Thursday, August 31, 2006

Some Stats on the UN

Things you might want to know about this almost worthless organization. We are accustom to tantrums and tirades from various members and representatives but how does the organization really stack up.

Let us first note that there are 192 member nations. Some of these members I have never heard of in my life. I consider myself well read and rather strong in geography and history, yet many on the list had me completely stumped. How many of you know where Andorra is?

89 of the 192 are fully "Free" nations, or 46%. Visit Interactive Map of World.

Top ten countries subject to UN human rights criticism in 2005
First place: Israel (106)
Second place: Sudan (68)
Third place: Democratic Republic of the Congo (38)
Fourth place: Nepal (35)
Fifth place: Myanmar (32)
Tied for sixth place: Burundi and Colombia (31)
Seventh place: Côte d'Ivoire (29)
Tied for eighth place: Afghanistan and the United States of America (27)

U.S. contributions to the UN in 2005 totaled: $5,327,276,000.

The exclusion of Israel from full UN participation Much of the operations of the UN, including appointments and elections to UN bodies, closed-door negotiations, and information-sharing sessions, take place in the context of five regional groups.
Eastern Europe
Latin America and the Caribbean (GRULAC)
the Western Europe and Others group (WEOG).
All UN members are a full member of a regional group except Israel. Israel is merely a temporary member of WEOG for a limited number of purposes.A number of WEOG countries refuse Israel's full membership, though preferring not to be identified and to act under the cover of European unanimity.
Hold-outs have included France, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
The exclusion of only Israel from full membership in a UN regional group is a violation of the UN Charter, which promises "the equal rights of nations large and small."

Israel is the only nation singled our with a special UN committee for the sole purpose of investigating violations against Palestinians by Israel.

Given just this little bit of information, what hope do we have of anything good coming from all this?

Labels: ,

Who Can We Trust?

Once again, I would like to recommend an article written by JB Williams. It is called, "Deaniac Democrats And National Security". The article hit home in several areas for me. I will quote a section that has significant meaning.

Democrats have repeatedly stated that they think the war on terror is a police matter, not a military matter. In typical liberal form, they fail even after 9/11, to see the need to fight. Yet they still believe that average Americans will trust them with their lives and the lives of their children. America has a multitude of security intelligence agencies complete with technologically advanced tools to hunt, identify, capture or kill people who clearly aim to kill more innocent Americans. Democrats have repeatedly attacked not the terrorists, but these agencies and their efforts to secure our nation. They have repeatedly exposed our most secret security measures and aided and abetted our enemies by doing so. Yet they insist that Americans can trust them with national security on the basis that their idiot core constituency, who
couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper sack, is foolish enough trust them.

While the NSA was busy intercepting intercontinental communications between terror cells that ultimately led to the arrests of a UK terror cell planning to blow up a dozen planes in route to the US, Democrats were busy chasing a partisan court ruling that would stop such intelligence operations. While the CIA was busy interrogating captured terrorists around the globe seeking information that would help thwart the next 9/11, Democrats were busy attacking the CIA for allegedly torturing known terrorist’s committed to killing more innocent people.

Instead of asking how much we trust them with national security, a more appropriate question might be, whose side are they on in the war on terror anyway? Best I can tell - they have done more to help our enemy than they ever did to defend America and that does nothing to breed confidence in them.

Does the American majority truly trust Deaniac Democrats with national security? I’m dying to know how and on what basis.

Americans are not overly happy with Bush either. But most are looking for someone even stronger on national security, someone willing to profile the terrorists at our airports instead of strip searching little old ladies in an effort to avoid offending the
terrorists, someone willing to actually close our borders until we can feel secure in the knowledge that nobody is entering this country without our approval. Two more vital security measures Democrats oppose…

We must ask ourselves, who is going to stand up and do what it takes to save this nation? Most of us want more action and less appeasement, yet all the vast media sources will swear it is the opposite. I don't know anyone who doesn't think much work still needs to be done. So far it looks like 2/3 of our leadership need to be tossed out on their can and replaced with real America loving passionate patriots who will put this country first over politics. If one of these people ran for office they would receive overwhelming support. If anyone reading this know someone who is running for any office who fits the bill, let us know so we can spread the word and send them support. It is high time that America is once again led by the best and brightest. We have suffered to long under mediocrity and laziness.

