Lebanese Government Resigns Amid anti_syria Protests

Article
the full article is 4 pages, so I'll quote parts. What just happened:

With shouts of "Syria out!," more than 25,000 flag-waving protesters massed outside Parliament on Monday in a dramatic display of defiance that forced the resignation of Lebanon's prime minister and Cabinet two weeks after the assassination of an opposition leader.

Cheering broke out among the demonstrators in Martyrs' Square when they heard Prime Minister Omar Karami's announcement on loudspeakers that the government was stepping down. Throughout the day, protesters handed out red roses to soldiers and police.

"It is the first victory, but it will not be the last," opposition leader and former information minister Ghazi al-Areedh told the crowd in a scene broadcast live around the Arab world.

why now:

Many in Lebanon accuse Syria and Karami's government of being behind the slayings of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 16 others in a huge Feb. 14 bombing, pressing hard in the two weeks since for the government to resign and for Syria to withdraw its roughly 15,000 troops positioned in Lebanon.

Also, it is important to mention the influence of the Iraqi and Palestinian elections, and the recent announcement that Egypt will allow opposition candidates to be on election ballots. Further, Ukraine likely served as an example of the populace overthrowing the government peacefully.

What will happen:

Throughout the day, protesters handed out red roses to soldiers and police.
...
In Washington, the White House praised the resignation of Karami's government, saying it opens the door for new elections "free of all foreign interference" from neighboring Syria.

"We are closely watching developments with great interest," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "The resignation of the Karami government represents an opportunity for the Lebanese people to have a new government that is truly representative of their country's diversity."

Karami's Cabinet will continue as a caretaker government. The next step is for the president to appoint a prime minister after consulting with parliament members. The new prime minister consults parliamentary blocs to form a Cabinet that must withstand a parliamentary vote of confidence.
...
The protesters went further, immediately shouting for the resignation of pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud.

"Lahoud, your turn is coming!" they said.

Speakers urged demonstrators to stay put, saying the leaders of the security services also must be ousted.

"The heads of security agencies are responsible for what happened in this country and they must pay," legislator Ghattas Khoury said. "Do not leave this square before they resign."
…
Some soldiers and police even sympathized with the protesters and were seen advising newcomers on how to evade the cordon.

Those quotes might look a bit unrelated to the "what will happen" topic, but in fact they are the best indicators of what to expect. Thumbs-up to Bassem Mroue for writing this great story so well.

There are only a few things that are needed for a successful revolution or to successfully run a nation: a police force that supports you, a competent and adequate military that supports you, a supportive populace or supportive media, and a system of government that can manage the nation. It looks like the Lebanese protesters have all or almost all of this. The giving of roses to police and the support of the military (at least parts of it) shows that the Lebanese government will not be able to stop the revolution by force. Lebanese protestors already have the support of most of Lebanon, though there are a few detractors. The revolution leaders are smart, and the ones mentioned in the article previously held jobs in the government, so they will know how to pick up the reins and prevent law and order from deteriorating. Additionally, the call to find out who killed the former Prime Minister will allow some time for planning. The protesting masses are properly disciplined, as many would attack the police or military if revolutionary leaders were not in control of the situation.


Bush's plan to bring democracy to the mid-east seems to be working far better than I ever expected, which makes me wonder about the influence the US has in the area and the general nature of politics in the area. Either way, the CIA should be aiding the revolutionaries considerably, with both people on the ground and intelligence. And, I assume the State Department is keeping watch on Lebanon's neighbors to ensure things go as smoothly as a revolution can.

How to wash a hand grenade

If there's one blog I truely love and always come back to when I just can't find real news, it's AlphaPatriot. Tribute to Ajphapatriot continues later, back to the point.
18 seconds that you will always cherish: How To Wash A Hand Grenade. Brought to you by US troops and, of course, Alphapatriot. If that link didn't work, go to the Alphapatriot page, the link is at the top, under the "special features" heading,

If this guy hadn't linked to me once, I never would have found him, and I have retturned consistently to his site ever since. I am considering moving it to the top of my blogroll, and probably will do so in about a week (I need to remove Diplomad, too, shame that guy quit blogging). Well, enjoy the movie. And that's Billy Joel's We Didn't Start the Fire playing in the background, by the way.

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it...

Bush in Europe

One article, which doesn't seem particularly good, but I'll link because the writer is willing to attach his name to it. No email address, but a name isn't bad.

What you need to know:
Bush is over in Europe to gain some popularity for America and himself, and intends to say little or nothing publicly about anything that Europe and the US disagree on. Thus, the public "diplomacy sessions" between Bush and whatever counterpart he's meeting with will focus on "warm and fuzzy"-type issues, such as ending poverty, ending hunger, ending HIV, and keeping the ozone layer. There may also be some talk about more trade, but it is almost certain to be a bit ambiguous and will jump around many of the things that actually are important to free trade (like removing corrupt dictatorships).
In private diplomacy sessions, or over the telephone, Bush will talk about the real issues. Mainly terrorism, policy with Iran, policy with North Korea, spreading democracy across the world, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and all those international issues that spark arguments. Sudan, Columbia (good country), Venezuela (bad country, or at least bad leader), China, Russia, India and Pakistan, and Cuba might come up as well, though they will be assigned less importance.
Every bit of diplomacy done publicly is a popularity stunt; half an hour of public diplomacy is probably planned within 10 minutes of an actual diplomatic meeting. In actual diplomacy, things that most people don't know about are discussed quite freely; for example, during the Yom Kippur War, Henry Kissinger talked with his Soviet counterpart about the resupply/reinforcement efforts that each country was conducting, they argued mainly about the introduction of new technologies, rather than the replacement of lost equipment (near the end of the war, the US replaced about 130% of destroyed Israeli equipment). Additionally, representatives from each country have a tendency to express views that are quite different from what they display publicly.
It appears that the US media has no clue about how diplomacy is actually conducted, while I have some slight idea, or at least I think I do.

