inoperable). Bandwidth is increasing rapidly, and shows no signs of slowing. Given time, many people will be able to download entire CD's in less than a minute. With the ease of piracy, more people may join it, and pirating software will be improved by the computer programmers that use it. The end result is free, easy-to-use, and fast pirating networks that do not have any deterrents like adware (which is the most famous part of Kazaa). Thus, customers will be drawn to pirating music, rather than buying it. One of the best advantages of CD's, better sound quality, will dissipate as household bandwidth increases.
Your best solution is to end the attractiveness of pirating music, because fear tactics won't work. Don't tell people how to vote, stop acting like a money-hungry corporation, and distance yourself from any type of 'establishment' that your customers want to rebel against. People want to buy music from artists who care about their music, not from a board of directors whom care how much their stock rises. Your customers hate your industry, so stop acting like an industry, and do things that even file-swappers will think is ethically right.



want to send this to the RIAA? It's hard to reach, but some addresses may be here. A list of music companies is here. It seems ironic that the RIAA is doing everything it can to dig up information about everyone on the internet, but it refuses to give any contact information. If anyone has an email address, or regular address, I'd love to know it.

U.N. Money-for-Peace Scam May Force Annan to Resign

from ScrappleFace. So good, I have to quote it:

(2004-12-02) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan today vigorously denied allegations that he has overseen a complex, fraudulent scheme to pilfer billions of dollars from 191 nations under the guise of providing "global peace services."

U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-MN, said "this money-for-peace scam stinks even more than the oil-for-food scandal which funded Saddam Hussein's murderous regime."

"To state it simply, the U.N. doesn't deliver the peacekeeping services it promises, yet it continues to cash the checks from member nations," said Sen. Coleman. "It's a global Ponzi scheme, taking money from one nation to cover obligations to another and ultimately producing nothing but paychecks and perks for an army of phony diplomats and lazy bureaucrats."

Mr. Annan brushed off suggestions that he should step down, and insisted he has fulfilled his role of fostering global peace by "holding meetings, eating in fine restaurants and speaking very softly in a charming accent."

News Of The Day, and the stuff from yesterday that's still relevant

I'll try a slightly different format for this post; it's closer to something that I've wanted to set up for a while, but haven't found the time to do, yet. So, I'll list the titles first, then do the analysis in the later part of the post.

Dollar down (source), jobs up (source), but US media playing job growth as disappointing
US military judges can use proof admitted under torture in cases (source), but the media needs to give a definition of "torture", and clarify the difference between mental torture (sleep deprivation, threats, various chemicals) and physical torture (stuff that physically harms people, like removing limbs)
Microsoft notes that blogging exists (source), doesn't realize that blogging is non-profit or, in many cases, an expense with no hope of profit.


1: Dollar down (source), jobs up (source), but US media playing job growth as disappointing.

The dollar crumbled to $1.3458 per euro , according to Reuters data, a decline of nearly 1.4 percent and a new record low. It also fell more than 1 percent against other currencies.

It was the dollar's biggest fall against the euro since early August and the eighth time in the last nine sessions that the dollar has made a new low against the euro.

Employers added 112,000 workers to their payrolls in November, the government said Friday in a disappointing employment report for the holiday season.
[…]
a separate survey of the job market, conducted by a Census Bureau poll of 60,000 households, presented a brighter picture. It showed 483,000 jobs were created in November, causing the national unemployment rate to drop from 5.5 to 5.4 percent.

Dollar's fall is not new or unexpected. A drop below 1.35 or 1.38 euros might get Europe a bit worried, as it may allow some deeper cuts into exports, and overvalue the euro even more.
Now, the jobs report. I believe that, just a few days ago, The Economist said that about 130,000 jobs were expected to be created, but this number is from my memory, and subject to inaccuracy. However, the 483,000 new jobs were offset by a large increase in the US labor force, of about 439,000. The growth of the labor force over the last two months seems, to me, rather higher than normal. Labor force growth averaged about 100,000 per month over the last 8 or so years, but the growth per month deviates quite a lot from that average.


