Paragon

On the "Death Tax"

2005-09-04T20:40:00.000-05:00

The actual name is "Estate Tax", but that is of little importance.
The official source on whether or not this tax is helpful.

The very short: the tax is imposed only on the estates of rich people when they die. Congress decided to change it a few years back, and now Congress wants to change (or repeal) it again.
The slightly longer: the tax is imposed on estates at the time of the holder's death. If the estate is worth less than $1.5 million, then it is free of tax. If it is worth more, a tax is imposed on its value over $1.5 million. The $1.5 million deductible will increase annually until 2009, at which point it will be at $3.5 million. In the year 2010, the deductible will be change to 'infinite', which means that there will be no estate tax. In 2011, the deductible will drop to $1 million – its value before Congress decided to contort it.

The right wing has realized that this is a good time to get rid of the tax, and the left has realized this is a good time to complain about the rich getting richer while government sinks deeper into debt. This tax is a bit complicated, is a media topic, and has an emotional nickname. So, naturally, the facts are ignored in favor of slogans and irrationality.

The intentions of the tax are good: to limit the inheritance of the obscenely wealthy in order to enrich the government, ensure that a few families cannot collect ungodly wealth over several generations, and thin out the population of bratty rich kids who feel entitled and try to ruin life for the rest of us.

Unfortunately, the tax does not work. It collects more than 20 billion per year, but most of that would be paid in the form of income tax anyway. Additionally, the tax discourages long-term investment in favor of unnecessary consumption because the estate is valued based on market price (investments increase value over time, consumables decrease value over time). Also, the cost of implementing the tax drains most of the money it collects.

So, this tax should be repelled. Its intentions were good, but it is incapable of fulfilling those intentions.

(this blog was brought out of retirement for this post, and I honestly do not know if I will return to regular posting or permanently end this blog. I believe I have found a new reason to care about politics, but I do not know if that reason is enough to justify the time required).

Back from a short vacation

2005-07-12T02:50:00.000-05:00

I have some good news and some bad news. I will start with the bad news.

I spent the last few days in Birmingham, Alabama – yes, during the hurricane. The "hurricane" didn't prove to be much several hours after landfall, but had enough power to provide an interesting show Sunday night. However, I doubt I will ever go back to Birmingham; I am under the impression that nothing gets done in the city except for the smallest amount necessary to distract people from the fact that nothing gets done. I must note, however, that the hotel staff was helpful and left me little reason to complain.
The best part of the trip was actually the flight. If it all possible, use Southwest airlines – you will not regret it. The plane left the terminal on time and was in the air in less than five minutes. Southwest actually schedules flights perfectly so that the runways are open when they need to be, and passengers are not forced to wait on the tarmac for hours (like other airlines are prone to require). I had to drive back to Cincinnati because the hurricane's remnants cancelled my flight, but that actually saved an hour in the long run.

Now, for the good news. I got a composite score of 33 on the ACT. In case you do not know, that is excellent. I am moderately pleased with myself. I would be happier, but the test required no real commitment except for a few hours of reading and filling in an answer sheet. So, the score has only wrapped another protective layer around my ego.

I need to figure out what I want to do with this blog. News and analysis is being done to death, and it is not worth the incredible amount of time required to write something original. I have a post on computer interfaces – a dreadfully boring subject – in the works, but I do not want to devote the blog to computer topics. What I will probably do is pick up some of the long-term news items and explain a subject that is important in the event. For example, I have studied military strategy in my free time for more than 6 months, so I may write a few pieces regarding US strategy in Iraq or why US strategy in Somalia (Black Hawk Down incident) was horrible.

Happy 4th of July

2005-07-04T20:08:00.000-05:00

Of course, I have a bit to say about the 4th of July. Have a great time celebrating the birth of your country by blowing up a small part of it!

We need an anti-virus virus.

2005-07-04T20:07:00.000-05:00

In case you don't know, I am referring to computer viruses.

The easiest way to eliminate the threat of mydoom, sobig, and all the other viruses should be rather simple. Once those epidemic-type viruses are discovered, anti-virus companies like Symantec or McAffee should write a new virus which spreads in the same or better way than the epidemic viruses. Then, when the Symantec-made virus infects a computer that is also infected with mydoom, sobig, ect, the Symantec-virus removes mydoom/sobig/whatever.
Many of the problems caused by these viruses could have been avoided if computers were kept up-to-date and had anti-virus programs installed; such not only would have protected the computer, but also would have prevented the computer from spreading the virus to others. An anti-virus virus would use the same methods as harmful viruses to protect computers, without requiring the user to do anything.

I have found that people will rarely change their habits, even if it means protecting their computer and all of their software. Some companies do not realize this, and make products that require customers to change in order to make those products more effective (like sunscreen, which you are supposed to apply 30 minutes before going outside – most people apply it when they are already outside). The anti-virus virus that I described above does the correct thing: it gets the job done without requiring the customer to change. Mind you, the anti-virus virus would be spread to everyone indiscriminately, so there would be no actual customers, but the point is the same.

US vows to keep internet in competent hands

2005-07-04T01:56:00.000-05:00

Open note to the UN: SHUT UP! Everyone capable of rational thought knows you destroy everything you touch! Get your FILTHY, STINKING, hands off of my internet!

Now I feel so much better

In the News Of The Day, the US refused to give control of the internet over to countries like Sudan (genocide, corruption, and all-around death), Zimbabwe (kills white people, politically-caused starvation, and genocide), the Democratic People's Republic of the Congo (killed all the democratic people, then killed the rest of the people – the republic is just a term it holds on to, and genocide), North Korea (nukes, oppression, politically-caused starvation, deathcamps, and genocide in that let's-just-kill-everyone way), Venezuela (kills people from Columbia, the leader is a raving lunatic, horrible corruption, and just generally unfettered murder whenever government officials feel like it), China (murder of political opponents and people "not wearing enough red", extreme censorship of the internet, upwards of 95% of China's software is pirated, genocide when it comes to Tibet), Russia (upwards of 90% of software is pirated; one of the world's highest suicide rates; haven for software piracy, hacking, launching/controlling viruses, and spam), and a handful of others.
What do all those countries have in common? Let's try a checklist of things that should not happen in a country, and determine how those nations stack up compared to the US.
__ genocide
__ civil war was started by government, rather than by a rebel group
__ murder by government officials outside of law enforcement duties
__ current leader assassinated predecessor
__ current leader assassinated family of predecessor
__ current leader assassinated appointed successor and/or family thereof
__ political imprisonment
__ silencing of anyone who opposes the government
__ silencing of anyone who does not show enough support for the government
__ corruption so common and extreme that no one tries to hide it
__ the population is starving, but government officials are gaining weight
__ companies are run by the government, rather than by qualified managers
__ private property laws impotent when government officials say otherwise
__ companies and/or parts of government are run by organized crime
__ companies seized by government without adequate reason
__ parts of government seized by other parts of government without adequate reason
__ elections obviously rigged, but the government claims legitimacy
__ elections obviously rigged, but government-controlled media proclaims legitimacy
__ healthcare exists only in the capital – ie, for government officials only
__ education exists only in the capital – ie, for government officials only
__ government blames a nation thousands of miles away for all problems
__ blamed foreign government sends million in aid
__ aid sent by blamed foreign government ends up entirely in government's coffers
__ UN sanctions are in place on country
__ UN sanctions on country are circumvented
__ country helps any other country circumvent UN sanctions placed on the other country