So, I'll take a few guesses at what Bush is actually discussing with European leaders. He told Putin that he'll overlook the poisoning of Yuschenko if Russia work closer with the US on North Korea, and hopefully to stop weapon and technology trade with Iran and Syria. With France, Bush probably brought up France's support for and work with China to request that France not support China's claim on Taiwan and tried to prevent or limit the removal of trade barriers on China, and keeping terrorism out of Europe certainly used a good amount of time. Additionally, Bush likely discussed democracy in eastern Europe, mid-east issues like Syria and Lebanon, Israel and Palestine, Iran, and perhaps mentioned the end of the India-Pakistan conflict. There may also have been some discussion about Europe's hint at weakening sanctions on Cuba, doing something with Sudan, and Central/South American policy. Bush is probably discussing the same with Britain and Germany, with the exception of working with China. For the Netherlands; terrorism, UN and its actions/inactions, moral support for the US or US's close allies in Iraq and North Korea, a bit about Russia's movement a bit closer to dictatorship, and probably a bit about policy with the Americas. I expect Bush also mentioned copyright laws, as the Netherlands is a hub of copyright violations, and maybe about China's blatant disregard for copyrights altogether.

Those are my guesses, very little fact to back them up, but those should be the important issues that the US and Europe face. Thus, they are what the US and Europe really talk about.

$99 million of gems in armored car stolen at an airport

article
Let me summarize. At a Netherlands airport, a group of thieves disguised as airport employees were able to steal an armored car loaded with $99 million worth of gems.

Here is the most amazing quote from the article:

Officers said that airport workers threatened in the raid were “distressed” but unharmed.

Unless the workers were knocked out with some type of gas (like in the James Bond movie Goldfinger, during the Fort Knox robbery) or actually had guns pointed in their face, I don't see how they could only be distressed by the robbery.
Short recap on what has been stolen from Europe recently: the Scream painting (taken out of museum, in full site of visitors - there was little attempt to break in or sneak out, as no one tried to stop the thieves), the $25+ million bank robbery in Britain, and now the theft of an armored car at an airport. And that's just off the top of my head. I should also mention the repeated break-ins at the British Royal Family's palaces. It's not just that people break in past all the security, it's that they wait in plain sight with a batman costume and billboard for three hours until security finally notices them (yep, that actually happened). And not just once, many people have broken in; Batman, some weird woman, the "comedian" dressed as Osama bin Laden who went to the prince's birthday party, and the list goes on.
What's the worst that the US has seen? A FBI informant torching himself outside the Whitehouse was bad, but that guy was outside the Whitehouse gates; he didn't break in. Well, years ago in California, a tank was stolen and driven down the highway, with countless police cars trailing it from a distance. But that was California. On the other hand, there is actually a British guy who owns a tank and regularly drives it – I suspect he just has to stay off roads that can't accommodate heavy vehicles. And that guy bought the tank, and it's had a bit of work done so it won't fire, though that can probably be undone if the owner really wants to.

That actually reminds me of something; armored cars are probably slow, especially when going uphill, so why couldn't police or the military follow it? Aren't there tracking devices in armored cars? The US shipping industry has put GPS locators in trucks (of all types, not just armored) for years to keep track of drivers or in case the truck is stolen. I can't believe that Europe wouldn't do the same for armored vehicles.

A portion of the stolen gems are diamonds, which are marked – by a laser, I believe – and the mark cannot be removed. So, if anyone tries to sell the diamonds, the seller should be caught.

US airport security looks a lot better after this story, doesn't it?

Canada decides not to be protected by US missile shield

article
My title tells you what happened, a quote as to why:

Martin, who leads a tenuous minority government, has said Ottawa would not support what he called the "weaponization of space." Though he initially supported joining the program when he was a candidate for the Liberal leadership, Martin has retreated, since polls indicate that a majority of Canadians oppose it. Many believe that the umbrella, when fully implemented, could lead to an international arms race.

Let me repeat that: a missile shield will create an arms race. Maybe my logic is a bit off, but WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE MAKE MORE MISSILES THAT THEY CAN'T HIT YOU WITH?! Honestly, I can't understand the logic that would back up this decision. If anyone can explain it to me, please do. I don't believe it would cost Canada anything, Canada has a sucky military already. For example, Canada recently bought a diesel submarine, diesel. It was used during WWII, and took three years of repairs so that it could float (or, more accurately, dive only when it was intended to). It didn't even work; the engine room caught fire on its trip from the British shipyards to Canada, and one crewmember died. Diesel subs are useless and worthless nowadays, they have to surface once every three days or else fumes will kill the crew members, they are loud (and thus very easy to follow), they are cramped, they are old, and they are just all-around sucky. Nuclear submarines, on the other hand, can stay underwater almost indefinitely, run quietly, they have more room and are actually possible to live in, have modern equipment, and are quite nice - for a submarine. I think the US would practically give Canada a nuclear submarine for the price of its scrap metal. We'd be overjoyed that our northern neighbor has finally considered its own defense; and we'd probably save money in the long run because we'd need one less ship to defend Canada. Additionally, engine rooms don't catch fire on nuclear submarines.