2: US military judges can use proof admitted under torture in cases (source).
The most important detail in this is the definition of "torture". The US is able to use sleep deprivation, reversing day and night cycles (really messes with someone's head if the timing of days and nights becomes erratic), and similar stuff to persuade someone to talk. Most Americans think of torture as a non-surgical removal of limbs, or other very painful things.
Now, the mental tricks, in my opinion, should be allowed. You can break down a person's mental resistance by keeping them awake for a few days at a time. These 'tortures' usually are claimed to have no long-term effects on the 'tortured'. To the best of my knowledge, these methods can be very effective for getting accurate information from someone who doesn't want to talk. And, if a person isn't able to provide anything after the US messes with their head a bit, there is a pretty good chance that the person may not know anything (they are innocent). However, using torture to determine if someone is innocent or guilty is a very bad idea. And, if someone is innocent, release him with an apology and enough money to make them like the US again. Sucks to release an innocent person who hates you so much that he joins the terror cells that a bunkmate talked about. Most people probably don't know what "mental torture" actually is, and act as though it is close to harmless, when it is quite the opposite. From what I know, there are two goals to mental torture: to break down a person's resistance, or to make them fear that they will be physically tortured. Both happen to be cruel, and can cause Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder of a rather unique form.
Physical pain shouldn't be used, for many reasons. First, it results in notoriously bad confessions, because anyone will confess to anything if you hurt them enough. Second, there is no guarantee that information from terrorists will be accurate, because the terrorist can give BS information to stop the torture, and never reveal anything that he actually knows. Also, there aren’t really any indications that someone may be innocent from this method (of course, people who have a chance of being innocent shouldn't be subject to torture). Finally, the US shouldn't lower itself to physical torture, and shouldn't use physical torture on anyone, because it is only effective as a form of punishment.

In order for this ruling to mean anything, or to be justifiable/unjustifiable, torture must be defined. The media has done a shameful job by not giving any hint as to what torture means. Let me list some things that the US allows:
1: forcing people to stand for long periods of time, maybe about 18 hours, possibly several times more than that, or a fraction of it. Doesn't sound like "torture", does it? Think again. You can be forced to 'stand' in several different types of positions that really start to hurt after a few hours. For example, one Iraqi volleyball player was forced to stand in a proscribed position for about three days; several years after that torture, he can not stand for more than 15 minutes at a time. Oh yeah, and the shackles have left permanent imprints in his skin, because his muscles expanded against the metal so much.
2: sleep deprivation. After several days, the victim can develop some real mental problems. The torture isn't entirely that he can't sleep, but rather it's that he is being prevented from sleeping by someone whom he identifies as the "torturer". It's a big difference.
3: put a bag over someone's head and let them sit for a few days. I could also call this "letting paranoia sink in", as that's a far better description. If you don't know where you are, what angry people are around you, or what they intend to do to you, you might get quite paranoid.

Time to end this segment, it's getting a bit too depressing.


3: Microsoft notes that blogging exists (source). Microsoft doesn't realize that bloggers will attempt to circumvent the filter. It also doesn't realize that bloggers don't like even the possibility of censorship. Finally, Microsoft doesn't realize that bloggers aren’t eager to work with a company that will make a buck whenever possible; this means that Microsoft may attempt to put advertisements on all the blogs that it hosts.
This might have been easier if Microsoft bought MovableType, LiveJournal, or something similar. That way, Microsoft could offer something that already works. However, Microsoft decided to launch something that makes all blogs look exactly like www.msn.com, but with slightly different content.

When I see the blogs that MSN is publishing, I can describe the layout and graphics in only one way: 1995. Everything looks like it was made in 1995. Don't believe me? Go here and here, and this looks only slightly better. I'm not insulting the blogs I just linked to, I picked them at random, but I just needed something to link to (the actual content on the Cambodia blog actually looks interesting, I'll check it for updates in the future. Justin's pictures are quite nice, also. Good work to you two bloggers, and Microsoft should be ashamed of itself). The "stuff that matters" blog has a Windows Media Player theme, it seems.

