Wednesday, June 30, 2004

Bush's statements

Why did bush say what he did about turkey entering the EU?

Because he does not want turkey in the EU. He wants to combine them in our NAFT agreement.

Turkey will not get admitted into the EU or the EU will split over some issue in the future and France will be the reason of the split.


I am tired of the socialist crap

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

I really cannot think of a system more fair and equitable than, you keep you money you make and I keep the money I make. I or you want to share that is great, but you don't have to if you don't want to. That is the most fair system I can think of.

via the drudge report


Is the current high school system dead?

School officials want to redesign the traditional four-year high school to allow students to work at their own pace toward graduation.


Under the proposed new plan, students would repeat classes they fail instead of the entire grade and advance to the next level in classes they pass.

Advanced students could graduate in three years while struggling students could take up to five years to finish.

Well I guess standard conservative arguments would suggest things like it will cost more money, require more teachers, and encourage slacking.

I do not see that happening. If anything it would require less teachers by making the school system more efficient. It would also encourage hard work by showing what kids are good at much quicker, though the problem classes for the children could cause problems.

The only real problem I can see is what to do with the fifth year high school students who are only taking one or two classes. The are not full time students, so how is that going to play into the funding formulas. It would free up the fifth year student to go get a job, start college classes, or pursue drugs and alcohol.

I don't know if this idea will work, but it should be tried.

Actually this will force cost to go up, initially. There will be a need for a stronger IT system to track what classes have and have not been taken. Secondly, teachers will no longer be afraid to fail their students, because they know that they will not have to repeat the entire grade. The cumulative results of teachers not being afraid to fail students will result in a higher failure rate in general, though it will also result in more knowledgeable high school graduates.


Tuesday, June 29, 2004

How the fortune cookie ruined the Chinese restaurant business

The Venue

One of the places that you must visit, if you are in the area, is Hunan's Chinese restaurant in El Dorado, AR. This is hands down the best Chinese restaurant that I have ever been to. The only time I have ever eaten there is Sunday after church at the Sunday buffet. This buffet only has eight items, but those eight items are the best examples of that specific Chinese dish ever to be found. While I was there and after I had finished my third plate, I was thinking about the gem at the end of the meal.

The fortune cookie

The cookie has become ubitious. Every single Chinese restaurant that I have ever been to has had these available, either with your check or in a big pile so you can get as many as you want. Was I asleep when the government regulated that ever single Chinese restaurant serve the jewel of the meal. I don't think so, I think this is either the upholding of a very long Chinese tradition or a perverse form of self regulation. I am not sure which, and it does not matter why it has become uniform through this great land of ours, only that the fact is recognized and not disputed for the next point.

The sting

The inherent problem associated with the uniformity of the cookie is that you begin to expect it, and might even judge based on the presence of the cookie. For example, if you took two Chinese restaurants. Chinese restaurant A is an excellent establishment, the buffet is always topped off, the food is always fresh, and it is the best Chinese food in the world. Chinese restaurant B is a seedy place with faded paint, food that is suspect, and has more conspiracy theories about the food than the bush administration. Which one would you choose?

Before you shout out you answer and leave froth over the computer screen, let me pass along this information: Chinese restaurant A does not serve fortune cookies. Can you feel the revolt in your mind, can you feel you body recoil at the thought off walking through the doors at Chinese restaurant A? The once proud symbol of the Chinese culture (at least in America), has become its downfall.

The wrap up

The cookie limits competition and inventive thinking in the Chinese food industry. What would happen if the cost of the cookie rose by a factor of 30. All of the Chinese restaurants would either raise prices (death) or stop serving the cookie (a fate worse than death, slow starvation). Keep this in mind the next time you eat a fortune cookie: the only way to beat the cookie is to abstain from the cookie. You are contributing to anticompetitive forces in the world, slow entrenchment of outdated modes of business, and propping up of an outdated tradition when you eat that treat.

Only you can stop the cookie.



Kerry: Bush Should Push Allies to Help on Iraq

NATO agrees to train Iraqi forces

Looks like Kerry was behind the curve a bit on that one.


Since I decided to codify laws of my life....

I also decided to codify laws of my work.

Writing you own tools instead of using other's software leads to version and support independence, which could save money on the back end.

I wonder if any studies have been done on this topic.


Heh man these guys are not to bright.

Liberal Democrats are having both more abortions--and more abortions as a percentage of their ideological and political group--than either of the other groupings.

As liberals and Democrats fervently seek new voters and supporters through events, fund-raisers, direct mail and every other form of communication available, they achieve results minuscule in comparison to the loss of voters they suffer from their own abortion policies. It is a grim irony lost on them, for which they will pay dearly in elections to come.

Well, normally i would make a crude joke at the moment, but eventhough the children are liberal i still don't want them to die.

Though if this keeps up, the pro-life groups might be able to push laws into effect to stop the killing.



intresting other view point.

Though, the ony what to find they correct answer is to do complex computer modeling.

Sunday, June 27, 2004

Bush's vice president

Could Bush pick a better Vice president than Cheney?

Well, I will put together a list of criteria and rank Cheney on those criteria.

I would rank Cheney fairly high in this area, because of being in office during 9/11 and political turmoil that has been in effect in America for the past few years. I think the people in charge aged years during that period.

I would give Cheney low marks one this level just because of his physical aliments in recent times.

We are very familiar with Cheney, though when you think of Cheney you either think of "Cheney and halliburton" or "Cheney and heart attack". Neither of those are good things.

Ability to bring in voters
I don't think in Bush's case anybody he brings in will bring more voters into his fold. We have had four years of bush, and I think everyone's mind is mad up about him. I don't get the sense that a Vice president would affect or moderate Bush's views in any way. No this time around it is a Bush and someone else ticket, not a Bush slash someone else.

Of course Bush could pick a black, Hispanic, or a woman, and I think that would mix things up a bit. He could pull a Kerry and try to get Hillary Clinton as his VP, that would be funny.

Although I can't get this idea out of my mind.
Bush and Rudolf Giuliani, I know I read about that idea on one of the blogs to my right, but I could not find the post to link to.