Will the Real Americans Please Stand Up?

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

When do you say life begins?

I know this is a pretty heavy topic, but it all comes down to only five points of view. I think much of what divides us on life issues could be better dealt with if we had a handle on this. We have many different issues that need to tackle this question. Issues like abortion and stem cell research come to mind almost immediately. Generally speaking, you will find the battle lines usually get drawn around religion. Let us set religion a side for the moment and look at the five points of view that actually drive the debate.

First, there are those who believe that life begins when the egg and sperm come together. Their combined information sets cell division in motion and what will ultimately be something new, begins. Yet, is that where life begins? This activity seems to have some independents, but it can not complete its task without some help.

Second are those who believe that life begins when the fertilized egg implants itself in the uterine wall. At this point the egg hooks into the supply line to feed that which has begun. This egg is not much different than those of the first group accept that it has found a source that will help it to complete its mission. Does this act of determination, make it the beginning of life?

Third, there are those who believe that life can only be so claimed when it can be sustained with some level of independence outside the womb. These same often allow for whatever medical intervention is available. Currently we are seeing survival as early as 20 weeks. Does the ability to exist away from the mother declare the start of life? What if science allows for even earlier separation? Is the definition of life fluid?

Fourthly, are those who believe that birth alone represents the defining moment. As long as the child remains inside the mother its dependence denies it the declaration of life. Some would even argue against major medical intervention. Does full independence allow life to be declared?

Finally, there are those who simply don’t care. They simply look at things from a “What’s in it for me?” point of view. They made the cut and see little use for others or this debate that rages. If there is a net positive for them that life is to be so declared, they would be all for it.

These five different perspectives on the beginning of life often move the debate all over the map. Once you get an angle on one group, you will find yourself at odds with another. The debate often lacks clarity because all sides toss it around at the same time. Often the debaters themselves haven’t decided where they fit.

Looking over these five groups you could see where the first and second group could easily be brought together. I think even with a little work and some advances in science, the third group would throw in with the first two. The last two groups will often come together, but their unity is complex. The abortion crowd can be found in these last two. The embryonic stem cell research crowd usually comes from the last three.

This is indeed a tough debate, but defining the players makes it easier to handle. First, you got to decide where you fit. Then when you find yourself in one of these awkward debates, try and get the other person to choose a position. It’s a lot easier to debate a fixed position then one as fast and mobile as this one.

Labels: ,

Friday, August 25, 2006

Global Warming and Facts - Opposites

Yes, they are still banging on this issue. I realize that it pales in comparison to the WOT and national security, but if we don't pay attention they may be able to pull a fast one on us. These fanatics are constantly working to gain attention and money from congress. Since we each have a sizable stake in how our money is handled, we best not lose track of the little things.

Al Gore's movie has been a topic of discussion in many arenas. The part nobody seems to actually focus on is the quality of the information and how it compares to the actual observable facts. We instead hear various comparisons that basically state, "My scientist is better then your scientist." We hear so little discussion on meat and potato issues of global warming. Let's look at some of the basic issues.

Every time someone talks about global warming, we hear about green house gases. Yet, the only one we hear about is CO2. Let me point out H2O (water) as a significant part of these gases. Water as it evaporates and participates in our atmosphere often turns to clouds. Clouds by the nature of their color reflect heat energy away from the planet as well as trap energy from escaping. Much like insulation the clouds offer significant perfection from temperature shift. And like insulation they do slowly lose trapped heat or cold without adding additional energy to the package. Putting it simply, without clouds the planet would heat up quickly from solar radiation and then cool very quickly when the radiant energy is turned away. Let us also note that adding heat energy also increases evaporation, hence increasing clouds. This cloud increase reduces radiant energy from the sun and ultimately returns a net cooling. This cycle is repeated over and over again creating a basic balance that we enjoy. This natural balance keeps our planet livable and quite capable of dealing with subtle changes.