Let me tell Microsoft what to do:
1: those little | lines between items are no longer cool. They never were cool, to be honest, but now they are getting to annoy people. Either make the entire box graphic, or don't make it at all.
2: trash the colors. Blue with a hint of green and gray doesn't work, and it never will. Blue on white background is just as bad. If you have a white background, you use a bold, dark gray text. A sharp black-white contrast is horrible on many CRT monitors, and also on my LCD monitor (MAG's greatest flaw seems to be that it is too bright, but this is adjustable). A webpage that is entirely shades of blue is an eyesore, and more colors are needed. I think Blogger did a nice job when designing pages (they need some modifications to accommodate a respectable width, though), so copy Blogger if you must.
3: redo the sidebars. Here's what you need to include: profile box, links box 1, links box 2, links box 3, archive, and a box with all the MSN Home/shopping/hotmail stuff. People want to put all the MSN stuff in as rarely looked a place as possible, so let them, or else they will abuse the system to cover MSN logos or ignore your blog hosting completely. The "music" box thing is utterly useless, and unexplainable. Sidebars are auxiliary items, a reader should be focused on the content of the website. Content is in the main column, always.
4: there is a tag in html called "center", and it centers things on the computer screen. Use it.
5: If you actually want to be better than blogger, design pages so they have a column on the left and right, and the main content in the center with an adjustable width. Have maybe 50 to 60 pixels of a neutral background color outside the columns as padding (like the gray on my webpage, thanks to Blogger). This way, someone with a wide computer screen will see the webpage take up the entire screen, and someone with really low resolution will see everything on the webpage even though the main column is very thin. This setup is probably the most desired template for a blog, and it is unexplainably rare.
6: add some new graphics that don't remind people of some other Microsoft product. In fact, maybe you should create an array of graphics that a person can choose from when creating their blog. For example, you can use the default title image (note: add a title image) with the background and column images that would normally go on another blog. If you do this, you will have a good advantage that Blogger doesn't, and I don't honestly think that it would be so difficult for Microsoft.
7: everything that says MSN or .NET Passport, delete it. It's the user's blog, not MSN's or Microsoft's. Either drop the images, or let the user move it wherever they want.
8: get rid of that "report abuse" link. Replace all the Microsoft/MSN Legal stuff and the "Help" button with a single blogger-friendly link to a page that Microsoft is happy with. The only "abuse" that I know of in the blogging world is physical threats. Face it, you have to make your system susceptible to what Microsoft thinks of as "abuse", because bloggers don't want to have limits. I don't think that "abuse" would actually cost Microsoft much, either.
9: release a legal statement claiming that you will not interfere with any blog or the content thereof unless serious legal action is verified beyond the reasonable doubt. Often, an ISP will take a website down without verifying a claim that the website included some copyrighted material (usually a picture or graphic image, but not always), thus allowing a person who disagrees with the content of a website to lie to the ISP and have the website removed from the internet. Scientologists have been known to use this method. If the content on a website is enough to get the blogger arrested, then you can take the blog down. Otherwise, leave it up, and take stupid whiners to court if you have to. The best way to make bloggers happy is to make them feel protected, whether it's from viruses, hacking, or legal challenges.
Actually, protecting bloggers from hackers and legal challenges is so important that it deserves its own line.
10: stop copyrighting everything. You've just copyrighted the words "space", "gleam", "contact card", and all that other stuff. If a word in the middle of a sentence is capitalized, and you don't think it's a name (like "Bill" or "France"), then it refers to some type of product. The word might not actually be copyrighted, but just stop capitalizing every word that you can throw into a product's or feature's title.


Do those things, and you will have a product worth using. Something isn't worth using just because it's free; especially if better free versions are around. I wish I could charge consulting fees.

What To Buy Your Teenage Son For Christmas

From what I hear, many parents don't really know what to get for their teenage kid. To me, it seems somewhat obvious, but I'm in the receiving end of the demographic. So, I'm making a list of the things that teenage guys, like me, should want (unless they're gay, in which case you get them the playboy channel and an expensive prostitute to convert them back).

Part I: the stuff they really want but don't really want to tell you:
1: Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Calendar. Or another similar calendar, as long as it has good pictures of hot chicks. Some say the Sports Illustrated calendar has fallen behind; I agree that they have included less-than-par pictures (December 2003 was a bad image of a good model, though the 2003 calendar was overall quite good. 2004 was fair; great models, average pictures, so it really could have been better), but most teenage guys care only about the models—and how much they see of them—so the calendar is a good choice. Quite cheap, also. However, I've heard some great things about a Girls of Europe calendar, which may be far better than Sport's Illustrated. If I have to choose between the two, I'd go with the European chicks, because Sports Illustrated might keep dropping (in quality, not necessarily morality, but maybe both) in 2005.

That's about it for this section. Well, there's a lot more the kid will want, but it's not like you'd buy it for them.

Part II: computers, computer hardware, and game systems:
1: there are 3 major game systems; Xbox, Playstation 2, and Gamecube. And, that order is probably the best ranking of the systems. For any of these game systems, by an extra controller (that thing you hold while playing the games) or two. Both Xbox and Playstation 2 can play DVD's. The Xbox seems to be a great all-around console, but I've heard people say that Playstation 2 is better with racing games. If your kid has none of these three systems (or only a Gamecube, the poor soul), et an Xbox.
Also, don't buy all three systems in one year, you'll spoil them way too much.