I think you could pick someone who scared away voters, but you know actually getting more voters in is really tough for bush at this stage of the game.

additionally, Cheney would have to resign because of health problems for Bush to pick another VP. If he just kicked Cheney out it would look bad and opportunistic.


Saturday, June 26, 2004

One of the things that the left attacks bush...


We this chart show a gradual increase in bankruptcy for the years 1989 - 1999.

The trend abated some in 2000 and 2001, and picked up in 2002.


The total filings for 2003 where 1,660,245

Check it out here.

In fact the BR (bankruptcy rate) has been rising on average for the past 20 years or more.

Has pictures at the bottom and I know you like pictures.

So is it Bush's reckless economic policies which caused more bankruptcies, irresponsible Americans, or evil credit card companies?

The average income of a person who files bankruptcy is $22,000.


The vast majority of bankruptcy filers are not wealthy individuals trying to cheat the system. According to a 1999 study by federal bankruptcy judges, the average person filing for bankruptcy earns just $22,000 per year. Most have suffered a significant period of unemployment before filing. According to a report by Consumers Union, among elderly debtors, 85% cite medical or job problems as the reason for bankruptcy. Consumers Union also says that single moms trying to make ends meet make up a large portion of bankruptcy filers. They note that "a divorced women is 300% more likely to find herself in bankruptcy than a married or single woman, and a divorced woman raising children and trying to collect child support is 500% more likely to end up in bankruptcy."

If the new legislation is passed by this Congress, these changes will be devastating to many people who find themselves out of work, ill, or injured, and over their head in debt.

Given the above information bankruptcy seems to be a social problem that is not caused by Bush, but by more credit, high devoice rates, a slow economy and other such social factors.


A good interview from bush

"These people are willing to kill innocent people. They're willing to slaughter innocent people to stop the advance of freedom," Bush said.

"So the free world has to make a choice. Do we cower in the face of terror or do we lead in the face of terror? I'm going to lead in the face of terror. We will not let these terrorists dash the hopes and ambitions of the people of Iraq."

How simple does it get?

"I hope the Irish people understand the great values of our country," Bush said, "and if they think that a few soldiers represent the entirety of America, they really don't understand America then."

Do the Irish want me to judge their country by looking at the IRA, if that was the case we should have wiped them off the face of the earth years ago.


Very funny


18 is getting closer

i love the net


Friday, June 25, 2004

A funny thought

A person emailed in on a local talk show and said something to this effect.

The left does not want the FCC censor offensive or crude speech, but the left also strongly condemns anything that is not politically correct (or offensive to someone).

Odd, but very funny.


My disdain grows by the day

Kerry, who has been conducting a series of campaign events on science and technology, came to Silicon Valley to tout his plans to create more high-tech jobs and universal high-speed Internet access known as broadband.

While it sounds nice to give America high speed internet.

first, the people will need computers.
Second, owning a computer is a responsibility. It requires regular maintenance much like a car.
Thirdly, do you really want to give computers to people who don't know how to read.

"Kerry said installing a universal high-speed network could expand the economy by $500 billion and create at least 1.2 million new jobs."

Hmm is this like turning the lights on in the south.

I was not alive then, living in a rural area has taught me this, the best want to lay all that line is to put it into the ground. Which that cost lots of money. Also, I bet the government will not lay the top notch stuff, so it will be outdated in about a year. Thirdly, the only thing you can really lay in the ground that will stand the test of time is Fiber optics. Which fiber to your doorstep is not in the near future.

"But Kerry said South Korea and Japan already are deploying networks that are 20 to 50 times faster than in the United States."

And what is the population density of those countries compared to that of America?


Bush needs to do more

"JOHANNESBURG, South Africa -- Hundreds of demonstrators marched Thursday to protest U.S. polices on AIDS, demanding that President Bush do more and stop undermining efforts to treat and prevent the disease."

Why don't you stop having sex with people who have aids. Why don't you demand that you country protect the process which distribute needed blood (i.e. test blood and donors and the like).

"In Johannesburg, about 500 angry AIDS activists, many wearing red and white T-shirts that said "HIV Positive," criticized Bush, saying he had hurt the global fight against AIDS by spending billions of dollars on war."

So is it an anti war protest or an aids protest? I am confused.

And why should America clean up after you mess?

If you have aids you are dead anyways, we should not spend any money on drugs for aids , but money on aids prevention (i.e. information on how aids is transmitted).

They also contended he undermined the global fight against AIDS by limiting access to condoms, reproductive choices and generic drugs.

Hmm if you don't have sex you want get aids, of course when you do have sex and get aids it is Bush's fault. I see now.

"The effect of the U.S. government's unlawful war in Iraq has been to divert international attention and resources away from global health and poverty," Heywood said, reading from the memorandum.

So we needed to allow Saddam to stay in power and spend our money helping you out of poverty. Help the lowest group first, and work you way up the ladder. Which in my opinion Iraq needed it more than most.


Guns and oil workers

Now Saudi Arabia is doing something smart.

"In principle a Saudi has the right to carry a weapon, if he has a permit. Likewise a foreign resident, if he felt in danger he could get a permit to carry a weapon," Nayef was quoted as saying by the official Saudi Press Agency on Thursday.

"I mean a personal weapon which a person can have in his own country," the prince said.

There is one gun in America for every single man, woman, and child.

It is only fair that our workers in other countries who are being attacked finally get the rights that they have at home.

Or course I don't know what the permit situation is like. Is it hard to get? Is it expensive?

But if oil companies take a certain percentage of people and train them in general security and defense tactics. We can at least shoot back, though the enemy will still have better illegal weapons (rpgs and automatics), still I would rather have a gun than no gun.


A deeper view of blogging

I remember learning about the psychological factors of addiction in my college psychology class. The main theme seemed to be random rewards. If you made the reward equal to the amount of work that needed to be done mice would just click the lever until the got the reward, it was easy, predictable , and generated predictable behavioral patterns.

If you made the reward random, such as sometimes the mouse would get the reward quickly after a number of clicks or even instantly. Then sometimes it would take for ever to get the reward. Your random reward pattern would generate truly addictive behavior.

Blogs exhibit a random reward pattern, both for readers and writers who don't receive very many comments (but every once and awhile do).