I believe the listed countries meet much of the criteria on the list. In other words: they are the type of countries that should have no international responsibilities whatsoever. But would any control of the internet actually be given to them; and if so, why? Strictly speaking, they would not get control of the internet (or more accurately, the Domain Name Service, which is the backbone of the internet). Rather, the non-profit company that controls the Domain Name Service (DNS) would be free of US oversite. Over time, however, it is likely that the company would be increasingly dragged into the UN's grasp, where it would be slaughtered in a fashion reminiscent of the BTK killer (maybe Jack The Ripper, for brits).
Mind you, this would not be the first time the UN wrecks havoc with the internet. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) – which appears to include everyone on the list above; yes, even North Korea – saw the internet as a problem waiting to be solved and is the creator of such notorious things. Such things include the "notice and takedown" rule, which requires internet service providers (ISPs) to remove any website that is claimed to display anything copyrighted without permission – no proof is needed, just the claim. The website will go down in a day, and can take weeks, sometimes even months, to get back up, and sometimes even require going to court. Scientologists have used this to remove thousands of websites which are critical to them, hence the everlasting battle Scientology Vs. The Internet. Diebold, which made voting machines for the 2004 election, claimed that leaked memos detailing Diebold's illegal response to voting machine failure were copyrighted and had websites which published the memos taken down. I do not believe the memos were copyrighted, but that does not matter in this particular law. Fortunately, WIPO's power is quite limited.
If the UN injected its corruption, unreliability, and incompetence into the internet, then countries or groups of countries would use their own DNS servers, and break the internet into chunks. Those chunks may not be compatible with each other. Among the problems that have a good chance of occurring, that is probably the worst. The internet would not be killed, but it would be disjointed, and that would the global accessibility and freedom that makes the internet as great as it is.

Nejad, the ultra-conservative, "won" Iran's election

2005-06-25T01:34:00.000-05:00

Voter turnout appears to be around 0%.

This is bad. Very, very bad. Europe's strategy with Iran and its nuclear program has just backfired. Now, Europe will face an Iranian president who is little different from the Supreme Leader. Additionally, the Iranian people are probably furious; they know the election was a fraud, and almost none of them voted. In this 4-year term, there is ample time for a revolution. However, such a revolution will almost certainly be horrifically brutal and cost Iran much of its best and brightest, if it occours.

Regime Change Iran naturally is on top of this.
Publius Pundit also has some excellent reporting.

Those things which matter, part 2

2005-06-23T20:47:00.000-05:00

Supreme Court rules that private land can be seized and turned over to private developers. The 5-4 ruling, which is deeply controversial and will be subject to incredible debate, was against a group of New London, Connecticut, homeowners who refused to sell their homes so an office building, riverfront hotel, and other commercial structures. The court ruled that, just as government can force the sale of private property to make way for public (government) projects, private developers can also force the sale of property if the project serves a "public good". Interestingly, it was the left-leaning portion of the court that determined private property can be subject to eminent domain-like laws, while the right wind opposed.

Of course, (Justice Stevens) wrote, the city would be barred from taking one's property and transferring it to another private owner strictly for the latter's benefit.
…
In a bitter dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority had created an ominous precedent. "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," she wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.

source.
my take: I have long held the belief that individuals and companies (or, more accurately, executives acting on behalf of companies) should have comparable rights. This system no longer exists, because one man who has a company in his name now has rights over his neighbor.
This decision reeks of private interest and the unjust confiscation of private property from the now-defenseless for the benefit of the rich. There are few, if any, cases where a private developer's plans can be said to not be for the public good. Also, private developers do not always achieve, or even follow, their plans. There is no recourse if the developer lies about its intentions; at least, any recourse is buried in the law and analysts have yet to find it. The corruption and theft made possible by this ruling is easy for me to see: a land developer realizes that an area will increase significantly in value over the next several years, so it forces homeowners in the area to sell their land at its current (and low) price. After spending little on the land, which has increased in value due to outside influences, the developer can sell the land for a notable profit. Thus, the homeowners are cheated out of the increase in land value.
However, there is an important possibility that the court has ignored. Citizens, either individually or as a group, cannot force a developer to give up land, even if that developer is destroying the land (in which case kicking the developer out is in the public interest). I believe that the political split, with the left favoring big business and the right favoring the poor, private citizen (literally, in this case) is incredibly revealing. Most liberals, when reading O'Connor's comments, would swear that republicans decided to favor big business.
I predict that the majority of Americans will disagree, quite strongly, with the court's decision. As a result, democrats in congress may be forced to yield and allow more of Bush's nominees to pass. With any luck, Congress will pass a constitutional amendment that cancels the court's decision.

House approves anti-flag burning amendment.

The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.
…
Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment.
"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."
But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said, "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."
…
By most counts, 65 current senators have voted for or said they intend to support the amendment, two shy of the crucial tally. More than a quarter of current senators were not members of that chamber during the last vote.

The amendment has been attempted several times in the past, but could not pass both houses. Congress first attempted to outlaw flag desecration after a Supreme Court ruling in 1989 (5 justices for, 4 justices against) which determined flag desecration is a form of free speech. After the ruling, and Congress's federal ban on flag desecration, nearly 1000 American flags were burnt in Washington, DC, as a protest. Among the protestors was the man who won the original Supreme Court case; several of the participants were arrested, and the Supreme Court again overturned the federal law. The Supreme Court is not able to overturn any part of the Constitution, so passage of this amendment will be final – unless another amendment removes it.
Republicans may use this amendment, and their support of it, as a show of patriotism and to claim opponents are anti-American. Democrats may claim that republicans are destroying a freedom of expression to garner political support, and that the freedom which the flag represents is more important that the preservation of the physical flag.
source.
My take: sadly, this issue will be clouded with politics. Some may claim that flag burning is similar to cross burning because it is reminiscent of terroristism like cross burning references the Klan. 9/11, to republicans, appears to be the perfect reason that this measure should pass now where it failed years ago.
However, democrats are exactly right – at least thus far. 9/11 did not teach Americans that the flag is sacred. Rather, it taught us that our freedom is sacred, while our symbols are expendable. Further, from our observations of the Muslim world, we see how veneration for a symbol or belief can cause us to destroy our own freedoms and, by extension, our way of life. Democrats will be shocked to find themselves in the majority, and with some of the most ardent and right-thinking conservatives backing them up. I can not wait to see the horror on a few republicans' faces.
Democrats may argue that flag burning, though stupid, is a freedom, and stupidity is not illegal in America. Americans reluctantly cherish their ability to protest in any fashion they want, and are determined to keep those freedoms for the minor chance that they must be used. America maintains a huge military for the same reason; we do not need such incredible power, but we have it 'just in case'. The left's arguments will be especially influential with conservatives, who have often claimed "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it".

Personal note: I cannot describe how much I care about this issue. I fear that a blind, unthinking search for patriotism may result in the passage of this amendment. I wrote this letter to my congressman:

Dear sir,

I have long followed the slogan "I disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it". However, I believe the proposed constitutional amendment banning desecration of the flag attacks this critical part of America. I value my rights, and though I never plan to use them to their furthest extent, I wish to preserve them "just in case".
I believe the majority of my fellow Americans will be glad to abandon partisan differences to defend this right because it exemplifies our tolerance for that with which we disagree. Contrary to popular belief, 9/11 did not teach us to be nationalist or to venerate the flag. Rather, it forced us to examine the middle east, where we saw the horrors caused by abandoning freedoms in favor of an ideology.

Sir, you may believe that banning flag desecration may be a way to support America's troops. I am sorry to inform you that this belief is tragic. America's troops are not fighting for the flag, they are fighting for freedom. Banning flag desecration would kill in the homeland what our troops are fighting for in the front lines.

Please, seek to understand that freedom is the basis of the American way of life. Reduction of any freedom destroys a part of this way of life, and no claim of patriotism will ever serve as an excuse.