2: computers and hardware. As parents, you probably think of Home Depot when I say "hardware". Don't go to Home Depot for your kid, go to Home Depot for yourself/husband, as the kid probably doesn't want new linoleum flooring.

A: For a top-of-the-line gaming computer, there is really only one company; Alienware. You will almost certainly need to get a desktop PC or a laptop/notebook PC (laptop and notebook are the same thing, really, and the term "laptop" is just used because people are accustomed to the word). The basic computers are good, and quite inexpensive for the hardware that they include, but you don't want to get the kid the basic model. With prices in mind, I went here and made a few changes; this is one of the great things about Alienware, they really let you customize what you get.
Here is what I choose for an overall great, yet inexpensive, system: 2 year support, Windows XP Home Edition (default selection), ask your kid what color computer they may want (color doesn't cost anything extra, unless they upgrade the options. Some of the colors can cost $150+, but you have to see the colors to understand why), no cable management system (default), 480 watt power supply (default), no heavy duty power cable, Intel Pentium 4 Processor 530 w/ HT Technology 3.0GHz 1MB Cache, the only motherboard they offer (motherboard is mandatory for all computers, it's effectively the spine of a computer system), 1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz - 2 x 512MB, ATI Radeon X300 graphics card (great, new card. You can upgrade to the X600 or GeForce 6600 if you want, without huge price changes, but I'd recommend sticking with the ATI Radeon type cards, as the company is slightly better), AlienAdrenaline video performance optimizer, AlienIce Video cooling system (color is up to you. A cooled computer runs better, faster, and won't break as soon, so a good cooling system is usually a great deal), 120 GB Seagate system drive (also called "harddrive", but the term is not important), no extra storage, NEC ND-3500 optical drive, the Lite-on 52x35x52 optical drive two, pick your own blank media (it's a stack of CD's, a 10-pack is fine, nothing flashy), Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS High Definition 7.1 Surround Firewire (IEEE 1394), US Robotics modem, and finally AlienAutopsy automated support.
That should be at about $1,712, which is close to the price you'd pay for a good, new computer at best Buy or Circuit City. However, the computers at Best Buy and Circuit City will rarely have all the hardware included on this one (most will mix some modern hardware with slightly-outdated hardware, so they have something to advertise but keep the price down). Alienware is also said to have good customer service, and their computers do something that few others do: they work properly right out of the box. On my (sadly, non-Alienware) computers, every single part has broken, and a lot of the hardware was nearly incompatible with some of the newest items they included for advertising value. A great graphics card and mediocre sound card are, in fact, not compatible to most gamers, because games that will work with the graphics card will crash when trying to use the sound card. Thus, one sub-par piece of hardware can cause problems with an otherwise perfect (and expensive) computer system. So, get an alienware computer, and it shouldn't need any upgrades or repairs for at east a year (I can tell you how to get rid of viruses and adware later. Those things are some of the biggest computer-killers). Alienware always includes a form of Windows XP (usually recently upgraded, which most companies won't do. The upgrades make the computer much better and crash-resistant). Windows XP is the best form of Windows, and Windows 2000 comes in second. Third is probably Windows 98. Avoid Windows ME (Millennium Addition) like the plague, because it seems to be a manifestation of all the Y2K problems that people feared. Seriously, Windows ME can barely function at all, is incredibly susceptible to every problem, and is universally hated by the tech-savvy type.