Thought I would share, so if you notice the number of blogs you are reading going up then you might notice that you are also addicted.


Thursday, June 24, 2004

Where are the memos

Where is all the talk about the memos that the white house released.

not on CNN

on fox,2933,123465,00.html

this link has links to the raw data, I love fox.

I had to dig for this one, though

Why isn't it being posted and talked on the front pages? Maybe it does not help the case of the liberal news networks. Even on fox I had to dig a little bit. Though the memos where released yesterday, though I don't think I would have missed that.


From instapundit


Things like this are going to cause news outlets to take down old pages and only leave the new ones up. That will really prevent people from finding stuff like that in their buried web pages. Or they are going to hire people to find the specific pages and zap them.

That will allow them to say anything, regardless of anything they have said. It will also allow them to say they said anything.


If that is the case then Bush has it.

"Most of our historical work suggests that voters have very short memories and it is really the last year that dominates their thinking with employment tending to be the best variable to predict the outcome," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New York.

If that is the case Bush has it in hand.


If only they would listen...

If only they would listen to the world, and stop their aggression. If only they would put down their weapons and stop killing innocent people. If they would stop their moves to dominate that part of the world. If they would stand up and say they were sorry for the wrongs they have done and the lies that they have told. If they would stop using religion to hide behind the decisions that they make. If they would stop torturing prisoners. If they would work with the world to solve their problems instead of against it. If only they would recognize that peace means working with you enemy not calling them evil.

If only they would stop cutting off the heads of innocent people, the Americans would not have to blow up their safe houses where they store their weapons and their families.


Wednesday, June 23, 2004


I have watched a lot of movies recently, I will try to record my thoughts so that if you ever watch the movie you will know if it is good or not.

As a preface to my movie talk, I don't think during movies. So I never figure out the end before it happens. Even simple plot twist are good ones to me.

Dirty Harry.

This is an awesome movie, which really reflects the views of America at the time. High crime rates and ineffective justice system.

Dirty Harry was dubbed a urban western and that it sure is. The character Dirty Harry is the basis for every single action movie that I have ever seen. Though dirty Harry gives crime a more serious treatment that some other action movies that I have seen (can you say Gov. Arnold). The characters while they don't talk much are real as they can get for not talking much.

This is a movie that you want to memorize the lines to and say to your woman as you are having sex.

Runaway Jury

This is a good solid movie, and you want be disappointed if you see it on video, though in the movie theater you might want a little more.

Their was a lefist agenda along with some good strong scenes. The plot was filled with tension, it moved quickly, and was brought together well at the end.

I would recommend this if you can't find a better one.

Dog Day afternoon.

This movie is about a true story in which Al Pacino plays a bank robber in a heist goes very wrong. Don't let the big names fool you, Pacino plays a homosexual in this film, though not a flamer. This movie follows the true story to the very last detail it seems, which makes the anti climatic ending just like real life (slow moving and very boring). You can skip out on this one and you will just miss a bad story miss a thing.



So is he going to declare all the liberal crazy, well I know that most people think that Dean was slightly off his rocker after the scream, but could that extend the greater population of liberals.

Of is he trying to help the chronically homeless, a group well know to contain a large amount of people to have slipped through the cracks of society and contain a large amount of mentally ill.


Poor in America

I firmly believe that a capitalist society needs a safety net, preferably that safety net should be provided by the non-profit sector. Although that may not be enough. Any entitlements that the government provides should be need based. You want free food, you had better be poor. You want free medical care, you had better be poor. You want retirement, you should be poor.

Finally the easiest want to lift yourself out of poverty is to get a better job and you do that by going to school (or winning the lottery or starting your own business). Which if you want your school paid for, you had better be poor also.

That is why I find this article by CNN interesting.

Many believe admissions boosts for the poor, regardless of race, would be fairer. But for some civil rights advocates, the shift in the debate is alarming. They do not believe socio-economic affirmative action would do enough to help blacks and Latinos.

I disagree with that, if your need based funds are distributed based on need and need alone, the ones who need the most help will get it. Worst case you could make sure the racial break down of you funds matches the racial break down of your particular area. You can't get more fair than that. Anything that goes further to show favoritism is less fair.

Additionally, need based distribution of funds for schools should take into account performance the after the first year. If there is someone who is just as poor as you or poor and who will do better, they should get the money first. Let's through a little competition into the poor school populace.


Tuesday, June 22, 2004

What's my name

"Justice Kennedy adds that if a case arises in which the furnished identity provides a key link leading to the conviction of the individual for a different crime, the court will revisit the issue."

What if I give a false name and that name is associated with several crimes, what do I have to do to prove that is not my name.

I think this case was a no brainer, and really don't care if people scan my information hundreds of times a day. I deal with sets of data that have records into the hundred of thousands, I don't look at every record. I just look for the bad ones causing problems.


Monday, June 21, 2004

Silver platter

We owe Baghdad nothing. Nothing. We've already given Iraq an unprecedented chance to build a humane society and a decent government. If, despite our sacrifices, the Iraqis revert to greed, bigotry and tribalism, we'll need to face the reality of yet another homemade Arab failure and "stand not upon the order of [our] going, but go."

I agree that we have given Iraq a chance to start over again, and they need to take that chance and run with it. I doubt that chance will occur in their life time again, if the people of this Iraqi generation fail, they have no one to blame but their selves.

Though I think that we may owe Baghdad a little something, such as rebuilding the buildings that we blew up and right now we are their primary protector. Of course the obligations are easily meet once the security situation is handled. Once Iraq can stand on its own two feet and protect itself, the only thing that we will owe them is protecting them from outside forces. That will allow them to follow the south Korea model, the get rich quick model.


Sunday, June 20, 2004


Best finishing line ever.

It even beast out "The Boiler Room" closing line, which was great.

I think I just saw the beginning of a new comic dynasty. Zoolander put Ben stiller on the map in my mind, in dodge ball he just bought a 400 acre farm in southern Missouri.

While ben was good in other moives (meet the parents, starsky and hutch), here he showed comic power equal to that of the happy gilmore/billy madison days.

The last time i laughed this much at a movie was office space.