...U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci told reporters he was perplexed over Canada's decision, which he said effectively allows Washington to decide what to do if a missile was headed toward Canada.

"We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty - its seat at the table - to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming towards Canada," said the outgoing (Canadian) ambassador, who had vigorously urged Canada to sign on the plan.

(Canadian Prime Minister) Martin, ending nearly two years of debate over whether Canada should participate in the development or operation of the multibillion-dollar program, insisted his decision had not relinquished Canada's sovereignty over its airspace and that Ottawa would expect to be consulted what to do about any missile passing over Canada.

expect all you want, Washington won't call you over a missile. Washington would like to call you over a missile, it's the proper thing to do according to textbook diplomacy and not doing so would damage relations, but there are only a few minutes between the time the missile is over Canada and the missile caused part of the US to cease to be.
Simple facts for you: the defense system is US, it was built by the US, it was paid for by the US, it was the US that persevered to build the system despite all the bitching from Canada and the like, and it's damn well going to be the US that will decide what to do with it.
Here's the confirmation of that:

Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew, however, indicated the ultimate decision had always been in U.S. hands.
"Would it have been otherwise?" he replied when asked whether Canada's refusal to join means the country now officially relies on the United States for protection.

Kyoto protest beaten back by inflamed petrol traders

article
Sorry that I've been sitting on this story for a while, I've been looking for some supporting information, but little exists (at least in terms of recent news).

When 35 Greenpeace protesters stormed the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) yesterday they had planned the operation in great detail.

What they were not prepared for was the post-prandial aggression of oil traders who kicked and punched them back on to the pavement.

“We bit off more than we could chew. They were just Cockney barrow boy spivs. Total thugs,” one protester said, rubbing his bruised skull. “I’ve never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view.”

Another said: “I took on a Texan Swat team at Esso last year and they were angels compared with this lot.” Behind him, on the balcony of the pub opposite the IPE, a bleary-eyed trader, pint in hand, yelled: “Sod off, Swampy.”

Greenpeace had hoped to paralyse oil trading at the exchange in the City near Tower Bridge on the day that the Kyoto Protocol came into force. “The Kyoto Protocol has modest aims to improve the climate and we need huge aims,” a spokesman said.

Protesters conceded that mounting the operation after lunch may not have been the best plan. “The violence was instant,” Jon Beresford, 39, an electrical engineer from Nottingham, said.

“They grabbed us and started kicking and punching. Then when we were on the floor they tried to push huge filing cabinets on top of us to crush us.”

That is beautiful.
Best line in the entire article: “I’ve never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view.”
Compare that rhetoric to what Greenpeace planned to do:

They made their way to the trading floor, blowing whistles and sounding fog horns, encountering little resistance from security guards. Rape alarms were tied to helium balloons to float to the ceiling and create noise out of reach. The IPE conducts “open outcry” trading where deals are shouted across the pit. By making so much noise, the protesters hoped to paralyse trading.

Just how could anyone listen to any point of view when alarms and foghorns are going off all over the place?

We all know that Greenpeace is effectively a terrorist group, just like Earth Liberation Front (that group which torches everything), that requires little explanation.

Here is some quasi-"insider" discussion of the event.

I have an idea: why don't the oil exchange centers start funds to purchase the biggest, least efficient, most polluting SUV ever made. So, when protestors appear, the exchange center can drive them to prison and burn about 200 barrels of oil in the process.
And, get some of those giant water fountains, but fill them with oil. Just make the abundance of oil grotesque, and the protestors will simply faint next time.
Or, maybe they should just torch 10 barrels of oil for every protester who broke in. Torch them out in the open, and cause as much pollution as you possibly can. Maybe they could hoist some tires over the barrels. Mind you, don't torch something simply because protesters show up, just those who broke in, it's probably not a good idea to try to prevent demonstrations as a whole.

Oh yes; "on the balcony of the pub opposite the IPE, a bleary-eyed trader, pint in hand, yelled: 'Sod off, Swampy.' "

Thank god the fate of intelligent life doesn't rest on humanity alone

Thank god the fate of intelligent life doesn't rest on humanity alone

NASA Researchers Claim Evidence of Present Life on Mars

A pair of NASA scientists told a group of space officials at a private meeting here Sunday that they have found strong evidence that life may exist today on Mars, hidden away in caves and sustained by pockets of water.

The scientists, Carol Stoker and Larry Lemke of NASA’s Ames Research Center in Silicon Valley, told the group that they have submitted their findings to the journal Nature for publication in May, and their paper currently is being peer reviewed.

What Stoker and Lemke have found, according to several attendees of the private meeting, is not direct proof of life on Mars, but methane signatures and other signs of possible biological activity remarkably similar to those recently discovered in caves here on Earth.