B: Now, for hardware. Just about every hardware item listed as under the "what options to get" segment of the above is good hardware. If it doesn't include the word "alien", but does have some numbers and letter combinations that you don't understand, it's probably hardware. I'll give you a breakdown of the most common, and upgradable hardware:
RAM. This stands for "random access memory", and it allows a computer to run faster and smoother. If you want to upgrade RAM, tell the kid you will buy the new RAM for their computer, and let them pick it out. RAM is too complicated for most parents to get right. This is because there are several different types of RAM (some far better than others), and RAM is one of few cards that you should buy several of. Be ready to spend somewhere between $150 and $250, if the kid is good with computers and knows how to find the right RAM (if he's 14 or older, he probably will).
Graphics cards: these are the things that make the image on the computer screen look nice. They are also the things that present 3D environments, complete with shadows, lighting, and special effects (waves in water, fires, smoke, ect). Sound techy and tough? Good, because it is, that's why graphics cards are expensive, and important. The better the game, the better the graphics in the game; and the better the graphics card must be for the game to run properly. Bad graphics card = game crashes = gaming computer can no longer run game, and thus is obsolete. Now, if you want to get your kid a graphics card, you will also need to let him pick it out, but you can tell him what type of graphics card you are willing to buy him. Naturally, better graphics cards cost more, and the better graphics cards are the more recent ones.
ATI Radeon and Geforce are the leading companies, for good reason, and you should probably limit your shopping to these companies. For ATI Radeon, look for the stuff that has a 9 leading the four digits (the digits represent the card model, but they don't increase from 1 to 2 to 3 ect, they increase based on how good the company wants to claim the card is. The higher the number, the better the card, usually). The 9600s, 9700s, and 9800s should be quite good. Also, the ATI Radion X300s, x600s, ect, seem newer, and might be slightly better. Get a card that says "128 MB", or even more MB, if you want to spend a lot more.
Nvidia Geforce is doing well with its cards, too. For these cards, get a FX 5700 or later (5800 should be good, higher numbers are great, but more expensive). Avoid the cards that say MX, because those are earlier models, by far. Early models = well below par = obsolete = unhappy kid. Also, make sure the card says "128 MB" (or more) somewhere.

You will need to let the kid pick out the exact card, because there are several different ways that a card can connect to the computer. Cards that connect in different ways may have different model numbers, but not by much, and they should have similar performance, and the cost difference shouldn't be more than $20. Some connections are a bit better than others, but you let your kid pick the card out because you want the new card to use the same slot that the old card did (usually). You really don't want to buy a card for one slot type, then find out that all those slots are being used by other cards (modem, sound card, that type of thing).

C: Sound cards: again, let your kid pick out the specific model, but have a price range in mind. $80 to $180 is usually good, but really depends on how good of a sound card the kid wants. A good sound card and computer speaker/stereo setup can replace a stereo system. So, if you're thinking about buying an expensive stereo for your son, you might be able to get away with a $150+ sound card and a $120+ speaker system, and kill two birds with one stone.

D: Screens. LCD is God. LCD is also that flat type which doesn't kill your eyes, and it happens to be the type of screen that your kid really wants, if you were mean and didn't get it for him by now. The bigger, the better. This should be a great screen, I have the 17-inch version and love it. The MAG monitors are, however, slightly too bright, but they can be adjusted. Best Buy or Circuit City should have a good 17-inch+ monitor for less than $300, but they won't be the most recent model. The most recent models are usually too expensive, and I don't really think that 6 or so months makes a huge difference for computer screens.

E: Speakers. Speakers usually come in pairs or sets of 5 (4 normal speakers, 1 subwoofer, which makes the bass (really low-pitched sound)). Sometimes, they come in sets of 6, but those are just the set of 5 plus one normal speaker. If you buy or have a great sound card, buy great speakers. Great speakers with a bad sound card sound almost the same as bad speakers with a bad sound card; while bad speakers with a great sound card sound like bad speakers with a bad sound card. Thus, the price of speakers ought to be similar to the price of the sound card.
Among the best of the 2-per-set are Bose, which cost around $100, or $200+ for their most recent model. A good set of 2 can cost $50 to $80.
Sets of 5 are $150 an up, usually above $180. These are the things that can replace an independent stereo system, if the sound card is good enough. A set of 6 will probably be $200 or more, but I honestly don't know how much that extra speaker is worth.
For a set of 2, pick the Bose. Bose also offers a set of two with a subwoofer, if you want to buy something really nice.

F: A computer seem slightly too pricy? One grammatically-incorrect word: iPod. From somewhere between $300 and $100, you can buy these little things that can hold an archive of music. They just might go perfectly with a Bose headphone. By the way, you may also want to work with something called iTunes, which lets you legally buy songs online, for around $2.99 to $.99 each. If your kid can be trusted with your credit card number, then there should be no problem.