As much as I like the thought...

of these two bastards having their flesh torn and charred by American made laser guide bombs or even American trained Saudi forces, it is a much smarter play to bring in these guys alive.

Although I realize that is very hard to do, though you would think we could send some knock out gas that would make them all go to sleep for a few days. That would be one hell of a chemical weapon.

Instead of killing you opponent, you would just knock them out for a few days while you looked through their stuff. They would wake up to find cute notes written in English in permanent marker on their foreheads, but that would be funny not sad.



Iraq Group Threatens to Kill S.Korean Hostage -TV

The video showed the Korean, who Al Jazeera said named himself as Kim Song Il, shouting violently at the camera: "Please get out of here, here, here. I don't want to die."

I heard the audio of this, the man was yelling /crying "I don't want to die".
It mad me almost sick, i am glad i did not see the video.

Al Jazeera is showing the video. Only question can we bomb their TV stations, can we shoot thier eyes in the sky out. I don't think it would achive anything, but it would make me feel better. Secondly, they are just letting the whole world see what they are. I don't see how any sane person can take anyone's side that does anything like that.

Saturday, June 19, 2004

In response to Gib's post

If 11 people from my country went to another country and blew up some stuff and killed 3000 people, I wonder how would feel.

You really have two options, either you are on their side or you are not on their side. In the case of the WTC, there is no: Well maybe it was ok, or maybe it was wrong. Either it was wrong, or it is justified.

The Arab people either have to accept and support the activity of their countrymen or be strongly against it.

The feeble attempts of rationalization ("How can we inform on our brothers when we see all these pictures coming from Abu Ghraib and Rafah,") only encourages the cycle of violence.

For example, I how could I tell on my American brothers who are killing men, women, and children in Iraq when I see these horrible pictures of men being beheaded.

Answer: You tell on both groups. Your allegiance should be toward the greater humanity not toward you Arab/army brothers.

Also, though the Arabs speak of war, no one wants a war.
Much less the Arabs, remember what the Americans did when we had our backs against the wall in WW2 in the pacific theater, we killed a few hundred thousand cilvilians in a blink of an eye.

In war it is either you or them, and americans don't lose too often.



there were reasons for hope in the city's beleaguered system: test scores were up for a second straight year and the district had its first balanced budget in seven years.

Did they spend more or less money?


Friday, June 18, 2004

If they could agree on something it should be this

Democrats contended that in its rush for bragging rights on missile defense, the administration may be producing an ineffective shield.

"I don't want a make-believe system. I don't want a Wizard of Oz system," said Sen. Barbara Boxer of California.

But Republicans, who hold a majority in Congress, argued that Democrats were trying to derail the effort.

I know this is an election year, and I know that politics plays a part in everything that happens in DC, but I would think reasonable minded people could agree that national security was a top priority.

I consider the fact that the shield has not been operationally tested a valid point. Then again the only way to have them fully test it is to shoot missiles at ourselves, and it seems like that idea may be little risky.

For once I wish they would stop playing partisan politics and actually put this thing into effect and shoot some missiles at ourselves to test the thing out. Or at least shoot them at a random target in the Pacific, and then shoot it down.

I guess they could practice shooting down asteroids, or random large birds.

One random missile is all it takes to make you day really bad.


Thursday, June 17, 2004

Was bored so i ....

rented a movie, and I watched Paycheck tonight. I thought it was a great movie, i also thought that it would suck.

I have decided to codify the lessons of life that i learn into laws.



From the game
Net worth....50,764

After a days worth of playing......

Available Cash ... X$1,516
Value Of Holdings ... X$0
Net Worth ... X$1,516


Iran and its silly morals

Iran's president said his country had no "moral" obligation to stop enriching uranium even as support grew for a resolution reprimanding - but not punishing - the country for blocking a U.N. probe of its nuclear activities.

The draft appeared to echo the sentiments of IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who said Monday in unusually blunt comments that his agency's probe "can't go on forever."

The IAEA may not be they gun them up shoot them up group that we want them to be, but i think that everyone on that board knows what a rouge country with a nuke can do. I hope they take their job very serious.

They had better take their job very seriously they can hit some parts of the EU. And the EU has close ties to NATO, which we are a part of. Once we get involved we will just blow stuff up.


Very good article

The Saudis are downplaying the threat to Westerners, but the danger is great enough for the U.S. embassy to urge that all Americans leave the country. Twenty-nine foreigners have been killed in terror attacks in Saudi Arabia since May 1. There are six million foreign workers in Saudi Arabia, so you might think the odds of survival are good. But most of the workers are Asians employed at menial labor, and are not in the target group. There are only 35,000 Americans. For a point of comparison, ninety-five Americans in uniform were killed in Iraq over the same period, out of a force of 135,000. If the Saudi terrorists can manage to kill one American per day, that will be about twice the death rate facing our combat forces in Iraq. Still like the odds?


Wednesday, June 16, 2004

The republic

For me it always comes back to plato's republic.

What is the best way to stop the cycle of poverty and violence of the inner cities?

Completely remove the children from that environment and instill completely different morals and values (ones which society wants to instill).

What is one of the best equalizers in a capitalist society?


Of course it would not be to the extreme of plato's republic, children would still be able to be children and go home to their parents. At first they would be able to, but the system could morph into something different and unexpected.

Also as a side note in 451 they as shipped their children off to school for long periods of time, but that was so the parents would not have to deal with them.


Uranium and you.

The wacky left is at it again, all they can do is critze. They offer no solution to the problems the suggest are present.
depleted uranium

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military should clean up depleted uranium ammunition scattered across Iraq to prevent future health problems such as cancer and birth defects, a leading anti-nuclear activist said on Friday.

Really, but as phish says:

"I'm convinced the whole day long
that all I learn is always wrong
and things are true that I forget
but no one taught that to me yet"

Scientists Say Uranium 'Dirty Bomb' Would Be a Dud

The "dirty bomb" allegedly planned by terror suspect Jose Padilla would have been a dud, not the radiological threat portrayed last week by federal authorities, scientists say.

At a news conference June 1, the Justice Department said the alleged al-Qaida associate hoped to attack Americans by detonating "uranium wrapped with explosives" to spread radioactivity.