Pollution is another key issue that global warmers will point to as a key factor. Let me offer a couple of key points here. Air is a terrible insulator or conductor of heat. Microscopic airborne particles have a limited capacity to store radiant energy and in quantity may actually block real storage of heat from the planet. I would site the many major eruptions of volcano's that have been prov-en to drastically alter the temperature in their wind trajectory. This huge increase in particulate matter has caused major temperature reductions not increases as these global warmers would have you believe. Pollution would be a far better fact used by the global coolers.

Almost all of our heat comes from the sun. We do have core heat that demonstrates itself in eruptions but the sun is what makes our temperature livable. Would it not make more sense to look at the source of our heat? I can't tell you how many articles I have read about solar flares and sun spots. These intense storms and solar outbursts hurl immeasurable quantities of radiation out into space. Would it not make sense that the earth would sometimes receive large doses of this energy? Unfortunately, the scientist who propose the sun as the reason for global warming are often ridiculed and dismissed.

What about all the known Ice Ages? None of these global warmers seem to have any answers for the many ice ages that our planet has already experienced. Nor do they have answers for the warm up and recession of the ice afterward. Man and all his modern contrivances didn't exist when these major weather events occurred. I don't think a few thousand campfires by men in caves would have done it.

Lastly, the issue that drives me the craziest, is predicting future weather and temperature shifts when they can't figure out what will happen tomorrow. Unless you are in a pretty stagnate climate area, your weather forecaster is probably only right 70% of the time. Looking a week out, the odds drop to 60%. Looking a month out, the odds drop to around 50%. If it wasn't for past history they probably wouldn't get that close. I can't even imagine the chance of picking the weather 20 years out. I would probably stand a better chance of winning the power ball lottery.

If you don't see a post in a few weeks from today just assume I won and you need to start preparing for a serious heat wave.

Articles of interest:
Gore Sea Levels? By Dennis Avery
Ice Sheets (Greenland) -- Summary
Green Wealth: Funding the Enemy
Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow...By Joseph D'Aleo (Great Charts)

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

What Peace Keeping Force?

I was just reading the new rules of engagement for U.N. troops in Lebanon. Actually, I was reading this news article found here. It was discussing the rules and I was amazed at the stupidity of the whole thing. These rules permit soldiers to shoot in self-defense, use force to protect civilians and resist armed attempts to interfere with their duties. We need rules for this sort of thing? I would think that that would be a given.

What we got here is another demonstration of how politics mess things up. Basic fundamental stuff has to be discussed and agreed to as if it was something unique and special. These basics are reported to take 21 pages to lay out. What kind of idiot wrote this stuff? If anyone wonders why the UN is worthless all you need to do is look at one of these security roles and see why a UN force is to be laughed at not reckoned with. The terrorists are shaking in their sandals knowing that 15,000 troops from defenseless European nations will be showing up to inflict paper cuts with there rules documentation.

Oh, about those 15,000 troops, there may be 4,000 or so if things go okay. Well maybe. France after all wants us to know they are completely behind this and will take control of the whole detail. They will provide an overwhelming force of 400. (No, I didn’t forget a zero.) Looks like they have there standard issue white bandanas, just incase.

The world is at war with terror and we have milk toast responses like this. They simply don’t get it. The only reason no major scale terrorist event has hit France is because the terrorists already know they won. They burned hundreds of cars not that long ago and only got rewarded. I bet Hezbollah is rejoicing knowing France will be leading this group.

It won’t be long before Israel will get their leadership thing straightened out. They will then be able to go in and do it right. It’s obvious the UN will only be there long enough to allow for re-armament and picture taking. The next round of military action will only be worse. The UN and the European Peace force will scamper away with their tail between their legs in a matter of a very short time. Let’s pray Israel is ready.

Labels: ,

Friday, August 18, 2006

What is Un-American?

JB Williams hits a home run with his article, Are People Who Attack American Principles “Un-American”?. The words Un-American and Anti-American are bantered around quite a bit. We have almost grown numb to them. I am glad to offer you something that will help you get a handle on these terms.