Please carefully consider the issue and tell your congressmen what you think. It is imperative that America's politicians see how the American people understand this issue.

By the way, the Republicans' easy way out of this fiasco: non-flammable flags.

Those things that matter; June 23rd, 2005:

2005-06-23T14:39:00.000-05:00

The majority of Americans think Gitmo is fine. 36% claim prisoners are being treated "better than they deserve" (45% of republicans, 28% of democrats), another 34% say treatment is "about right". 20 percent of the US thinks that prisoners are treated unfairly (7% of republicans, 30% of democrats, and 22% unregistered). Additionally, 14% agree that prisoner treatment is similar to nazi tactics. 69% disagree with Durbin's comments.
source.
Possible bias: ordering of the questions and differences in numbers of registered republicans and democrats could tilt the poll either way. This is probably contained within the 3% margin of error.

A US U2 spyplane crashed in the United Arab Emirates, killing the pilot. The exact location of the airplane is not being released, possibly because the US does not want to risk the capture of any advanced technologies.
source.

Iraq will officially restore relations with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.
source.
my notes: it is extremely unlikely that all relations between Iraq and its neighbors were entirely ended. Rather, the embassies continued operations, but the head ambassador was removed as a sign of disapproval. Continued embassy operations allows for routine communication and emergencies, so it is a common practice to continue diplomatic operations, despite the absence of the head ambassador. Thus, this restoration may be mostly symbolic.

A police officer was beaten to death, or died of a heart attack influenced by being beaten, by anti-genetically modified food protestors and "we want to skateboard in this park" protestors in Philadelphia. The officer was a 17-year veteran of the force, and fell during a tussle with the protestors. While on the ground, the officer was either kicked to death or kicked while dying from a heart attack, or some other medical problem that was set off by being beaten. A few of the protestors expressed remorse, but many only complained that they are being called cop killers. The officer was black (I will explain why I mention this later).
No national news paper has reported this; Fox News gave it a brief mention once (to the best of my knowledge). The story was reported only in the Metro or Local section of a Philadelphia newspaper. Radio host Glenn Beck spoke about the story for a notable portion of his 3-hour talkshow and read an email from a police officer who described the death. Major news networks in Philadelphia have a tape of the beating and death, but refuse to show it, nor even mention the story.
My notes: If a black man was beaten by a white officer, on tape, the story would cover the national news for days. I can prove it. Do you remember the name Donovan Jackson? Well, CNN keeps an article, which should bring back memories of a black teen being slammed against the hood of a police car and punched in the face. In that case, the teen did not die – he didn't have any permanent injuries, in fact. The story developed over the national news for at least a week, and caused an uproar on both sides of the political isle. The left claimed brutality, the right claimed the cops were set-up by the teen and the man who filmed the incident, who was allegedly a friend of the beaten teen. My thanks to CNN for using the server space to keep articles that are nearly three years old. Records of daily news events are, in truth, rare, and most services charge a subscription for access to old articles.
The media should play fair and report this story. However, because protestors committed the crime, the much of the media refuses. I know first-hand that the media loves left-wing protests, but will ignore right-wing protests like the plague, no matter the size nor subject. This is despicable. The news media exists to report what is happening in the world; its job is to give the facts to the public, with as little distortion or interference as possible. From there, the public can use analysts' opinions or conclusions, or develop their own beliefs with similar access to the facts as the analyst. Thus, the public reaches the best conclusions that it can, because it can pick from a wide range of opinions and the basic understanding of events is accurate.

Those are the important stories, to the best of my limited knowledge, of today. Additional reports will be added in later posts, if possible.

terrorists killing each other, for a change

2005-06-22T19:59:00.000-05:00

From the New York Times:

Marines patrolling this desert region near the Syrian border have for months been seeing a strange new trend in the already complex Iraqi insurgency. Insurgents, they say, have been fighting each other in towns along the Euphrates from Husayba, on the border, to Qaim, farther west. The observations offer a new clue in the hidden world of the insurgency and suggest that there may have been, as American commanders suggest, a split between Islamic militants and local rebels.
A United Nations official who served in Iraq last year and who consulted widely with militant groups said in a telephone interview that there has been a split for some time.
"There is a rift," said the official, who requested anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the talks he had held. "I'm certain that the nationalist Iraqi part of the insurgency is very much fed up with the Jihadists grabbing the headlines and carrying out the sort of violence that they don't want against innocent civilians."
The nationalist insurgent groups, "are giving a lot of signals implying that there should be a settlement with the Americans," while the Jihadists have a purely ideological agenda, he added.
The insurgency is largely hidden, making such trends difficult to discern. But marines in this western outpost have noticed a change. For Matthew Orth, a Marine sniper, the difference came this spring, when his unit was conducting an operation in Husayba. Mortar shells flew over the unit, hitting a different target.
"The thought was, "They're coming for us. But then we saw they were fighting each other," he recalled during a break in Monday's operation. "We were kind of wondering what happened. We were getting mortared twice a day, and then all of a sudden it stopped."

Disagreement between Iraqi rebels and insurgent jihadists started not long after the US took Baghdad, but the differences were relatively minor. It was solved in large part, perhaps, by the two groups not working together. However, the jihadist's new tactic of executing random, innocent civilians has infuriated the Iraqi rebels. In short, the insurgent's targeting of civilians is causing their own downfall, for an abundance of reasons. Amir Taheri, by far my favorite analyst, has a wonderful article on the debate of tattarrus - the justification of killing innocents, including Muslims. As you probably know, Zarqawi has come out in favor of killing just about anyone, but more sane people have concluded that reckless murder is morally wrong in many ways. The later seems to be winning the debate by virtue of not having its greatest supporters blow themselves up, and because the average civilian tends to not like the threat of being murdered by lunatics.

So, a hattip to the minds who helped create this in-fighting amongst the terrorists, or at least to those who work to preserve Iraq until the terrorists kill each other or themselves out.
I wonder if the terrorists may qualify for the first group-wide Darwin Award.

Iran's Election

2005-06-18T14:57:00.000-05:00

It is difficult to pick between 7 identical candidates, especially when you hoped to pick one of the thousand disqualified by Iran's clergy. As a result, many have decided to not pick a candidate at all – by not voting – in order to drive down voter turnout.
The Iranian media is showing video from last year's election and Iranian officials are forcing or bribing people to vote in the few locations that the western media is allowed to cover – every reporter is followed by a thug who ensures that the journalist, like the Iranian people, is thoroughly intimidated. To make up for dismal turnout, Iran has likely printed millions of pre-filled ballots. And, the winners were announced before the election ended – even though all ballot boxes were locked and exit polls most likely didn't exist because voters would say whatever they were told to say by Iran's thugs.
No matter who wins, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, will still control Iran. Khatami, the outgoing president, saw his reforms crushed by the Council of Guardians, a hardline group of unelected religious leaders, and Khamenei. It is the knowledge of the fallacy of Iranian democracy and the exploitation of the turnout last election that has largely prevented voters from leaving their homes this time.

Unelected Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, among the first to vote, told Iranians they would be endorsing not just their chosen candidate, but their country’s Islamic system.
“Whoever you vote for among those seven candidates, it’s a vote for him, the Islamic republic and the constitution,” he said after using a special ballot box at his official residence.

For this reason, most are avoiding the election (hattip to Publius Punbdit).