But uranium's extremely low radioactivity is harmless compared with high-radiation materials, such as cesium and cobalt isotopes used in medicine and industry that experts see as potential fuel for dirty bombs.

Come one the left can ever get their story straight on how dangerous uranium is.

Of course the federal goverment is using uranium tank shells and then they are saying that this guy planned on using a dirty uranium bomb (note: they did not say there would be widespread deaths form the radiation, just that "widespread radiation" would occur).

For more informaiton on this stuff check this out:

WHO, Uranium, and You

As of know i think that Depleted Uranium is more radioactive than natural uranium but less radioactive than purified natural uranium, though i am not sure of that.


Tuesday, June 15, 2004

All the kings men

This is from CNN, it is an wonderful article. I wonder how many of the supporters are democrats.

Tatmon, now 23, only vaguely remembers the day Brown walked in and told his first-grade class she would pay for them to go to college -- if they got that far.

Though not all the sponsors are wildly rich, the endeavor does require a significant financial commitment. And just telling a child that college is an option isn't enough. The key is daily contact and mentoring by a caring adult, either the sponsor or a hired project coordinator, Winton says.

If I had the money, I would pay for random poor children to go to college, but I don't know about being a surrogate parent. If I was going to do that, I would tell them just to move in with me, and become their parent, then you can kick their butt when they screw up.

well I am glad someone has figured it out, It takes the involvement of a person (not a government) who cares to help children succeed.


All weekend

All weekend I have been struggling to come up with a more fair tax structure and tax system.

Taxes are necessary and vital. I feel the tax system as it stands now is really unfair.

You get taxed when you make the money, you get taxed when you spend the money, you get taxed when the left over money you have is used to make mo' money, you get taxed on the property that you bought with the taxed money, and finally when you die that money and property that you have will be taxed again.

Although a single point of taxation would seem ideal, I don't think it would work or be more fair, because many taxes pay for certain services that I never use.

I will give an example of an unfair tax in a usage situation.
When you get the tags, title and license for a car you pay fees for that privilege of driving. Which I understand the need to pay fees to support the infrastructure that provides you license, but lets say those taxes where going for something else, such as roads.

Well on the surface it would make sense to pay taxes for roads when you by a car, but let's say you are an old lady that drives twice a week. The tax seems a lot less fair, because you don't use the roads as much as a person who commutes everyday. Although a tax does make sense on gasoline to pay for the upkeep and building of new roads. The more you use the more you pay in taxes.

Although the personal usage tax model makes sense in some cases (national parks could charge higher usage fees), it does not make sense on issues that are harder to judge if you are using them are not. For example, national defense. National defense is not something you can opt out of if you want you (where roads you can ride a bike, national parks you can skip,and so on and so fourth). I have yet to come up with a useful name for the defense model of taxation, or a place that I think it should happen. Right now on my electric bill I pay a 24 dollar county fire tax (which increases my electric bill by about 50 percent), should I be allowed to opt out of that tax because I don't use electricity?

Lets take the usage model and apply it to a common issue: schools. Should the people who have children pay all the usage fees (formerly called taxes) to keep schools running, and the people who do not have children should be left out of such a fee. This would seem more fair because, if you wanted to home school you children you could opt out of the usage fees.

Would that make the price of schools unbearable for certain people (the poor), would the price of school become so expensive that it would be cheaper for parents to quit their jobs and home school their children or would the quality of schools get better because the parents are demanding more accountability, would schools become more accountable with the money they do get because they are answering to a smaller group which is actually paying for the services.

How much would the government have to spend in financial assistance for people who could not pay for school?

On a side note:
Another problem that I have with taxes is that there is not a itemized break down of the federal taxes that I pay and what department is getting the money. I would like to see an itemized breakdown of what percent of money goes to what governmental department, I bet once that happened some departments would disappear, and my taxes would go down.

I was incorrect in saying that we pay taxes when we die. I don't do that often so I am unfamiliar with that.
Death tax may be coming back


Sunday, June 13, 2004

Stem Cell research

I am no biologist, but I can freaking read. And I am tired of every one talking about stem cell research, and using embryos for stem cells. Embryos may be the easiest way to get stem cells (I am assuming that I have never read that to my knowledge), but they are not the moral way. The easiest way to stop crime is kill all criminals, but that is not the moral way to stop crime.

So I am going to give a lot of really interesting links, and you can make an informed judgment on stem cells. As you are flipping through the articles, please check the date which it was written all may not be recent.

Enjoy and you don't have to read all of them, but there are some very interesting ones (well from only reading the titles they are interesting).

It all started here.....

Hopkins Research Team Cultures Long-Awaited Human Embryonic Stem Cells

New Technique Boosts Potential For Growing Stem Cells

Adult Mouse Bone Marrow Stem Cells Can Become Cells Of The Nervous System

Adult Bone Marrow Stem Cells Can Become Blood Vessels

Study Identifies New Source Of Stem Cells

AAAS Urges President Bush To Fund Stem-Cell Research

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) sent a letter to President George W. Bush expressing its strong support for federal funding of research using human stem cells from embryonic, fetal and adult sources

What you can get stem cells from sources other than embryos?!?!?!?

Embryonic Stem Cells Induced To Develop Into Bone Marrow And Blood Cells

Adult Stem Cells Can Produce A Wealth Of Cell Types, Science Authors Report

UCLA Study Identifies Stem Cell In Artery Wall

New Human Embryonic Stem-cell Lines To Be Made Available To Researchers

The new cell lines will be made available to researchers, although at this time United States policies prohibit the use of federal funds to investigate these cells

Scientists Find Potential Stem Cells In Amniotic Fluid---A New Source?

Scientists Find New Way To Grow Human Embryonic Stem Cells

Cells From Fat Tissue Turned Into Functional Nerve Cells

Feeder-free System For Maintaining Pluripotency In Embryonic Stem Cells Pioneered

The above link is important.

Adult Stem Cells From Knee Fat Turned Into Cartilage, Bone, Fat Cells

Human Embryonic Stem Cells May Promise Medical Advances

Scientists Discover Unique Source Of Postnatal Stem Cells in 'Baby' Teeth

Also important.