If there is life on Mars, then I suspect that the creation of alien life isn't a question of if it can happen, but rather if other planets can support higher forms of life, as every planet may indeed have or be capable of producing some basic creature, but may not allow for more complex beings to evolve.
I do hope there is alien life. It might be nice to swap technologies, sciences, philosophies, and the like with aliens. Plus, such would give me something to think about. Do you think aliens have developed the microwave? If they have something similar to TV, do they broadcast similar types of shows, and have news programs focus on irrelevant things such as Michael Jackson? Do you think aliens may have slavery at some point in their history, just as humans do? What about religion; would aliens have it at all, or would their religion be very different from those on Earth?
Now, I'm not asking real questions, I am rather trying to scratch at the nature of intelligent life. The greatest thing that could come from encountering other intelligent life, even if it's just some variation of primates, would be a greater understanding of humanity. After all, it's hard to examine humanity when you have nothing to compare it to.

Other news of the day: Kin Jong Il's birthday (article). Yes, this is important, because Kimmy is very self-centered. How self-centered? Well, the average 17 year old North Korean male is 8 inches shorter and 70 pounds lighter than his South Korean counterpart, due to starvation and malnutrition. Kim Jong Il is 5 foot 2 inches, and hates himself for it. Kimmy is starving his country so that he looks taller.

Also, the Kyoto protocols come into effect.

Finally, Iran and Syria have announced a formal alliance to "face challenges and threats" (like the US, perhaps?). Syria is disliked by the US because it provides insurgents and an open border, and because it is manipulating Lebanon, which is becoming something of a province of Syria, rather than an independent nation.

Why not to tax miles driven

There is one news item that you need to know how to debunk in any argument.
From here:

Officials in car-clogged California are so worried they may be considering a replacement for the gas tax altogether, replacing it with something called "tax by the mile."

Seeing tax dollars dwindling, neighboring Oregon has already started road testing the idea.

"Drivers will get charged for how many miles they use the roads, and it's as simple as that," says engineer David Kim.

And, from here

San Francisco would become the first city in the nation to charge drivers just for driving in its chronically congested downtown under a sure-to-be controversial proposal being aired today.

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, chair of the San Francisco Transportation Authority, will ask the agency to study a downtown toll zone -- whereby drivers would need to purchase a daily pass to drive in The City's most congested streets -- as a potential solution to the Municipal Transportation Agency's woeful budget problems.

"The key issue here is if we can kill three birds with one stone -- relieve congestion, clean up the air, and give money to Muni (no idea what Muni is, maybe the Municipal Transportation Agency) -- we would have hit a home run," McGoldrick said.
…
McGoldrick's proposal comes at a politically opportune time, with Muni considering a controversial 25 cent raise in fares, and transit activists mounting an increasingly vocal campaign to shift Muni's budget difficulties away from the people who ride the buses.

Several long-term solutions to Muni's budget deficit have also been floated over the past few months, including the creation of a downtown "assessment district," which would essentially impose an additional tax on property owners. But that would have to be approved by two-thirds of the voters in that district and, if it were to pass, the money would not be seen for at least a year.
Additional longer term options include other taxes -- including an environmental impact fee for vehicles driving in The City; a local vehicle registration fee; an increase in the parking tax; a special parcel tax on properties within The City; and a local gas tax. All of those options would require approval by San Francisco voters, the Board of Supervisors or the California Legislature.

The first article describes a feeble attempt to raise more tax money while trying to secure the environmental vote, nothing more. People will not drive less because they are taxed on how much they drive; you don't drive anywhere these places unless you really need to, because you have a good chance of being stuck in traffic for over an hour. Tolls would simply cost drivers more, and do absolutely nothing to limit road use. The only way road use could be limited is if the tolls are high enough so that people eventually move away, and then there are fewer people to drive around, rather than a smaller percent of the population on the road at any given time.

The second article has a lot more for me to chew on. The same need to drive somewhere from the above paragraph apply to this.
Now, when you try to remove people from specific roads, they use a detour. A detour will almost always take longer than the route it replaced. This means that the traffic will simply be diverted to a different road. Also, because the detour takes longer, there will be more cars on the road at any given time. With more cars comes more congestion and pollution. Thus, the first two parts of " relieve congestion, clean up the air, and give money to Muni" have been ripped to shreds, as the toll would really do the exact opposite of what McGoldrick claims (except for raising money, it will certainly do that).
Those additional taxes look like they are targeting the city because the city has little other than commercial buildings (or at least I think it does). Thus, a tax on the metropolitan area would be a tax on "big business", which many Californians seem to despise.

What California really needs is to:
1: remove regulations on how high residential buildings can be built (this is what prevents giant apartment buildings from popping up just outside the city limits).
2: remove environmental regulations that prevent construction of anything. Half of San Francisco Bay is under regulations that prevent any development of the land, if Sowell's Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One is correct.
3: build more highways between highly populated areas like, say, Las Angeles and San Francisco (which I believe has only 1 highway, a very congested highway, running between them).
4: offer large subsidies for mass transportation companies and focus on improving the road network as a whole.

A big help would be to get rid of many of these activists, or at least stop listening to them. Those activists are pushing politicians to write laws that harm the city, so those politicians can be reelected.