The leaders in credible coverage are, naturally, blogs: Regime Change Iran, Publius Pundit, and Willisms. The later two cover polling stations placed in the US, another of Iran's efforts to make the election appear more credible. A .pdf of the 40 polling stations in the US is here. Willisms has photos and the story of how he almost got arrested by the thugs around one ballot box stationed in the US. Personally, I am awaiting responses from the two hotels that hosted sites in Ohio. The Word Unheard also has notable comments. Update: Willisms has his video here and Publius Pundit does a wonderful job describing his interview of an election monitor

Turnout at the US-based locations is dismally low, just as it is low in Iran – at least in the voting stations that are not surrounded by western reporters. An account of what Iranians are seeing of elections is here. Iran has claimed 65% turnout, which is a blatant lie. President Bush's attack on the election as undemocratic appears well in line with the thoughts of the many Iranians who refused to vote.

Canada realizes that capitalist medicine has some perks - like availability

2005-06-14T22:17:00.000-05:00

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Quebec law banning private medical insurance in a decision that represents an acute blow to the publicly financed national health care system.
…
The Canadian health care system provides free doctor's services that are paid for by taxes. The system has generally been strongly supported by the public, and is broadly identified with the Canadian national character. Canada is the only industrialized county that outlaws privately financed purchases of core medical services.
But in recent years patients have been forced to wait longer for diagnostic tests and elective surgery, while the wealthy and well connected either sought care in the United States or used influence to jump medical lines.

(NY Times)

Although the unanimous ruling applies only to Quebec, it is sure to bring similar cases in other Canadian provinces and give impetus to a growing movement pushing for public and private care.
Government leaders rushed to defend the current system, and Medicare supporters voiced fears the ruling will bring a two-tiered system favoring those with money and possibly hurting care for the poor. Proponents of change say it will improve care by offering more choices and cut waiting times for treatment.
The Supreme Court said Quebec's prohibition violated the province's charter of rights by threatening the lives of patients, and the justices noted other countries have successfully combined private and public care.
"The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health-care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote.
"The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition against private health insurance and its consequence of denying people vital health care result in physical and psychological suffering ... ."

(Yahoo! News)
Thanks to the NY Times for nailing this story properly.

Canada's Prime Minister, Paul Martin, uses an illegal private "clinic" for his own medical needs. Such actions are very illegal, but Canadian officials have taken little action against such clinics, because rich and powerful Canadians intend to use them. Despite Paul Martin's preaching against a two-tier system, Canada already has such a system; the dying, and the lawbreaking.

Now, the lawbreaking, at least in Quebec, don't have to sneak into their clinics. Alberta will probably follow suit soon, along with some of the other less-insane-liberal provinces. And, those pesky Canadians can no longer brag about the oh-so-glorious medicare system which they pretend to love. On the downside, the US economy may wince, because thousands of Canadians have come to the US to use our healthcare system without having to wait 20 or more weeks.

Stupid congressperson of the month: Cynthia McKinney (D-Conspiracy)

2005-06-14T14:39:00.000-05:00

From here; the link will probably close soon, so I'll copy the entire story:

A Member of Congress is expressing “grave concerns” over NASA’s Project Prometheus nuclear rocket program.
Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, representing the 4th District of Georgia, is spearheading an effort to find like-minded lawmakers to question the building and deployment of “a nuclear propulsion rocket” – and to protect the public “from the potential of a catastrophic nuclear accident posed by the Prometheus Project.”
In a “Dear Colleague” letter dated May 5 to other members of Congress, Representative McKinney is seeking the support of Members of Congress “for shifting Federal funding from the development of nuclear propulsion systems to research and development for solar and other alternative energy systems that can support our space program.”
McKinney has also prepared a letter for co-signing by her colleagues addressed to new NASA chief, Michael Griffin. “If NASA insists on pursuing this dangerous idea,” the correspondence requests that the Environmental Impact Statement for Project Prometheus also address the military application of the nuclear space work.

Damn, this is a retarded congresswoman (D-Conspiracy) (nice article). First off, the Prometheus Project has no intention of using "nuclear power" in the way that most people understand "nuclear power". Rather, the Project has simply determined that placing a few ounces of something radioactive on a spaceship – and not doing anything to that radioactive substance – can provide a wonderful amount of energy, because radioactive substances decay naturally (they release energy when they decay). There will be no nuclear reactor on any spaceship, despite what Stupidia McCrackhead claims.
But, lets follow McCrackhead's beliefs for a bit, and see where we get. First off, if some 'nuclear disaster' actually releases radiation into space, astronauts may be required to wear protective suits. Can you imagine the horror? Astronauts required to wear suits to protect them from the dangers of being in space! Oh wait, they already have those, something to do with a complete lack of atmosphere and death from decompression. Still, the currently-existing suits would need some protection from radiation, wouldn't they? Actually, they already have that, because the sun emits radiation – visible light is a type of radiation, in fact. Ironically, Stupidia thinks solar energy would be non-radioactive, and thus safe. In truth, such methods only use the radiation that is provided by the sun. Because earth and the sun are some 95ish million miles away, solar panels can't collect that much energy. A block of a radioactive element can provide similar types of energy in much greater abundance, and with the same efficiency no matter how far the craft is from the sun.
Since radiation in space may be harmful, as Chucklewit here suggests, humanity should undertake a project to stop all that radiation that the sun emits. Don't worry about the fact that Earth will go dark and the solar system will be completely devoid of energy and all life on earth will die either of extreme cold (-400 or so degrees farenheit) or starvation because all plants die without some source of light. No, what's far more important is stopping the sun's Rays-O-Death. Humanity will rejoice in the hypothermia and desolateness of a solar system without the radiation that is the source of all energy on this planet.

Yes, my fellow humans, we must seek self-extinction in order to protect ourselves from the catastrophic radiation that is emanating from the sun.

Where the US government has failed

2005-06-13T22:56:00.000-05:00

The US government, with minor exception for the White House, has failed its international responsibilities. Congress and the House are espousing isolationist economic policies and threatening China – especially risky is their opposition to China's military spending. The US goal should be to peacefully cooperate with China and the rest of Asia to build a prosperous foundation for the trans-Pacific relations that will soon become the most important in the world. However, America's self-serving politicians have sown hostility into the relations; hostility that will be very difficult to overcome as US-Asia economic competition intensifies.
Further, every branch of government has effectively ignored Sudan's genocide. A few words about 'peaceful resolutions' and 'disarmaments' are insults, not eulogies, to the 300,000 who have died thus far. A recent Zogby poll found that the great majority of Americans desire involvement, and 40% of Americans want US combat troops on the ground, despite the need for manpower in Iraq.
Regarding Iraq, some congressmen have claimed that the US plan must be overhauled. Those people do not have an iota of understanding of the conflict in Iraq. I can accurately declare that those congressmen each have two braincells left, and even those are fighting to the death. For each Iraqi civilian who is killed by insurgents and rebels, the US moves closer to its goals, because the terrorism only destroys the credibility of anti-US forces, which have already condemned themselves by refusing to participate in the democratic process. The US must show that it will stick the conflict out until the end, and that the US knows its purpose in this conflict is to ensure the peaceful and successful democratization of Iraq.
Uzbek troops recently killed hundreds of protestors in cold blood, yet Uzbekistan is called a US "ally" in the war on terror and spread of democracy. This is a farce, an insult to the dead (whom the government classifies as "terrorists"), and is treachery to the very ideas that America claims to be supporting around the world. The Uzbek government should not receive a cent from America as it is irreparably corrupt and has thus far capitalized on 9/11 to receive US backing for increased repression of its own people.
The US government has refused to either officially open or actually close the US-Mexico border, and it has done nothing to eliminate the archaic quota system. The authority of the US Border Patrol is either incompetent, corrupt, or follows its own political desires regardless of what is right for the country. The US Border Patrol, as a result, is impotent, despite the heroic efforts of the many who do the real work to secure America's borders. American borders should either be open or closed, but they should not be called "closed" when it is in fact not. Such false labels prevent internal security organizations like the FBI from effectively monitoring those who cross the border and spread ignorance of the real problem. Further, the archaic quota system should be abolished, and immigrants should be accepted based on their abilities. This would provide several million more working-age Americans per year (who happen to be incredibly productive – they have my thanks for attempting the American Dream), which would considerably balance the Social Security "crisis" by augmenting the number of people who pay into the system without withdrawing.
The US drug war has failed because politicians have failed to understand that police officers are humans. No police offer will arrest a 17-year-old for smoking a joint when that kid will have a felony on his record and his life will be ruined. The punishment comes nowhere near fitting the crime, so cops will refuse to enforce the law. With the current laws, cops will only arrest dealers and producers; as a result, that has become something of a national policy. As a result, it is effectively illegal to distribute drugs but not to use them. Public support for the drug war was obtained only by portraying the average drug dealer as a millionaire who profited from the vice and despair of others. That stereotype is disgustingly false – the average drug dealer can make about $3.50 per hour selling drugs, and may have an 8% chance of dying on the job per year (significantly higher chance of dying than they would have on death row, actually). That is why so many drug dealers still live with their moms. The US should significantly weaken punishments for carrying or using drugs; that way, police officers will actually arrest drug users, and potential drug users will be scared away because they fear being caught.