America was founded on a very short list of broadly stated yet pretty specific fundamental principles hard to misinterpret, though not so hard to undermine via intentional misrepresentations. All of these principles combine to make up the American way of life, in essence, what it means to be American.

Let me give you the list.

If you are against capitalism, traditional family values, freedom of religious expression, life – liberty and the pursuit of individual happiness through personal effort, the Constitution as it is written, national sovereignty or security, then you are in fact against every thing America is, ever was, and was ever intended to be. And that my friends, is un-American…

Read this article and pass it around. Seems terms are getting pretty muddy in today's world. I'm glad articles like this can help clear things up a little.

Special thanks to JB Williams


How Long Should We Wait?

This is a tough world with hard decisions that need to be faced and made. We are caught in a balancing act between “innocent till proven guilty” and “acting before many suffer”. This contrast plays out quite simply when a cop faces a man with a gun. If the man fails to follow instructions to put down the weapon the cop is faced with this question. Is the man simply confused and wishing to protect himself, or is he determined to do harm to others? Should the cop wait for the results or act on the threat? Would a liberal court blame the death of the man on the cop? After all just because you arrive in a police car wearing a police uniform and shout, “It’s the police! Put down your weapon!” doesn’t mean that you have firmly established your credibility to the now dead man.
We have police and military operating today with a direct fear of facing substantial penalty for simply doing their job the best they can in the situation played out for them. This confusing upside down world has made a mockery of self protection and the use of force. We have troops in the field who are told they can only fire if fired upon. That means every morning they have to look their brethren in the eye and know that one of them has to die or become severely wounded before they can take action. This is the reality of the politics controlling the war.
We at home are still functioning under the country club mentality of it being someone else’s problem. We do very little to get behind the troops and throw our full selves into beating the enemy. Our leaders are still treating the War On Terror like a Sunday football game. Would someone point out to these idiots that some of our boys won’t rise off the field and play another day?
The scary part is our enemy has figured this out. All they have to do is snap a few well staged pictures and we start falling back. We become so busy stabbing ourselves in the back, they can plan a big one or simply sit back and watch the show. America is starting to resemble the puppet. Our strings are showing big time and the enemy is figuring out how to manipulate them.
Before the Israel/Hezbollah war the world’s attention was on Iran. Iran reached out pulled a couple of strings, and fell off the scope. We lost complete site of the 600 pound gorilla in the room. The cease fire is bad for Israel and bad for Iran. They lost their distraction from their nuclear ambitions. I hope someone at the Pentagon kept their eye on the ball. I have no love of war and a great love for this country, but failing to stop what Iran will soon do will cost us all dearly.

So the question is: Do we wait for proof or act? If we wait, how many deaths will it take to bring action? A backpack of a biologic dumped out on a roof park in NYC could kill tens of thousands. A nuclear bomb would kill millions. How long do we wait? What if the sacrificial lamb was Your Town USA?

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

The Mammoths are Coming

I found this article and had to make a comment or two.

Mammoths may roam again after 27,000 years

BODIES of extinct Ice Age mammals, such as woolly mammoths, that have been frozen in permafrost for thousands of years may contain viable sperm that could be used to bring them back from the dead, scientists said yesterday.
Research has indicated that mammalian sperm can survive being frozen for much longer than was previously thought, suggesting that it could potentially be recovered from species that have died out.

Several well-preserved mammoth carcasses have been found in the permafrost of Siberia, and scientists estimate that there could be millions more.

If we reintroduce a species that has been absent from our planet for thousands of years, what complications or problems will we have to over come? I think it is safe to say that all natural predators are extinct. So do we take steps to replace them as well? Should we repopulate the planet with formerly extinct species? I know it sounds pretty far fetched, but we are cloning things. Why not use the natural course of birth given the right DNA information?

I for one would rather see the past stay the past. A furry elephant doesn’t sound too threatening, but what would be next? What would stop someone from a T-Rex? Perhaps a crocodile or a Kimono Dragon would be the surrogate mother. Is Jurassic Park just around the next corner?

Mammoth - it’s what’s for dinner!