I have an interesting new idea, and I would love some feedback as to whether it would work. In the election after a politician leaves office, the voters should get to choose whether or not to give the former politicians an additional pension. For example, if determining the pension for a president, Clinton's pension would have been voted on in 2004, as that was the next presidential election after Clinton took office.
This term-length gap would give a politician's long-term work to be seen comparatively clearly, and would be an incentive for potential politicians to seek only a single term and do the best the can to help their city/state/whatever in that term. Politicians who do not intend to seek a second term rarely make decisions based on popular opinion and what can get them more votes.
It would be nice to see how it works out. It would cost a lot overall, but tens of millions of dollars are nothing to the federal government, which spends close to $1 billion per hour.

Note to self: never trust the local news

article

Some New Mexicans say it’s the weirdest thing they’ve ever seen: a creature – and that’s the best word to describe it – found on Albuquerque’s West Mesa.

To some, it’s simply intriguing. To others, it’s downright scary. The creature belongs to Robert Wheeler.

“It was found out on the West Mesa,” says Wheeler. ”A friend of mine was out there shooting and kicked it out of the dirt.”

“It looks like a gargoyle” said Wheeler’s friend Steve Garcia. “It has these sponge-like lips.”

Garcia and Wheeler say Hispanics seem most affected by the creature – and what it might be.

“[To people of] Spanish heritage, it’s the chupacabra,” says Wheeler. “The goat sucker is what they call it.”
...
After doing some research, Eyewitness News 4 has concluded that the creature probably lived in the ocean at one time and probably isn’t either a chupacabra or an alien. Eyewitness News 4 at 10:00 on Friday will explore what the creature may have been.

Wow, that's some of the worst reporting I've ever seen. "probably isn’t either a chupacabra or an alien"? I bet that this thing probably is not a Frisbee or cheeseburger. These reporters could have at least said that the thing (doesn't look like a mythical creature to me) is definitely neither an alien nor a mythical creature. That would at least limit the possibilities.
Now, why did they think the 'creature' might have been from the ocean? It had gills. Apparently, the reporters don't understand that anything with gills at one time lived in the ocean – "probably" doesn't come into this.

If this is a chupacabra, then the Loch Ness monster, bigfoot, and a reptile-bird with a 15 foot wingspan that a village in Alaska sees every few years exist. I didn't make up that bird, from the bottom of this webpage:

More recently, as late as Wednesday October 16, 2002, in an article published in the Anchorage Daily News, and also picked up by the wire services, reported "a giant winged creature like something out of Jurassic Park" sighted several times in Southwest Alaska. A pilot that spotted the creature while flying passengers to Manokotak, Alaska, calculated its wingspan matched the length of a wing on one side of his Cessna 207, about 14 feet. Other people have put the wingspan in a similar range. The following is the news service account of the sightings:
The Associated Press passed on much of the same story stating: "Villagers in Togiak and Manokotak say the huge bird has a wingspan of about 14-feet -- the size of a small plane." Reported as well was a sighting that occurred the previous Thursday, October 10, 2002, when a 43 year-old heavy equipment operator named Moses Coupchiak saw the bird flying toward him from about two miles away as he worked his tractor. "At first I thought it was one of those old-time Otter planes," Coupchiak was quoted as saying. "Instead of continuing toward me, it banked to the left, and that's when I noticed it wasn't a plane."

Some have gone as far as claiming the bird ate their pet. If you're going to fabricate some news stories for entertainment, can't you at least start another gold rush? There's actually a chance that some gold may be near the area, too.

Oh yeah, that 'chupacabra' just might be a stingray with most of the meat cut off.

dictators are in the Americas, too

The American Thinker article

Buried deep in the appalling announcement of Cuba's new place on the UN's Human Rights Commission was the name of the country that nominated that outpost of tyranny for the honor: Argentina.

It's not the first time the southernmost country in the New World has done the bidding of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Last December, a Cuban dissident who sought de-facto asylum in Havana's Argentine embassy was unexpectedly denied an exit visa and forced back into the hands of Castro's waiting agents. Such events underline Argentina's political direction.

A few years ago, Argentina was one of the U.S.'s major non-NATO allies. Now, Argentina is undermining the U.S. and its agenda of freedom, in favor of strengthening Castro. Tragically for itself, for America, and for the cause of liberty, Argentina is rapidly emerging as an enemy.

Argentina's descent into the orbit of Castro has unusual roots. It's anti-American alright, with most Argentine voters falsely blaming the U.S. for their country's economic mismanagement. But unlike most run-of-the-mill anti-American states, there's no refuge in the arms of countries like France. In fact, Argentina's estrangement from Europe is far more bitter than its alienation from America. That is why Castro and his fellow pariah states are so attractive to Argentina as political allies now, and why Argentina is gathering momentum to undermine the US.
...
Italian investors have noted that Argentina's government is now continuously hurling insults at Washington. It's sent government-financed piqueteros (violent leftist vigilantes) to blackmail McDonalds restaurants. It's stalled the investigation of a brutal and deadly Iranian terror bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish Community Center in 1994, and has let key suspects walk. Meanwhile, synogogue attacks and bombings of U.S. banks are on the rise.

Argentina’s relations with dictator Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, meanwhile, have never been more cordial. "We are on the same team," Chavez told Argentina's president on his visit last week. The Argentine government also has targeted Argentina's only pro-American ex-president, Carlos Menem, a good friend and ally for his entire ten years in office, for repeated prosecutions. Not one of these actions is that of a friend of the U.S, but they all serve Fidel Castro's destructive agenda.