G: There is one final piece of hardware that a computer needs: internet connection. If your house has only one phone line, and your kid's internet time is limited to whenever you're not expecting a call, you're practically abusing your child. Bastard. The cheapest solution to this is to get a separate phone line, but that's like walking with crutches, while the single phone line was a wheelchair. Not good crutches, either, these are the type people laugh at. Do you really want your kid to experience that type of trauma?
To help ensure a good childhood, you need to get a high-speed line. DSL is the most common type (and cheapest), and is several times faster than a 56k modem (what you probably have if you use the plain phone line for the internet). Cable internet is even faster, without much extra cost, but you have to avoid one specific company: Time Warner. Time Warner is all that is evil in the world, and I'm not joking. They settled a court case with the SEC (Security and Exchange Commission, or something like that) for $750 million, allegedly for "accounting irregularities". Those "irregularities" are actually theft by constructing a system that would illegally double-bill tens or hundreds of thousands of people, and still charging for services long after those services were cancelled. If you are actually able to cancel any AOL/Time Warner service, consider yourself very lucky, and don't try to press that luck.
If you can get both DSL and a non-Time-Warner cable connection, the choice between them is up to you. Cable is faster, but a bit more expensive.
If you can get neither, there is a final, though very expensive, option: satellite internet. This can cost around $700 to install, and about $80 per month. With Satellite, you can download things very quickly, but upload speed is around the same as with a 56k modem (upload is what you send, download is what you receive. When you want to visit a website, you upload that web address to the internet service provider, then download the website from that internet service provider. You download more than you upload, unless you're running a website of your own, in which case you should already have a great internet connection). Also, satellite internet can have some of the same problems as satellite TV; goes out when it rains, might get some errors due to radiation from the sun, and stuff like that. I forgive you if you don't want to pay for satellite internet, but make sure you try to get DSL or non-Time Warner cable as soon as possible.


Part III: games. These are what you put onto that really expensive computer you just bought/upgraded. Fortunately, games are cheaper than the computer.
A: if you bought an Xbox, pat yourself on the back, and reach for the wallet while you're at it. With the Xbox, you MUST get Halo 2. On the first day after release, this game sold about $100 million worth. That beats any movie ever made, if my memory is correct.
For any other games, you can actually buy based on prices. The best games cost more (about $50 to $44.99), while the not-so-good/old stick around $30, and the bad are $19.99 and below. Stay with the first of those categories. The games tend to come in two main categories: sports and 1st-person shooter. Find out what your kid likes, and buy accordingly. If you don't know, find out what they watch on TV. If they watch sports, buy the sports games (especially games for the sport they like to watch). If most of the movies you have are the James Bond/martial arts/military/violent type, get the shooter games.
Not really sure which exact game to get, and don't want to buy them all? Go to a crowded store. There's a good chance that you can ask someone a few years older than your kid what to get. If you're a hot mom, they will definitely answer. Also, if there's someone a few years younger than your kid, or about the same age, shouting "mommy mommy, I want this one!" and the mom says "no, that's to violent", get the game. Violence in computer and video games is completely different from movie violence, and games are being ranked far harsher than movies. If it's in a popular store (not a Hustler or Playboy store, mind you), then it's almost certainly safe for a guy who is at least 14-years old.
If you really can't decide between sports and shooter games, get a Grand Theft Auto (San Andreas is the most recent, but Grand Theft Auto 3 isn't too old).

And, if you are having difficulty distinguishing between new and old games, check the back of the box. At the bottom, where that fine print is. Look at the copyright date. 2004 is great/good, 2003 is good/fair, and anything older is probably bad.

B: Computer games. These have different categories: action/adventure/shooter and strategy/simulation. The action type is similar to the shooter of video games, but there are quite a few differences between the two, mainly because computers require a keyboard and mouse (and sometimes a joystick), rather than a single little controller. You can probably ignore the differences. The strategy/simulation type of game is rather non-violent, but still doesn't really depend on intelligence, no matter what anyone may claim.
Top titles for action and whatnot: Doom 3, Half Life 2, Call of Duty (get the original and the expansion pack. Just the original is a bit old, and the expansion pack won't work without the original), Sid Meier's Pirates!, and maybe a Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle Earth. Not everything in the Amazon.com Action/adventure section is really action/adventure, so take some care when shopping.
Top titles for strategy/simulation: The Sims 2 (make sure you get this exact title, as there are about 10 things with "The Sims" in the title), Sid Meier's Pirates!, Zoo Tycoon 2, Rollercoaster Tycoon 3, and Rome: Total War.
Some old but fairly popular games are SimCity 4 Deluxe (must have the 4 and Deluxe in the title), Age of Mythology, and Civilization 3 plus the Conquests expansion pack (probably sold separately).