These are simply a few of the places where the US government has horribly failed. I believe my outrage at this incompetence is reasonable.
Comments and emails, as always, are welcomed and beloved.

AlphaPatriot: Pools 100 Times More Dangerous than Guns

2005-06-13T19:22:00.000-05:00

Pools 100 Times More Dangerous than Guns
The "post a comment" stuff does not seem to work, so I might as well make a blog post.

Here's a story you won't see printed in the NY Times or a Hearst paper:
A child is 100 times more likely to drown in a pool than be killed by a gun
They're pulled from backyard pools and bathtubs each year, tiny limp bodies, blue and not breathing.

A young life can vanish quickly under water. A survivor can endure a lifetime of disabilities. Either way, families are torn apart by an almost always preventable tragedy. ...

Levitt analyzed child deaths from residential swimming pools and guns and found one child under 10 drowns annually for every 11,000 pools. By comparison, one child under 10 each year is killed by a gun for every 1 million guns, according to his research, outlined in a new book "Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side to Everything," which he co-wrote with journalist Stephen J. Dubner.

Freakonomics is on the NYT bestseller list. A colleague is reading it and highly recommends it (even though he is a flaming liberal).

Actually, that was in the August 3rd, 2003 edition of The New York Times Magazine. The relevant part of the quote is on page 146 of Freakonomics - the last sentence of the quote, in fact.
I, as a flaming neo-conservative, also recommend the book. I finished within two days. The 'child death' portion compares the effect of popular outrage compared to the actual hazard, which often seem to have an inverse relationship. You know those safety drawstrings on children's clothing? They save about two lives per year. And all that obsessive child resistant packaging? Saves around 50 children per year. I bet more people die per year because they cannot get through the packaging when their life depends on it. And, apparently, those $200 car seats don't really provide much more safety. The only real effect they have is preventing the baby from riding shotgun, in which case the child can become a projectile – if I understand the book right.

Are you tired of politics?

2005-06-11T17:26:00.000-05:00

(note: everything after the first paragraph is devoted to comedy)
Is anyone else sick of politics? I know I am, but that may have something to do with the International Politics class I am taking at a college (though I'll be a highschool senior in a few months). Mind you, the professor is on the left – far left, extremely far left, an the overpriced textbook is a piece of crap. The only source the book cites that I have heard of is the professor (now you know why we are using that book), and the vast majority of the examples it provides attack Bush. So, if you have a politics class and the textbook is by a person named Rourke, you are now warned that you will go through the psychological form of castration.

Time for me to share some of my favorite comedy links.
First, an unlikely source, is the Slogans section of Bomis.com, here
Then, we have The People's Cube (hint: the name comes from a Rubik's Cube that is entirely red)
Another unlikely comes from the wonderful reviews of an armored car at Amazon.com, here. That link should take you to the first hilarious review, most of the chronologically later/top of the list reviews are mild.
In the musical section, we have I Am The Very Model Of A Microsoft Executive(lyrics only). You can find a clip of I Am The Very Model of a Modern Major General by Gilbert & Sullivan for the music.
And, to close the list with a blog – as is proper – we have PointFive. The Stephen Hawking impressions are just short of those on Glenn Beck's radio show, but Glenn requires a subscription to access his audio archive.

URGENT UPDATE on Natalee Holloway: no one cares! For the love of god, more than one person dies in a week, and Aruba's tourism industry should not be ruined by this one incident. As a result of this media frenzy, people are going to cancel trips to Aruba and go to Jamaica because they think it is safer, when Jamaica actually has one of the highest murder rates in the world. By the way, do not try to buy drugs in Jamaica, because more often than not the 'dealer' is an undercover cop, and Jamaica doesn't know of things like "entrapment" or "inconclusive evidence".

For once, some San Franciscians are right

2005-05-28T23:40:00.000-05:00

Surprise, surprise, a minority in San Francisco is actually right, and making itself heard.

article

An exhibit showing Chinese bodies and organs is drawing protests from Chinese-Americans who say the display of corpses is offensive to their culture.
Fiona Ma, a Chinese-American San Francisco supervisor, said Friday she is working with city attorneys to draft legislation that will keep exhibits like "The Universe Within" out of the city unless organizers can verify the consent of people who donated the bodies or their families.
"Chinese culture has very strong beliefs about death," said Ma, who represents a heavily Chinese district. "Chinese people are very private and wouldn't want to have their bodies displayed for commercial purposes."
…
The collection of bodies and organs was once used to instruct medical students in Beijing.

Yes, a San Francisco museum is displaying actual, human, once-living corpses. I emphasizes that the corpses are real because I usually have a hard time believing that dead humans would be put on display, and I assume others have the same difficulties. By the way, these bodies were originally donated for science. Makes you reconsider getting a donor card, doesn't it?

A persistent trait in civilization is respect for the dead. In other words, civilized societies will dispose of corpses in meaningful, respectful ways. Obviously, replacing bodily fluids with a plastic and displaying corpses like mannequins for the amusement and curiosity of others is not exactly respectful.
I do not believe that I need to elaborate my opinions, because (I hope) you agree.

Instead, here are 12 other things to do with a corpse:
1: throw them in the passenger seat of the car and enjoy handicapped parking spaces.
2: cut off the feet for surprisingly good doorstops. Toenails need a bit of adjustment to not scratch the door, and sometimes the big toe should be removed, but that's about it.
3: skin can be used for just about everything. Just look at the nazis for ideas (hint: very effective with #4).
4: run a few wires along a spinal cord, attach a bulb, and you have an adjustable desktop lamp. If you want to go the extra mile, you can use the skull as a lampshade; it is usually attached to the spine, so even less work!
5: got a dog? He'll know what to do.
6: Remove a finger with bolt cutters, go to Wendy's, and order chili. DISCLAIMER: SUCCESSFUL LAWSUIT NOT GUARANTEED.
7: Put the tongue on a stand and spray water on it every few hours. You'll never have to lick stamps again.
8: Ever see a necklace made of shark teeth? Tell friends that yours is the victim!
9: Why use cruise control when you have a life-size autopilot?
10: put the corpse in a kneeling position, cut at the knees, and enjoy the coffee table. Perfect conversation piece, by the way.
11: if you can stab through ribs, the torso makes a wonderful knife rack.
12: play the proper "trick", and those brats will never stop at your house for Halloween again.