Argentina's economy has been subject to wild fluctuations over the decade. In 1913, Argentina's per capita (per person) income was on par with France and Germany, and well ahead of Spain and Italy.

From The Economist:

Yet the most powerful factor in Argentina's decline has been its unstable politics since 1930, when a (not very bloody) military junta took power, ending seven decades of civilian constitutional government. The rule of law has been repeatedly trumped by executive power ever since. That is one reason why the state has been able to expropriate private savings so often, through hyperinflation or devaluation—and why Mr Cavallo (economic minister from 1991 to 1996, relatively good years, until a collapse in 1999) thought it necessary to set up the currency board.

US-Venezuela relations have gone sour over the last few years, and the US has recently taken Colombia's side in a Columbia-Venezuela dispute over Colombia's capture of a guerrilla/rebel in Venezuelan territory. Colombia, interestingly enough, has shown signs of improving democracy and has cracked down on the drug trade.

The US and Mexico have "good" relations because this is the only choice. In reality, Mexico is working against the US whenever profitable (including encouraging illegal immigration; Mexico's 2nd largest source of income is money that Mexicans in the US send back to their families), and working with the US when sufficiently profitable. However, Mexico has made some boneheaded moves, like threatening to take a US state to international court because voters of that state approved a ban/limitation on benefits for illegal immigrants. Also, Mexico is angry because the US government encouraged tourists in Mexico to be cautious, as kidnapping (and hefty ransoms) have increased significantly over the past few years. Mexico has yet, to the best of my knowledge, to create/bolster any police presence in the areas known as kidnapping hotspots. Mexico also continues to be corrupt, and the government is often downright lazy, not to mention uncaring when their pointless delays cost others considerable amounts of money.

why save money when you can pay unlimited credit card interest?

Up to 70% interest - credit card aimed at the poor
I'll go back on my pledge to ignore The Guardian, at least for this article, which seems to avoid extensive bias.

A new credit card aimed at millions of low-income families is to charge interest at up to 70% - the highest ever charged by a credit card company.
Marketed under the slogan: "Stay in control of your budgeting", the typical interest rate on the new Vanquis card will be 49.9%, but for some customers the company judge as high risk, it will be 69.5%. MPs and debt campaigners yesterday condemned the rate, which is 15 times the Bank of England base rate and triple the standard rate on other cards. The card also has an annual fee of £19.

Norman Lamb, Liberal Democrat MP for North Norfolk, who recently completed a Treasury select committee investigation into credit cards, called the rate "staggeringly high". He added: "People on a low income tempted by it need to be given a clear financial health warning." Debt on our Doorstep, an umbrella group that includes Oxfam, credit unions and Church Action on Poverty, said: "It's an absolute disgrace that Vanquis should even be suggesting people borrow money on a credit card at that rate."
...
To find customers, Vanquis will trawl through the files of private credit rating agency Experian - it holds data on almost everyone in Britain - to identify individuals rejected by other lenders often because they have run into debt problems in the past.


It expects the typical customer to have an income of half the national average. Provident Financial's executive directors last year earned from £376,000 to £583,000, while the chief executive saw his pension fund rise from £916,000 to £1.3m.

How can a credit card company actually want to make poor people even poorer? This company will find people with no self-restraint, and let them destroy their finances all over again, to make a few bucks (actually, quid, as this is in Britain).

Will some company try to do exactly this in the US, or are credit card companies simply doing this already? Which should be done first, a cap on interest rates, or a ban on sending homeowners countless credit cards through the mail, when the homeowner has no ability to prevent the credit card company from sending those cards?

Senate passes limit on class-action lawsuits

article

The Senate approved a measure Thursday to help shield businesses from major class action lawsuits like the ones that have been brought against tobacco companies, giving President Bush the first legislative victory of his second term.

Under the legislation, long sought by big business, large multistate class action lawsuits could no longer be heard in small state courts. Such courts have handed out multimillion-dollar verdicts.

Instead, the cases would be heard by federal judges, who have not proven as open to those type of lawsuits.

The Senate passed the bill 72-26. It now goes to the House.
...
Opponents say Bush and other bill supporters are trying to help businesses escape proper judgments for their wrongdoing - and also to hurt the trial lawyers who litigate the cases, some of whom are big Democratic contributors.

"Are there bad lawyers that bring meritless cases? Sure there are, and we should crack down on them," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, a former trial lawyer. "But this bill is not about punishing bad lawyers. It is about hurting consumers and helping corporations avoid liability for misconduct."

Eight Democrats were sponsors of the bill, leaving the rest with no way to block it.
...
Under the compromise legislation, class-action suits would be heard in state court if the primary defendant and more than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same state. But if less than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same state as the primary defendant, the case would go to federal court.

At least $5 million would have to be at stake for a federal court to hear a class-action suit.

The bill also would limit lawyers' fees in so-called coupon settlements - when plaintiffs get discounts on products instead of financial settlements - by linking the fees to the coupon's redemption rate or the actual hours spent working on a case.