Ok, that is it I am done.

In short, why use embryonic stem cells, you will have to coax them to the needed tissue anyways, for most uses the adult stem cells are closer to the tissue you want.
Though we might find a tissues that must come directly from embryonic stem cells, we have made techniques that can grow those efficiently.


Friday, June 11, 2004

PV cells are costly

The cost of building a two-kilowatt system is disputed. Environment California says it would cost $10,000 and because of tax incentives and savings on monthly power bills, the net cost would be next to nothing for the homeowner. Advocates say it is important to equip homes with solar systems at the time they are built because it is more expensive to do so afterwards.

I am all for solar power, wind power, geothermal power, tidal power, bio-mass electric generation plants, cow milking machines that are ran on methane which comes from the own cows decomposing poop., and ethanol.

I don't really care about the environment, because eventually we will have the technology to fix it if we want to. I concentrate more on the national security issues. Total energy independence would remove the need to care what happens to the middle east, allow us to export that technology to other countries for a profit, increase our ability to push reforms in the middle ease, and a host of other benefits with very little drawbacks.

But you have to be able to afford the technology, before real people will get it. Real people have to get the technology before it will make a difference.

It seems to me that if it were feasible to use house to generate their own power, a company could pay people to put these things on their houses, and they would get so much per watt. Then the company could sell the power at a slightly higher price to the power company, once the cost of the PV cells, taxes, payments to the people who own the houses, and so forth were done, a person could pocket some money.

That is a great idea, think that if you are reading this, you should copy it down, work out a business model and do it.


Wow, i knew liberals are crazy, but not this crazy.

Unlike the menacing crowds that had smashed shop windows and destroyed property at previous G8 events, most of this year's protesting contingent were content to spend their time chanting, dancing and engaging in soil purification rituals.

Well first off the G8 summit was not held in Europe, that helps a lot. The anarchists and such don't have a lot of cash to travel. It also helps that America has one gun for every single man, woman, and child in the US. That tends to deter random acts of violence.

Also, since any method of traveling their would require the use of a multi-national corporations. Flights, boats, renting cars, and buying gas. So it would kinda been hypocritical in some extent at least, even buying a bike would require the use of a large business most likely.

Secondly, the weather was 90°F and it Feels Like 97°F. I played some softball and I have drank about a liter and half of water, it was hot and you don't protest when it is that hot.


Regan was only a helper?

The Globe and Mail article

Fiction has its place -- especially at the time of one's passing. And so, the American airwaves glisten these days with tales about how it was Ronald Reagan who engineered the defeat of communism and the end of the Cold War.

It was his arms buildup, Republican admirers say, and his menacing rhetoric that brought the Soviets to their knees and changed the world forever. He was a pleasant man, the 40th president, which makes this fairy tale easier to swallow than some of history's other canards. Truth be known, however, the Iron Curtain's collapse was hardly Ronald Reagan's doing.

It was Mikhail Gorbachev, who with a sweeping democratic revolution at home and one peace initiative after another abroad, backed the Gipper into a corner, leaving him little choice -- actors don't like to be upstaged -- but to concede there was a whole new world opening up over there.

As a journalist based first in Washington, then in Moscow, I was fortunate to witness the intriguing drama from both ends.

In R.R., the Soviet leader knew he was dealing with an archetype Cold Warrior. To bring him around to "new thinking" would require a rather wondrous set of works. And so the Gorbachev charm offensive began. The first offering, in 1985, was the Kremlin's unilateral moratorium on nuclear tests. "Propaganda!" the White House declared.

Then Mr. Gorbachev announced a grandiose plan to rid the world of nuclear weapons by 2000. Just another hoax, the Reagan men cried. More Commie flim-flam.

Then came another concession -- Kremlin permission for on-site arms inspections on Soviet land -- and then the Reykjavik summit. In Iceland, Mr. Gorbachev put his far-reaching arms-reduction package on the table and Mr. Reagan, to global condemnation, walked away, offering nothing in return.

Glasnost and perestroika became the new vernacular. For those in the White House like Richard Perle, the prince of darkness who still thought it was all a sham, Gorby now began a withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan. He released the dissident icon Andrei Sakharov and hundreds of other political prisoners. He made big strides on freedom of the press, immigration and religion. He told East European leaders that the massive Soviet military machine would no longer prop up their creaking dictatorships. He began the process of something unheard of in Soviet history -- democratic elections.

By now, the U.S. administration was reeling. Polls were beginning to show that, of all things unimaginable, a Soviet leader was the greatest force for world peace. An embarrassed Mr. Reagan finally responded in kind. Nearing the end of his presidency, he came to Moscow and he signed a major arms-control agreement and warmly embraced Mr. Gorbachev. A journalist asked the president if he still thought it was the evil empire. "No," he replied, "I was talking about another time, another era."

The recasting of the story now suggests that President Reagan's defence-spending hikes -- as if there hadn't been American military buildups before -- somehow intimidated the Kremlin into its vast reform campaign. Or that America's economic strength -- as if the Soviets hadn't always been witheringly weak by comparison -- made the Soviet leader do it.

In fact, Mr. Gorbachev could have well perpetuated the old totalitarian system. He still had the giant Soviet armies, the daunting nuclear might and the chilling KGB apparatus at his disposal.

But he had decided that the continuing clash of East-West ideologies was senseless, that his sick and obsolescent society was desperate for democratic air. His historic campaign that followed wasn't about Ronald Reagan. It would have happened with or without this president. Rather, it was about him, Mikhail Gorbachev: his will, his inner strength, his human spirit. As for the Gipper, he was bold and wise enough, to shed his long-held preconceptions and become the Russian's admirable companion in the process.

In the collapse of communism he deserves credit not as an instigator, but an abettor. Best Supporting Actor.

Ken Adelman

I remember Ronald Reagan with nothing but fondness and admiration.

My first epiphany came early in his administration, when we gathered in a formal National Security Council meeting in the Cabinet Room. Secretary of State Alexander Haig opened by lamenting that the Law of the Sea Treaty (search) was something we didn't like but had to accept, since it had emerged over the previous decade through a 150-nation negotiation.