Friday, August 11, 2006

Innocent Civilians

These two words seem to come up everyday. We have all grown pretty used to them with the Gitmo prison and all. Israel defines them as dead people around unlaunched rockets holding AK47s. Israel is also familiar with innocent women and children carrying bombs and blowing up busses and businesses as suicide bombers.

So when I hear in the news that Israel lost another couple of soldiers in the battle for their existence, I morn for their families. That same news cast usually follows with a dozen or so innocent civilians died in Lebanon. I now find myself happy with that news. Am I losing my mind, or have I just come to realize that identifying the enemy usually means killing those who are dressed as civilians. In today’s wars our enemies no longer need to worry about fancy uniforms and following rules of engagement. We on the other hand need to get a signed affidavit swearing they are an enemy before we kill anyone.

We constantly hear protestors who tell us that we attack civilians on purpose. Israel just recently went through this. Yet, reality proves to us each day that that is the target of the enemy. Why no protests against them? The fact that we take such pain and effort to spare life is the very thing used against us. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying we need to revert to barbaric means in order to fight at the same level as our enemy. What we really need is to stop treating war like a school sport and realize that dying is part of what happens when bullets and explosives come together in an area. The goal of any war is to Kill the Enemy. Anything short of that is foolish at best.

Let’s stop the games and start winning a war.

Article of Interest: Hard Thoughts about the War

Labels: ,

Saturday, August 05, 2006

Solving Illegal Immigration One Job at a Time

Daniel's Political Musings

I just found this creative way to solve a problem. Follow the link and see pictures and solutions that could work in your neighborhood as well.


Death of the HOV Lane

Back in the days of shift labor and blue collar factory workers the HOV lane was born. It encouraged people to share rides, expenses and reduce pollution and road wear. These were great ideas and served their purpose well.
Yet, America Grew. The common worker found the suburbs and factories started automating. Locating someone who worked the same place and shift as you, became more difficult as schedules changed and population spread out.
Then, "Just in time" supply came into its own in the late 80's and 90's. Just in time ceased shift work as we know it. Employees worked when there was work and went home when there wasn't. Hours became more random and orders became more specialized. We no longer built item "X" and sell it to everyone. We now build similar products with unique properties for each purchaser. This change in how labor is used and the times and structures it falls under has hence changed dramatically.
The once great idea, HOV lanes, has now lost its luster. It is no longer the saving grace of the big city, but has instead become the bottleneck and the producer of pollution. We have produced a labor force that can no longer exist on the original premise of the HOV purpose.
In an attempt to save a dying idea hybrids were added to the HOV. After all, it is an attempt to reduce pollution and save energy. These modern marvels have unfortunately done nothing to solve the grid lock experienced by most cities. In the last couple of years we have seen much greater options in the hybrid, but still the HOV lane remains the desert of the highway. Hybrids and Buses in the HOV lane will only post-pone the issue that really needs to be addressed, should labor be standardized in order to save our cities from gridlock?
If we created some form of labor pool rotation and offered tax incentives for businesses to adopt such programs, could we reduce the perpetual grid lock. Mass transit (the Bus) has never been able to solve the people moving problem. The current “Just In Time” system only further demonstrates how poorly the mass transit model works. Yet, what if we could create a grid by grid rotational traffic pattern that allowed for steady and sustainable traffic movement. I realize that some cities will never have enough roads or highways to move the volume of traffic but what about those who haven’t fully sunk under the weight of their population. I am talking about the cities where rush hour used to be an hour in the 50’s and 60’s. Where rush hour is more like three or four hours and still shows some gaps where good management could smooth out the flow.
If businesses had tax incentives to start and end shifts on specific quarter hour designations and employees were experiencing reduced grid lock and shorter commutes to and from work, would people buy such a plan. The result would be reduced pollution, increased productivity and better family lives.
Reduced pollution would be fairly obvious given the reduction of grid lock. Imagine traveling at or near the designated speed on your commute. Would this not reduce stress? The driver would naturally arrive at their destination better prepared to take on the tasks at hand. The results would benefit both the work and home environments.

Well, what say you? It’s a new idea. I haven’t heard it tried any where. Let’s try and flesh this out a little. What ideas or issues do you see and what other solutions could make this even better?