One thing that particularly struck me is "Are there bad lawyers that bring meritless cases? Sure there are, and we should crack down on them". I am have never heard of a lawyer's legal license being revoked, and I am unable to find any data on that subject (or of removal from state bar associations). Honestly, I don't know how often the bad lawyers are being rooted out, if they are at all.

Obviously, a cap on rewards is needed. However, it's far better to get rid of the BS lawyers who will accept any case for no charge, except a hefty portion of settlements or payoff, knowing that many people prefer to settle even if they would probably win in court. It's those lawyers who are gathering clouds over the entire profession. And sadly, due to the nature of the particular scam, these lawyers may try many more cases than honest lawyers, and thus have a disproportionately large influence on public opinion.
One way to end this scam may be to have the loser of the case pay the legal fees of the winner. However, that may prevent many reasonable cases from going to court because a lawyer or his client is unwilling to accept the risk of loss.

Additionally, I believe the entire debt system must be looked at. Some credit collection companies seem to have gained an ability to charge debts that appeared out of nowhere, and completely ignore Cease & Desist letters. AOL/Time Warner managed to charge me for internet service for several months after I cancelled the service, which was being paid on a month-to-month basis. I called to cancel at least half a dozen times, tried everything relevant to get AOL/Time Warner to stop acting like assholes and stop charging, but they still charged me – legally or otherwise (probably well within the "otherwise" category).
Oh yeah, an interesting credit website/forum is here.

So much needs reform, all because a few percent of the people in a profession will do anything for money, and don't care who or how many they take down for it. But, I suppose this has always been the case.

Take Back Your Cell

article

I love the Internet because I can plug anything I want into it. No ISP tells me what computer I can use or what software it can run. Contrast that with the phone networks. Until 1968, it was illegal to even attach a non-Bell phone. Even today, phone companies charge for services like Caller ID. Imagine if your ISP charged you for seeing the “From” line in your e-mail.

Mobile-phone companies have inherited this arrogance, building their business models around nickel-and-diming customers. They sell you phones that can play musical ringtones and then force you to buy the song snippets you want to use, even if you already own the CD. They give you color screens for better gaming but charge you $7 for Tetris. They give you data but lock you into their Web browsers and charge you by the second to use them. Unlike my PC, there’s no freeware and no choice.

Yet I’m a net-head who learned to love phones again—specifically, smartphones such as the Sony Ericsson P900, the Nokia 6620 and the Treo 650. All come with operating systems ready to run software of your choosing because they’re made by manufacturers who treat you, not your carrier, as the real customer. If there’s something you want your phone to do, chances are that someone has built an app to do it that you can download and install, without paying the carrier’s monopoly pricing. When you can do that, the phone is truly yours.

After all my bitching about cell phones, this article is music to my ears. I believe the Sony phone costs a bit too much - over $500 is out of my price range. The Nokia 6620, however, doesn't seem too bad, though it isn't pretty. I'm still waiting for a 10gb harddrive and a headphone jack (or do these phones have that already?), as I don't want to spend $300 on a phone and $150 more on an iPod. Besides, the 128MB memory cards that these phones have are expensive - the Nokia 6620's cost $100.
My current cellphone is a brownish gray device that was officially 'vintage' when I got it a year ago. Mind you, my parents picked it out because it was the cheapest.


On a different note, is it possible to hook a classic phone into a computer modem and use that to talk over the internet? I know that such would require new software (if not also hardware), but I am asking if it's feasible, not if I can do it tomorrow and expect it to work. That would be a nice turn to Voice-Over-Net technology, which is kind enough to not bullshit me with long distance charges, which should e extinct due to modern communication infrastructure. After all, it costs nothing to download a website from the other side of the Atlantic because of the trans-atlantic phone line that goes from the US, through Iceland, and finally to Britain (other lines cross the English Channel into mainland Europe), and the website is downloaded through the same line that I'd use for a phone.

What to do with Iran?

Though Europe is eager to test a "carrot and a stick" strategy with Iran, it seems to have forgotten about the stick. In fact, it seems that Europe has ruled out a use of force, and thus making threats impotent. The EU's inability to take a stand is illustrated in Fidel Castro's "forgiving" of Europe and allowing them to trade with him again.

The US has the power to launch another war within the next few months, but it doesn't have the global influence and goodwill to get away with it. Thus, we cannot launch another war.

I am considering the potential of CIA or military intelligence agents. Assassinations and sabotage should be last resorts, but they should be feasible. However, the US's actions must be public and agreeable to much of the world; this is a chance to recover our global influence, not to spend it. The main goal, however, should be to spread liberty throughout the mid-east, and prevent a crystallization that might separate Iraq and its newfound freedom from Iraq's neighbors. I have a hunch that mid-eastern leaders are not skilled at handling a dynamic country, so an ability to quickly change the mid-east might be a powerful weapon, assuming the US can wield it. Hopefully, the US can knock Iran, and possibly Saudi Arabia or Syria, off its balance of power.

Should the US try to create its own type of insurgency, a pro-democracy insurgency, in Iran? Sounds interesting, and it wouldn't hinder the US's public diplomacy efforts. On the other hand, the government might be thrown into chaos if a settlement with the US galvanizes pro-democracy groups that already are in Iran. Plus, a few agents in Iran can greatly improve the US's potential power and influence. These two ideas would take more than a year to develop and implement, and both have risks. Insurgencies can look like proxy wars, and the capture of a US agent has dire consequences for the US – in terms of bargaining power and world opinion.