Mr. Haig then proceeded to recite 13 or so options for modifying the treaty -- some with several sub-options.

Such detail, to put it mildly, was not the president's strong suit. He looked increasingly puzzled and finally interrupted. "Uh, Al," he asked quietly, "isn't this what the whole thing was all about?"

"Huh?" The secretary of state couldn't fathom what the president meant. None of us could. So Mr. Haig asked him.

Well, Mr. Reagan shrugged, wasn't not going along with something that is "really stupid" just because 150 nations had done so what the whole thing was all about -- our running, our winning, our governing? A stunned Mr. Haig folded up his briefing book and promised to find out how to stop the treaty altogether.

That set the tone for the first Reagan administration.

Arms-control negotiations were at the heart of Mr. Reagan's second term. In November 1985 came the first superpower summit in six years. The new Soviet ruler, Mikhail Gorbachev (search), was nearly a generation younger than the president, reportedly brighter and surely more conversant on technical issues.

The summit took place in a private chateau in Geneva. Mr. Reagan arrived first. As Mr. Gorbachev's limo pulled up, the president bounded down the stairs looking young and eager, without topcoat or hat. Slowly out of his car emerged Mr. Gorbachev, bundled for the brisk weather with big hat, thick scarf and huge overcoat. Compared to the sprightly man in his 70s, the Soviet leader looked as cold and lumbering as the country he ruled.

After shaking hands and posing for the cameras, Mr. Reagan pointed at the chateau in a gesture of welcome. They climbed the stairs together, Mr. Gorbachev a bit slower, and Mr. Reagan slipped his hand under Gorbachev's arm -- just in case he needed some support to make it to the front door. The Soviet delegation got the picture.

"I felt like we lost the game during this first movement," press-meister Sergei Tarasenko recounted years later. "We started with the wrong move."

While Mr. Tarasenko watched with disappointment from one side, we watched with trepidation from the other. So far, so good: The president personified a vigorous and forward-looking America. But that was stagecraft. How would our man do on statecraft in the high-stakes summit sessions?

Just fine, it turned out. Mr. Gorbachev, as expected, made the best negotiating points. But the president made all the important points. No, we weren't giving up the Strategic Defense Initiative (search). Yes, we do consider our democratic system superior. No, you can't keep your 100,000-plus troops in Afghanistan.

Yes, we can have another summit in Washington. Always graceful, the president was somehow always on the offensive. On each topic they debated (heatedly at times), it was Mr. Reagan who seized the moral high ground, leaving Mr. Gorbachev surprised and off-balance.

That must have bothered Mr. Gorbachev during the nine months before he proposed the come-as-you-are, October 1986 snap summit in Reykjavik, Iceland. It was a strange and wondrous event. The two leaders met in the supposedly haunted Hofti House (search). Secret Service agents manned their communications gear in one half of the basement; KGB agents did likewise in the other half (which inconveniently had the only bathroom). On the floor above, a U.S. Air Force officer stood holding the "football," the briefcase containing the president's nuclear launch codes. Eight feet away, a Red Army officer held a similar briefcase, presumably containing similar wares. I never saw either officer acknowledge the other all weekend long.

As has since become legendary, Mr. Gorbachev began by unloading a briefcase full of proposals. In arms control, as in other technical realms, Mr. Reagan "kept aloof from all details, drew magnificent plans, and let others to find magnificent means," as Horace Walpole (search) said of British statesman William Pitt (search).

We found magnificent means during a negotiating session that began at 8 p.m. and ended a little after 6 a.m. the following day. That night alone we made more progress on reducing strategic arms than we had in the previous four years. Later that morning, the president told us that he and Mr. Gorbachev had agreed on key provisions for a "zero option," which for the first time would eliminate an entire class of nuclear weapons. The two leaders signed the INF treaty (search) 14 months later.

But nothing was set yet, and Mr. Gorbachev staked all his concessions on gaining one single concession from the president -- confining SDI to "the laboratory." We all came up with gimmicks to counter the move -- defining laboratory to include the universe and the like -- but Mr. Reagan established the policy: No concessions on SDI, however strong the pressure to do so.

Negotiations between the two leaders went into overtime. Periodically, the president would climb the stairs to consult with us on the second floor. Finally, after reading a redraft and suggesting that we change one item to toughen our position, he headed for the door with our final offer in hand. We wished him luck. But just as the president reached for the doorknob, he hesitated. "Do any of you fellows think we're giving away too much?" he asked. "Are we protecting everything we should?"

It was a most impressive question. Some 3,000 journalists from around the world waited on the Hofti House lawn for an arms-control "breakthrough." But Mr. Reagan cared more about U.S. security interests. And he understood how crucial SDI was not only to America's safety but also to the Soviet Union's undoing.

Within minutes, a huge Secret Service agent flung open our meeting-room door to say, "They're breaking!" We grabbed our papers and raced downstairs. I spotted Mr. Gorbachev and then the president leaving the parlor for the front door. Mr. Reagan's face, red and angry, told me all I needed to know.

The president escorted the general secretary to his limousine -- no gentle arm-holding here. Mr. Gorbachev tried to console. He said he couldn't imagine anything else they could have done. Mr. Reagan, still steaming, looked him in the eye and said, "Well, you could have said yes!"

Some dozen years later, when visiting the U.S., Mr. Gorbachev was asked how it happened. How he came into office ruling the communist Soviet Union, and left office with no Soviet Union and no communism. What was the turning point?

Without hesitation, he answered: "Oh, it's Reykjavik."

Ken Adelman was a U.N. ambassador and arms-control director in the 1980s, accompanying President Reagan on his superpower summits with Mikhail Gorbachev. He now serves on the Defense Policy Board, and co-hosts

What do you think?


The deal was broken, now what.

American soldiers held back from helping Iraqi police in their battle against the Mehdi Army in Najaf on Thursday morning, but later U.S. commanders agreed to resupply the police with ammunition, according to a senior U.S. military officer. .


One factor in the withholding of U.S. soldiers from the battle is its location. The police station under attack is just 500 yards from the Imam Ali Shrine, an area out of bounds for coalition forces under a deal brokered last week between Iraqi leaders and al-Sadr which allowed Iraqi police to return to Najaf.