Mid-east has water shortage

2005-05-27T17:13:00.000-05:00

What a surprise, the mid-east has problems getting water. Naturally, liberals around the world will demand that "evil western capitalists" (AKA: the US, and only the US) provide free water to everyone.
I have a better idea: 1 gallon of water for 1 gallon of oil. Honestly, the mid-east doesn't use as much water as the western world, so the relatively small amount of water should be sufficient. For example, mid-easterners tend to not take a bath every day, or every other day – baths can be quite rare, actually. Personally, I want my money back from exorbitant oil prices. I think that such a 1-for-1 trade is quite fair, all things considered. In fact, if you look at the price of a normal bottle of water, the mid-east is getting a sweet deal.
This, according to supply-and-demand, is perfect economics. The mid-east has too much oil and not enough water; the US has too much water and not enough oil. I admit, I may be stretching my argument a tad; but, the fairness of the trade still stands. After all, the trade cannot hurt the populace of the mid-east, because money is concentrated in the hands of an elite few. Those elites can afford to lose a few bucks, especially because much of that money is from unfair oil prices.

Your news, nutshelled

2005-05-22T20:19:00.000-05:00

Canada is approaching dissolution, as separatists in both Alberta and Quebec grow stronger in response to the ruling Liberal party's corruption and scandals. Conservatives recently lost a semi-no-confidence vote (153 to 152, the last vote was a tiebraker by the liberal Speaker of the House), but are looking forward to the weeks or months that they now have to consolidate support in order to overthrow the Liberal government (that means some party other than Liberals will come to power, it won't be an actual revolution). Alberta, Canada's by-far most successful economy (it has more oil than Saudi Arabia) would likely support a movement to separate from the rest of Canada. Alberta is the only province run by Conservatives; everywhere else has been dominated by Labor or Liberals. Alberta is ticked off that money is being taken from it to support useless social programs in Ontario, a liberal stronghold, like a gun registry (how many Canadians actually have guns?), free daycare, and efforts to keep Quebec in Canada. If Alberta separates, it will be the most prosperous (per capita) nation on Earth. Quebec, the home of the Bloc Quebec party, has attempted to separate for several years, but did not regain momentum until recently, due to Liberal corruption focused mainly in Quebec. The Gomery Inquiry has cited $250 million abused by the Liberals (multiply by ten to convert to American proportions), but the investigation has yet to finish – this is the main scandal/corruption in Canada, though it certainly is not alone. Conservatives and Bloc Quebecies have formed an alliance that leaves them one seat short of enough votes to overthrow the Liberal government, and they will each likely gain seats in the upcoming elections.
Some wonderful summaries here and here, and The Economist has a few comments here.

France is on the brink of rejecting the EU constitution that it helped found. The "non" ("no") side is supported by 52% of those who say they have already made a decision on the referendum, and opposition parties have come out of the woodwork to oppose the referendum. Some of those parties are from the extreme right, which usually operated silently, but held rallies over the last few days; and socialist and communist parties. Many have blamed France's poor economy (10%ish unemployment, slow growth) on the cheaper labor provided by Eastern Europe. President Jacques Chirac himself blamed the former-Soviet satellites for Frances problems until he realized that France could refuse the EU Constitution. Recently, some political leaders have cited France's historic role in the world, rather than just Europe, as a reason to preserve a French identity, rather than a conglomerate European identity. Others have attacked the idea of 450 million Europeans being governed by a group of 18 bureaucrats in Brussels, Belgium.

In Germany, chancellor Gerhart Shroder is seeing his Socialist Democrat party erode. The party suffered a defeat in the powerful North Rhine-Westphalia state (the most populus in Germany) – it had 37% of the vote while the main opposition, Christain Democrats, took 45%. The Social Democrats have lost votes throughout Germany, with most of those votes going to the Christian Democrats. Analysts believe that Schroder is losing support due to his failing welfare reform programs, high unemployment, and near-nil economic growth. Over the last 4 years, German economic growth passed 1% only once. The US has 3-4% growth per year. Schroder has tried to improve the German economy by cutting corporate taxes and improving the business climate, but those efforts had no effect except to shrink Schroder's support. Schroder is expected to continue leading the Social Democrats, and his main competition is Angela Merkel, the expected leader of the Christian Democrats, who will become Germany's first female chancellor if Schroder cannot consolidate his support.
Good article on the subject.

Those are the most important stories of the day, though China's domestic problems also deserve a mention. And, by the way, make sure you watch the Star Wars Episode 3: A Lost Hope spoof. Many times. Probably the funniest 6 minutes of the year.

Britain wants to punish hard workers with more work

2005-05-22T15:21:00.000-05:00

"Successful people: we would all be best off if, the day you retire, you slit your wrists with the remnants of your shattered dreams"
Article
Don't you just love the British?

University graduates may be barred from receiving a state pension until they are 70 under proposals from Tony Blair’s pensions supremo to solve the looming crisis.

Adair Turner, head of the government’s Pensions Commission, says lower-paid workers could, however, still retire on a full pension at 65 to reflect their lower life expectancy.

Just one little comment; wasn't that socialized medical system supposed to even out life expectancy?

Back to the point: Britain is telling successful people that, because they manage to stay healthier, they must work longer in order to support the lazy idiots who do not know how to maintain a proper diet. In the US, we reverse this stupid idea: we force the voluntarily unhealthy (like smokers) to pay more to cover the additional costs they put on the medical system. Britain should realize that the people who do not work hard enough to advance through the career ladder should work longer to make up for their lazyness.
Additionally, the change would not be based on income, or anything actually relevant to retirement. Rather, it would be based entirely upon whether or not the person went to a university. By the way, you should take a look at how Britain decides whether or not you can go to a university. I'll give you a hint: it takes the decision out of your hands and gives it to the government. Those who work hard in the British equivalent of highschool (and thus are most likely to work hard for the rest of their lives) go to college, where they work harder. It is almost certain that the college-educated are, by far, the hardest workers in Britain. If retirement age for them, and them alone, is raised, they will be punished for actually achieving something in life.

Frank Field, former Labour welfare reform minister, said: “I think the idea is wonderful, but how do you make it a practical policy?” Sir Malcolm Rifkind, shadow work and pensions minister, said: “Changing the entitlement depending on whether you went to university would not only be wrong in principle but almost certainly unworkable.”

Thank you, Malcolm Rifkind, whom I shall officially entitle "The Smart Briton". I nominate him for King of England! The current king looks like he is chronically stoned (I think he is quite racist, too), and the queen is getting too old to give the monarchy a reason to exist. Do not get me wrong, the Queen has her wits, but not in abundance.

Ironically, the wealthy are far more likely to retire earlier. They would still be free to do this but may not receive any state support until the age of 70.

There is nothing ironic about it. The wealthy can afford to retire earlier, so they will most likely do so on average, especially when government programs are as stupid as those in Britain. If you have $100 million, what can you really do with it? Buy a mansion, and it is blown up by Sinn Fein (Irish terrorist group). In fact, if you try to do anything with it, taxes cut that money into a fraction.

Personally, I do not want any government screwing with my retirement or my ability to go to college. I would rather save my own money and retire how I want to, not how some government official wants me to, because government officials only want their jobs to be easier and to garner as many votes as possible (if they are elected, that is). I do not want any part of my life controlled by some politician who cares only about himself. That is a recipe for disaster.