Things that everyone should know

1: Being cryogenically frozen means that you freeze to death, and you can't come back.
2: No one really supports the full platform of any political party, not even the politicians leading that party.
3: For those who wish that "manna would fall from heaven" so they don't have to work: God met you halfway; he created rain so you have free water, it's your job to get the food.
4: Smoking sections in restaurants should be turned into a "large groups of women and couples with a baby" section, and soundproofing ought to be installed to isolate the section.
5: Anything with radiation does not mean instant death. Radiation is emitted naturally by about everything that exists. Radiation causes minute differences to develop in species, and thus allows evolution. Radiation is only harmful when in very high concentrations (compared to everyday radiation). Depleted uranium is depleted, it has lost much of its harmful potential. In fact, depleted uranium is used in some types of dentures (ever hear someone say that their real teeth seem cleaner since they got false teeth?).
6: Corruption is the main cause of poverty on a national scale. A company will not form in a country where a single greedy politician can destroy a successful company simply for refusing to pay an illegal and extortionate bribe.
7: terrorists hate the US because of what the US does.
8: The US does what it does because the US is what it is
9: if you are unwilling to fix your own problems, no one else will fix them for you, because they know that you will not keep those problems fixed.
10: The Yankees win because they buy a victory.
11: The Patriots win because they are good.
12: What a republican sees as a democrat's sinister plan is a good intention from the perspective of the democrat.
13: What a democrat sees as a republican's sinister plan is a good intention from the perspective of the republican.
14: Social Security is a giant pyramid scheme.
15: There is no single cause of all evil.

Unemployment drops, a lot

The unemployment rate went from 5.4% to 5.2% in January. For those who hate numbers; the unemployment rate dropped a lot. That's a good thing.

Personally, I am overjoyed that Bush still holds his office for this, because democrats would be claiming all the credit for an improvement like this, as well as the improvements in Iraq. I don't know why voters don't seem to understand this, but government has a single consistency; everything takes time, a lot of time. Employment Situation Summary has some data, if you want it.

I just saw the halftime show..

Oh dear god. I never realized how good the Janet Jackson halftime show actually was. That show was horrible. I have decided that it is more interesting to do physics homework than to watch the superbowl. By the way, Ameriquest, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for that presentation. Paul Mcartney (that is his name, right?) isn't terrible, really, but a superbowl show should have several popular singers who are actually able to sing appropriate songs. Paul simply doesn't have the energy in his voice, not to mention the placidity of his songs.

So, I have found a better song, A British Tar (best copy of lyrics I could get), which was well presented in Star Trek: Insurrection. That website is actually a Star Trek fansite/database of all things treky.

A decent recording is here
The plain background music is here. You can go to this website if those links didn't work, the songs are on the right column, just scroll down a bit (the first song is the one with only background music).
Yet another full version can be downloaded from here.
Finally, you can grab a 30-second sample of what is probably the best version here.

I wish I could get the audio directly from Star Trek: Insurrection, as that had a simple and good rendition, but I guess I'll just have to do without. By the way, A British Tar sounds a bit like a drinking song…

In case you are wondering, the song was written y Gilbert and Sullivan in the 19th century for the work HMS Pinafore. The group is perhaps better known for "I am the very model of a modern major-general", but I believe their work is still highly regarded.
Now, a great parody of that song, I Am The Very Model of a Microsoft Executive, is here.

So, who wants to sing some decent 19th century music? If you want some of my preferred modern music, you can find it here (the free samples are of the complete song, just click the little play arrow and wait a few seconds). Oh yeah, in case you wonder what genre that music is, it's gothic heavy metal rock, from the Netherlands. You can’t get that type of music in the US. You can't get that type of website in the US, either. You have to admit, that band has a great singer and some great musicians.

The US gets ready to "nuke" Iraq

The US gets ready to "nuke" Iraq
article. Please note: "nuke" is a slang term for "to cook in a microwave" (or "to microwave").

The United States has developed a non-lethal microwave weapon for use in Iraq.
Officials said the vehicle, termed Sheriff, would contain the Active Denial System. The system uses millimeter-wave electromagnetic energy that can be directed at targets at a range of 1 kilometer.
The ADS system would be downgraded for Iraqi deployment in urban areas, officials said. The ADS causes the skin to burn, causing the people to run away.
The Pentagon plans to install the non-lethal, high-powered microwave weapon on a military vehicle. The deployment of the first platforms in Iraq would take place in September 2005.

I believe this system has been in development for several years. There is a similar device which is supposed to project incredibly loud sounds at a specific person (the machine has to be aimed directly at them) – the sounds are loud enough to produce migraine headaches. The US military is not new to less-lethal weapons; various types of gases served that purpose well, like tear gas. International agreements ban the use of all gases as weapons, even tear gas.

I am under the impression that this weapon is intended to allow people to run from it. The very, very loud weapon tends to prevent targets from fleeing. So, if you fire the weapon into a crowd, then the innocents will – hopefully – run away, though hostiles may run with them.

You all know what will happen with this weapon, right? The blogosphere will get a bunch of pictures of troops roasting hotdogs over the microwave dish thing. I wonder, though, if any troops will set the dish to maximum power, point it at a cow, and see if they can get some very, very fresh meat.