Part IV: Some bling-bling. "bling-bling" often means "jewelry", but refers specifically to the flashy type; like those large gold chains or the stuff people in rap music videos wear. Now, don't buy what you see on TV, because you're kids tastes are probably specific. For this category, "bling-bling" will refer to any common item that has been turned into something much more expensive, or made to look as though it is far more expensive (those gold chains aren’t really gold, you know).
A: Personally, I was overjoyed to get a Seiko watch a few years ago. Of course, I picked the watch out, but my entire birthday cost around $350, while my sister can double that cost within a few minutes. The watch itself cost only about $250, but my mother thought, for some unexplainable reason, that she should get me a robe and pair of sweat pants. Make a note: do not get your son a robe and pair of sweat pants (unless he asks for it, in which case you should follow the "if your son is gay" instructions at the top of this post), or he may have the other parent buy something far more expensive than what was otherwise planned. If the kid really wants a nice watch, maybe you could get it for him, as long as he is responsible enough not to lose it.
B: this is if you are willing to spend a lot of money: a car. Guys want a car that will go fast, and is made to look like it will go fast. Really fast. Ferrari-type fast, if you are actually willing to spend that much (though I discourage it. A Ferrari as a first car is a bit much). Or, maybe they might like an SUV, because it's big. Anyway, you're probably going to let your kid pick the car, just give them some price range.
C: cell phone, pocket PC, or something of that type. If you get your son a cell phone, get him one that looks nice. If you find a way that the cellphone can match the car's colors, that might be great, just make sure the son wouldn't hate the phone before you buy it. Buy a pocket PC only if your son wants one, because the things really have little use, because iPod's are better with music and memory cards allow pocket PC's to be circumvented entirely (don't bother with memory cards, unless your kid actually says he wants one. Let him pick it out, because the things are techy and are fairly new).
D: TV. Big. If possible, flat. And satellite. Many channels. HBO's, Cinemax's, some ESPN's, and Playboy (What, it's Christmas! OK, fine, maybe not Playboy). Enough said.
E: paintball gun. Still popular. Let the kid pick it out, and sleep with one eye open. Nah, you don't have to sleep with one eye open. The paint would hurt your eye. You just need to wear goggles.


Part V: there is a chance that the kid, if he's well into highschool, wants books. And not necessarily fiction or popular books, he may want something on topics like political theory, military strategy, and economics. To be honest, books on those topics are the vast majority of my wish-list.
Here's what you do. Get them onto Amazon.com, and tell them to add the books they want to the shopping cart. Put some limit on the price (books can get expensive really fast. In fact, a single book on macroeconomics can cost over $100; actually, that's most books on macroeconomics). So, the kid will do some research into the books to make sure he gets the type he wants; a conservative probably won't want anything by Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky (if you kid is on the right wing and actually likes international relations theory, get Politics Among Nations by Hans J. Morgenthau and The Tragedy of Great Power Politics by John J. Mearsheimer, by the way). When he's done, make sure he didn't include any Playboy subscriptions in the shopping cart (if he can get away with it, he probably will try), and buy the stuff. You can't get non-pop-culture books at most bookstores; I've tried.




And before I forget, I need to tell you how to get adware and viruses off a computer. To get rid of adware, go to http://www.lavasoftusa.com/ and download the personal edition. It's free (actually free, no strings attached). Update the program, and scan the computer. It pretty much tells you what to do.
For viruses, it's almost the same thing, but you go to http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_index.php instead. Download the AVG (anti-virus guard, or something like that), and the software will either tell you what to do or do everything itself.

I've Changed My Mind; Let Iran Have Nukes

Britain, France, and Germany are morons who are making a treaty with Iran simply so the presidents/prime ministers can wave it in front of the populace and proclaim "I have stopped a war!" much like Neville Chamberlain (the guy who allowed Hitler to expand Germany and build a powerful military shortly before WWII. He was replaced, after almost complete inaction at the start of WWII, with Winston Churchill). If Europe doesn't intend for Iran to have nukes, then they expect the US to clean up their mess.

I don't think the US should clean up the mess that Europe is making to improve poll numbers. Europe's quite close to Iran, and is quite an easy target, because Europe doesn't have the military to retaliate (it depends on the US for help. This was evident in Kosovo, and is even truer now). Let Europe reap the results of the problems it has sewn.