Spam's not just on the internet

2005-05-15T22:43:00.000-05:00

I am not talking about food. I am talking about the "free" credit cards that I get through the mail on an almost daily basis and the "you've won something, give me all your money!" contests. It should be illegal for credit card companies to send those cards to every person in the nation. It should also be illegal to charge more than 10% interest. Just imagine how much money you would save, not to mention the headaches, if credit card companies stopped advertising altogether – internet, TV, newspapers, radio, everything. It seems like half of the non-google internet advertisements are for credit cards, and the rest are all scams.
Speaking of scams, internet access to Indonesia and the Philippines ought to be cut. Most of the credit card orders from those countries are made with stolen cards. In fact, most of the ordered items are from American companies (which then have to bear the costs of everything they sent) – and very frequently small companies that get destroyed by a single $5,000 order with those stolen cards. Yes, Indonesia and the like are hubs for stolen credit cards, not only harming the American credit-card holder, but destroying small companies. My dad owns a small business (pilots supply store, to be exact), and he gets $10,000+ orders from Indonesia at least once a weak – and the people who place the orders have a big stack of stolen credit cards that they go through, often sending about 5 different numbers in the hope that one manages to get through. If nothing else, the CIA should send operatives to take out some of those scammers. Destroy American companies and the future of the company's manager through non-legitimate methods (like competition), and you forfeit your life. I really do not care if it causes an international incident, because Indonesia has been nasty to the US anyway, even when we were saving the lives of tens of thousands after the tsunami. The Indonesian government forced our aircraft carriers miles away from the islands where relief was needed, resulting in much longer flight times (which hurt the tsunami victims), wasted resources, and putting American lives in danger. I can list a dozen other grievous offenses that should not have been ignored, but it is a waste of time. The first is enough. Indonesia is not a friend of America, it is sucking away America's hard-earned resources and destroying the finances of thousands of its citizens.
I have worse complaints about Mexico, but that is for another post.

It is past time for the US to crack down on the activities of credit card companies and on credit card fraud – of all types. Why do I say "of all types"? Because corporations commit credit card fraud, too. AOL is notorious for double-billing customers, and refusing to cancel charges months after subscriptions are cancelled. In fact, AOL made a $500 million settlement with the Security and Exchange Commission to avoid criminal charges. The Security and Exchange Commission needs a whack upside the head for letting AOL get away with stealing from customers. AOL executives should have been sent to prison. But, apparently, punishment is inversely proportional to the amount of money stolen.

If someone is going to steal from me, I at least want them to be a quality, professional con artist, so I at least have an incredible story to tell at Thanksgiving. I am talking about a real artist, the type that has almost ceased to exist. If I do not get around to it soon, please remind me to write a post about how a real con artist works. I have a few historical examples from an interesting book, The 48 Laws To Power, that I believe should be better understood. And, by the way, the show Con is disgustingly fake.

Koran desecration is a right, whether Saudi Arabia likes it or not

2005-05-14T22:31:00.000-05:00

It seems that some Muslims are angry about alleged desecration of the Koran at Guantanamo Bay. First, I have to quote and re-phrase that quote. Original:

Muslims believe the Koran contains the actual words of God.

translates to: Haha, those simpletons think god actually cares about them. How cute!
Seriously, that looks like a stupid thing to put in an article. It seems to have the exact connotation I described.

Now, I have a knee-jerk reaction to those hard-line protstors who are torching things in the streets: YEAH! How does it feel, you assholes! You like that! HAHAHAHA!!!

Exactly.
After all the "American is the great satan, the satan I tell ya!" and burning of American flags and Bush effigies, I think those extremists deserve the chance to see how it feels. You tried to use the Koran to justify 9/11, you morons, you have no right to bitch when some troops decide they don't like to Koran.

Here is the trick, Muslim fanatics: stop using the koran to justify murder, opression, and the execution of women for entertainment, and maybe Americans will start regarding the koran in a non-negative light. For all I care, the fanaticos can burn all the bibles they want; I willll think they are crazy, but I will not care enough to do anything more than regard them as crazy. But, to these Muslims, anyone who so much as spills some grape juice on the koran should be put through Saddam's industrial plastic shredder. Feet first.

Saudi Arabia announced "deep indignation" at reports of koran-abuse. Saudis, shove it. The minute we pump oil out of ANWR at a decent rate, we are taking all of our troops out of your country. And they won't go quietly, oh no. They will destroy everything that doesn't have an American flag on it (or maybe the white flag, more as a request to not be harmed than a surrender, but we'll be nice about it). We'll be sure to bomb that House of Saud, or whatever the place is that the entire Saudi royal family goes to, several times. They deserve it. In Saudi Arabia, teenagers will grab a knifge and look for Americans to stab when they are bored. That's how extreme the propaganda is. Also, Saudis are told that 9/11 wasn't caused almost entirely by Saudis, they were told that it was either a Zionist plot, or caused by competition between US and British bootleggers (no one has any idea where that last one came from).

Now here is something from Condi Rice that really ticks me off:

Disrespect for the holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States,

Listen, Condi: say whatever you like to Saudis to keep them happy. Whatever. The more you lie to them, the better – good rule of thumb to have. But, desecration of the Koran will be tolerated. You are NOT about to take away some of my rights (though this particular one isn't exercised all that much, it relates closely to other forms of freedom of speech), especially because Saudi Arabia is unhappy. If Saudi Arabia is unhappy, GOOD!! The angrier the Saudis get with America, the better. Remember, this is the home country of almost all of the 9/11 highjackers. Saudi Arabia's largest goal is to destroy America. And, Condi, do not call it the "holy" Koran, it is just "the koran". Unless the Koran can encourage some holiness – like not strapping bombs to your chest or car to kill innocent civilians, or killing Jews, or killing women, or killing infidels, or killing Muslims who are not in your particular sect – you know what, when you just stop killing people and using the Koran to justify it in general, the US government can consider tagging "holy" onto "Koran". At its present state, the Koran has relatively little holy to it. Hate to say that to the good Muslims, but, sorry; you are being silent while radicals are taking over your religion. Want some respect and to be separated from fanatics? Then separate yourself from the fanatics as quickly and completely as you can!

I think I am the first one to give any justification for the desecration of the Koran, or defend the right to do such, which is a bad sign. Where are the people with balls who go on the media and expose idiots for their hypocrisy?

Doing Intel Right

2005-05-14T16:31:00.000-05:00

I meant to write about this a while ago, but I never got around to it, until I wondered why I tagged "MUST BLOG ABOUT" on the link in my favorites menu (which has about 500 links in total, so "important" and "MUST finish reading" are rather common). After re-reading a few paragraphs, I remembered how excellent this article is, and how much it actually changed the way I think.
Herbert E. Meyer on Intelligence on National Review Online

I'll quote the most-summarizing parts that I can, but don't use these as an excuse to not read the entire article. Since I quote most of the article, you're best off reading the real thing at the link, but I'll quote anyway so that I have something to more clearly reference.