I guess I better give you some background. article 1, Iran proclaims victory over US, article 3.
From article 3:

Iran boasted on Tuesday it had defeated U.S. efforts to send its nuclear case to the U.N. Security Council while warning that its uranium enrichment freeze would only last for a few months.
"The Americans have been calling for Iran to be reported to the Security Council for a year and a half, now the whole world has turned down America's calls," Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rohani told a news conference.
"Despite the U.S. propaganda Iran has not relinquished its right to the (nuclear) fuel cycle and it never will do," said the cleric, who is secretary-general of Iran's top security body, the Supreme National Security Council.
His comments appeared to undermine European Union efforts to persuade Tehran to permanently mothball enrichment facilities -- which can be used to make atomic reactor fuel or nuclear bombs -- and were likely to fuel U.S. concerns that Iran secretly plans to produce nuclear weapons.
Iran, which insists its nuclear program is solely for electricity generation, on Monday escaped possible U.N. sanctions after agreeing to suspend all uranium processing and enrichment activities.
The EU hopes Iran will make the suspension permanent in return for trade deals and other incentives. But Tehran says the suspension is a voluntary and temporary measure designed to gain international trust.
"The length of the suspension will only be for the length of the negotiations with the Europeans and ... must be rational and not too long," Rohani said.
"We're talking about months, not years," he added.

And, from the second article:

Still, the commitment came with strings attached. A government official from a board member country told The AP that France, Germany and Britain had accepted an Iranian demand to further water down the language of a draft resolution they wrote for adoption by the board on ways of policing the suspension.
The text to be adopted today now includes a phrase emphasizing that the suspension is not a legal or binding obligation on Tehran's part, he said.

So, Europe is giving Iran everything it could possibly want, and Iran has agreed to sign an unenforceable treaty, which it will pretend to follow for a few months. Someone whom I can't remember once said, "Diplomacy is the art of letting the other person have your way". This is exactly what Iran did; it 'grudgingly' accepted everything Europe could offer it, in exchange for an obviously worthless promise.
Now, I doubt the European diplomats are responsible for this. I don't think any diplomat could be dumb enough to make this treaty. I believe that European presidents, prime ministers, and the like required the diplomats to get a treaty out of Iran, and the content of the treaty was irrelevant, as long as it said "no nukes" in some part. I expect that Iran knew the diplomats would be forced to sign any treaty that Iran presented, so they milked the situation for almost everything that it's worth. Elected European leaders will now wave the treaty in front of the populace, and act as though a great thing has been done, even though the treaty is closer to a death warrant for Europe than it is a peace accord.


In my opinion, the US ought to let Europe wallow in its own mess. France has been nasty to us, has played against us by trying to increase trade with China and Iran, and still insults our actions in Iraq while they are getting their asses kicked in the Ivory Coast, where they have shot civilians. Germany has been only slightly better, while Britain's Tony Blair has done well, but the other politicians haven't. The US shouldn't go out of its way to stop Iran's nuclear program, which Europe has actually helped in this treaty.

Iranian diplomats were smart enough to get a treaty this good, and the Iranian government seems smart enough to use it properly. I can not say similar, however, for Europe. Iran has, in my mind, earned an ability to build nukes, because only the currently-silent US would be willing to stop Iran. Now, if it is still in the US's strategic interest to keep Iran nuke-free, despite the costs, then we can go ahead and stop Iran, but we should start whipping Europe for what they are doing. France still has some fear of Germany, a remnant of the World Wars, so the removal of US troops from both countries could threaten to tear the most powerful members of the EU apart, as mutual distrust would grow between the nations when they are not under America's aegis.
Now, Poland has been very friendly to the US, and is working incredibly hard to build democracy and a free, prosperous economy out of Cold War repression. We ought to spend money to help Poland—not France or Germany.

And on a different but slightly related note; there is still an argument about whether non-coalition-members should be allowed to participate in the reconstruction of Iraq. They should not, unless the work is non-profit, or the country provides noteworthy aid (monetary is not the only type of aid, though it's probably the most common. Economic partnerships, such as allowing companies to more easily move to Iraq, or allowing Iraq to more easily trade in the foreign nation, can work wonders) to help Iraq recover. This is because much of the money that will be spent rebuilding Iraq is American money, it came from the US taxpayer in the bills that cover the cost of this war. The companies that are contributing manpower, money, or moral support to help rebuild Iraq should be the ones that get some of that money back, in the form of taxes on the companies that are paid to rebuild Iraq. Personally, I don't want French companies profiting off the Iraq war, especially when that profit actually comes from the American taxpayer.
Now, if there is a service that very few companies can provide, and those companies happen to not be in Coalition countries, then there is room for exception. Or, if a company from, for example, China is far more qualified and efficient than a company from, for example, America, then the Chinese company can get the contract. This is because of practicality; don't hire a terrible company to do the work when a better company can be found, because hiring a terrible company would result in the waste of reconstruction money, and thus increase costs for the US taxpayer (or give Iraqis the shaft).