Since the National Intelligence Estimates were the most important products of all — they are the judgments and projections that reflect the combined wisdom of all the dozen or so agencies that comprise the intelligence community — Casey poured a lot of energy into getting the estimates right.
My job was to manage production of these estimates, and one day early on Casey issued these instructions: "Look, I want the president to see where we disagree and to understand what the argument is about. Sometimes these guys at the Defense Intelligence Agency have a very solid point but they don't say it very clearly. They're soldiers, not wordsmiths. When they come in with a dissent, you go meet with them. Understand what they're driving at, then write it yourself and clear it with them. Then let's put the dissents in italics in the estimates so that no one can miss them."
Casey was never bothered when an estimate read like a shouting match and revealed that the intelligence community was split wide open on an issue. And if the finished product didn't reflect his personal judgment, he could always send an "eyes-only" memo to the president and know it would be read.
In addition, we often bounced the drafts of our estimates off experts from outside the intelligence community. Over the decades Casey had accumulated an astonishing rolodex of contacts throughout the world in business, politics, government, and academia. I also knew a few people. When we had the draft of an estimate in hand, we would sort through our rolodexes and then arrange one-on-one meetings with whomever we thought was knowledgeable about this particular issue. Sometimes we would meet in Casey's office — and the analysts were always circling outside, looking worried that the expert would tear their work to shreds. More often — and the analysts never knew this — we would meet with an expert in the evening, at Casey's house or at mine. On a couple of occasions I went overseas to meet with an expert whose opinion we really wanted. We couldn't show the classified estimate draft to the expert, but we didn't need to. We just walked him or her through the draft. (And since these people weren't stupid, they understood precisely what we were doing.) We would come away from the conversation either confident that we were on solid ground or queasy enough to take the draft apart to see where we might be going wrong. Every so often, we wound up shredding the draft completely and starting all over again.
Even with all this, it's possible to go wrong because we humans have a tendency to hear what we want to hear and to filter out whatever doesn't suit us. So we had an internal "fail-safe" system to minimize the chances that we would be so much in love with our own judgments that no inconvenient fact could stop us. It was called the senior review panel (SRP) and it was composed of four savvy and immensely experienced individuals whom Casey had cajoled out of retirement to lend a hand. Among the four — membership in the SRP changed over time, of course — were one of the State Department's most revered career ambassadors, an Army general who had spent much of his active-duty service in military intelligence, and a former CIA officer who knew his way around the ultra-secret world of satellites and electronic intercepts.
…
If you've been a diligent reader of recent articles and commentary about the intelligence business, you probably have the impression that collectors collect what they can, then forward their reports, intercepts, and photos over to the analysts — who then read through all this stuff until their eyeballs bleed. This is a formula for disaster. If you don't have a clear grasp of what you're looking for, it's virtually impossible to discern a pattern from the overwhelming torrent of information that's washing over you. Just imagine standing in the middle of a Wal-Mart, realizing you've left your wife's shopping list on the kitchen table — and hoping that if you just walk up and down the aisles you'll somehow figure it out.
Here's how the intelligence business really works: You start with a hypothesis, which is a leap of imagination based on your expertise, your judgment, and your "gut-feel" about what you think is really going on. Then you figure out what you would expect to find if your hypothesis is correct, and you convey all this to the collectors so they can get to work.
…
Of course, there are dangers in developing a hypothesis and telling the collectors what you want. They can try to please you by providing whatever bits and pieces they can find, even though these bits and pieces aren't an accurate reflection of the truth. Or, if the collectors cannot find the indicators you are seeking, you can cling to your beloved hypothesis and blame the collectors for their inability to find what you know is really there — rather than admit that your hypothesis is just plain wrong. It's always a judgment call, which is why it's so important that the individual in charge has not only brains, but intellectual integrity.
And sometimes, everything depends on a director who has all this, and also the courage to go with his instinct — that un-quantifiable gut feel for where the big payoff lies. One of Casey's great predecessors was John McCone, whom President Kennedy made DCI after the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco. McCone was an older version of Casey — savvy, street-smart, knowledgeable about the world and Washington, deeply religious, seriously rich. The two men liked each other a lot, and from time to time McCone — frail but razor-sharp — would stop by for a chat. One day after the two had finished their private conversation and Casey had left the building for a Cabinet meeting, McCone had some time to spare and he very kindly stopped to talk with me. Our conversation turned to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, and McCone told me a story I'd never heard before.

As the crisis built and as members of Congress were warning that Khrushchev was placing nuclear missiles in Cuba that could reach the U.S., the CIA bureaucracy insisted that there were, in fact, no Soviet missiles in Cuba. McCone ordered that a U-2 flight be sent over the island to find out, one way or the other. It would be a dangerous mission — obviously dangerous to the pilot, less obviously a potential causus belli if the spy plane got shot down and Congress demanded that the U.S. retaliate — and opposition to sending the U-2 was strong at the CIA and the Pentagon. McCone insisted, the U-2 flew, and when the film it took was developed and studied by the experts, there were no missiles. McCone ordered a second U-2 flight, and the opposition was even more ferocious. But he insisted, the mission was flown and — again, no missiles. I asked McCone what happened next. "Oh, my," he said. "I'm afraid I wasn't very popular in Washington that week, because I ordered a third flight." And when the film from that third flight showed no missiles, McCone ordered a fourth, and then a fifth. It was the sixth U-2 flight that found the missiles, and the rest is history.
(McCone sent the additional flights because "he knew, just knew, those missiles were there")

Intelligence isn't org charts. It's people. Put the wrong people in charge and they will screw up no matter how perfectly our intelligence community is structured. Put the right people in charge and they will overcome whatever structural flaws there may be and get the job done. The future looks very promising. President Bush's choice for the new post of director of national intelligence is Ambassador John Negroponte, one of the most experienced and effective diplomats in American history. His deputy will be General Michael Hayden, who has been running the National Security Agency and who knows the collection business upside down, backwards and forwards.
…
But if all their time and energy is drained away messing with budgets, fighting turf wars with the Pentagon and the now-downgraded CIA, testifying before the dozen or so congressional committees that have intelligence-oversight responsibilities, and coordinating the agencies that comprise the intelligence community, they won't have any time or energy left to do the one thing that will actually make a difference in the quality of the intelligence delivered to the president and his top advisers: to sit quietly in their offices, alone, with the draft of an estimate in one hand and a pencil in the other, weighing the estimate's evidence and conclusions, then matching what they are reading with their own judgment, experience, and instincts.
Their success will depend not on their administrative skills, but on their talent for "doing Intel" right. So will our lives.

OK, so that's a lot of quote.
I don't think I can write anything comparable to the above, so I won't try.

Border Patrol told to stand down in Arizona

2005-05-13T05:11:00.000-05:00

article

U.S. Border Patrol agents have been ordered not to arrest illegal aliens along the section of the Arizona border where protesters patrolled last month because an increase in apprehensions there would prove the effectiveness of Minuteman volunteers, The Washington Times has learned.
More than a dozen agents, all of whom asked not to be identified for fear of retribution, said orders relayed by Border Patrol supervisors at the Naco, Ariz., station made it clear that arrests were "not to go up" along the 23-mile section of border that the volunteers monitored to protest illegal immigration.

In short, it looks like the Minutemen project was wildly successful. However, many idiots think it would be a bright idea to have an "immigrate now, registerr later/never" policy. I think that it may be about time for sizable donations to be sent to the Minutemen, or a similar group, and allow them to act as permanent border guards. That would get Congress of its ass. Anyway, it's great to see some acknowledgement that the Minutemen did a good job.

Phantom of the Opera - 7 of 7 Stars

2005-05-07T18:26:00.000-05:00

I just rented the DVD, and it's excellent. I can't imagine what it would sound like with a good surround sound system. Some of you are probably wondering why I picked "7 of 7 stars", rather than the more traditional 4 or 5, or the occasional 10. 5 doesn't convey the difference between very good and excellent/great, while 10 is way too broad. Don't get me started on 4 stars – that leaves no room for "eh, kinda good, I guess", much less distinction near the extremes.
Anyway, Phantom of the Opera is a great DVD. The direction is magnificent (only one short clip, about 1.5 seconds long, do I think really should be removed, though it probably has significance that I don't know about), the music is unbeatable, actresses are hot, and it sounds magnificent. The movie also has a fairly well-choreographed swordfight, though that's not the most dramatic part of the movie. Phantom of the Opera makes you wonder how the daily TV soap operas survive in comparison.

In short: rent the DVD, and if you haven't set up your surround sound system yet, this is the time to do it.

Iraqi Sandstorm

2005-05-02T17:02:00.000-05:00

some excellent pictures

When this is the worst news from Iraq, we know the US strategy is going well.