It is really hard to blame the Americans for deaths that are caused by Iraqi militias, which no one will stand up to and point out their crimes and offenses. I am afraid that the Iraqi people are going to learn the true meaning of freedom, in the next few years.

Total Freedom is not free, and it cannot be bought with money. It can only be fought for.


Thursday, June 10, 2004

I like Plants

I have some plants that I have had for about 4 years. There is one that has gotten a white fussy insect thing on it. I have tried insect spray, and insecticidal soap, but those only seemed to stem the spread of this vile insect. The insects don't harm the plant much, they just stick to the plant and cause brown spots, which I am sure that enough of these could kill the plant. So I realized that I basically need to take my plant and hose it down some where, to remove the insects and start over with a clean slate.

I live in a apartment, so I don't have access to water hose and spigot. The plant is also five feet tall, because I did not know what happens when you put plants in bigger pots (they get bigger), so I can't put it in my car and carry it to a fiends house. I don't have access to a pickup truck to move it. So I have been stuck at this point for a few weeks, then yesterday as I was driving along I had a picture in my mind of my plant in my shower. So I took a shower with my plant to cleanse it of the vile white feathery insect, and it has just now been cleansed just like Naaman.

Admittedly,I have put a dent in the insect colony, but now I can go over it with a fine two comb and check every single leaf for insect residual and spots that I might have missed.


Paul Harvey

This morning on Paul Harvey, he was saying that they best way to honor president Reagan was to open up the gates on genetic research, this was preceded by a story about a university finding a genetic marker which helped in the detoriation of brain cells.

This is all well and great, but the last part was the part that I thought was funny. He said (and I paraphrase) that alzheimers stole reagan's golden years from him. The guy was 70 when he got into office, he was on the down side of life well before he got alzheimers (although I have heard stories about Reagan in office and needing cartoons to keep his attention: those have not been confirmed though).

Secondly, Paul Harvey brought up ethanol, which I posted about a long time ago.

The wave is starting...


Wednesday, June 09, 2004

So what were the complaints about Iraq again?

All oil money is going to Iraq, they have full power, and also full control of our military. They will have elections.

And all the complaints about Bush being stubborn, and he negotiates with the UN to get this passed, also he even got the UN to get involved (in an advising position).

That is impressive.


How should hospitals be ran

This is an interesting article that deals with the health care model.

"Devereaux and colleagues earlier showed that for-profit hospitals had higher death rates."

Really, is that because they are taking riskier cases with money willing to pay, or because for profit is the incorrect model for health care.

"The reality is that for-profits face significant economic challenges. The first is they have to generate revenues that will satisfy shareholders," Devereaux said.

"Second, they have high executive bonuses. Thirdly, they are very top-heavy and have high administrative costs. Also, they have to pay taxes. That is a lot of extra money that they have to come up with," Devereaux added.

I will agree with the first statement.
On the second statement bonuses are optional and are normally given when businesses do well. Additionally, the bonuses will only be a small fraction of the total operating cost of the hospital, and I doubt that will seriously affect the bottom line much.

On the third point, I don't see how that will be different from a not for profit business, if the business process are the same the administrative costs should be the same.

Actually, yea I do, you would pay the people less because you are running a not for profit business and people should be helping out of the goodness of their heart. Except that given that the baby boomer generation that is coming up (you had better marry a nurse if you want to find on when you need it), you want be able to find enough people to fill low wage, I just want to save the world positions.

On the fourth point, I will concede that for profit hospitals have to pay taxes, but we could easily change that fact (make a law about it) and the damn socialist would say that we are giving the huge corporations money.

Himmelstein pointed to fraud cases involving for-profit health care companies including Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. , which was hit by a Medicare scandal in 1997; Tenet Healthcare Corp., which is being investigated for allegedly overbilling Medicare; and HealthSouth , where 15 former executives have pleaded guilty to criminal fraud charges.

What and you can't find an example of a not for profit fraud.

I think the article is interesting, and will agree that this option needs to be looked at, but you will also need a few hundred studies without an agenda, which this one seems to have more of an agenda than useful information.


From CNN

Bush confident Iraq resolution will pass
then in the first line of the article.

Georgia (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday predicted that the U.N. Security Council would unanimously approve a resolution on the transfer of power in Iraq, "if things go well."

Hah hah, are they hoping as many French and German people read this and think that America is telling them what to do.

just thought that I would share


Tuesday, June 08, 2004

The terrorist nature vol 2

This continues the post that I started here.
previous Post

As shown above the battle against terrorism is a wildly different from the communist threat, and requires a new set of tools, which is what the bush administration has done.

In the next post I will go into the nature of terrorists, what terrorist need to survive, and the proper strategy that we should take against terrorists.

I don't think that the difference between the terrorist and communism is really well stated in the previous post, so I am going to restate my views with some added ideas. I will do some back tracking, but please bear with me.

It is a fact Islamic terrorism and communism are both evil threats that need to be confronted head on. Both are threats that seek to destroy America, and both are threats, which you cannot make peace with or aim for a truce with. Though on a tactical level, the threats are wildly different.

In the earlier post, the writer made the argument that we should solve the terror problem by solving the Israel problem. Which the Israel problem was the last of three reason to attack America in the 1998 statement by bin ladin, so I some how think that solving the Israel problem will not end out struggle against terrorism.


Communist and Islamic Terrorist have similar goals. Both want to spread their particular form of ideology around the globe. While their goals are similar, the two different situations happen in radically different times. With Reagan's passing, I have learned a little more about this method of dealing with the communist threat.

The USSR was on equal footing with America as of the early 80's, we shared the world's top spot for the world's most powerful country, and we where involved in a cold war which relied on MAD to keep the balance of power that had been struck.

With terrorist we have the top spot, and there is no balance of power that needs to be kept. Additionally, there are no principles such as MAD in place. The terrorists we are fighting are not afraid of being destroyed, which makes this fight more visible, bloodier, and a whole lot scarier.

Another difference between the communist and the terrorist is the method of attacking the US. The communist used conventional warfare, which the build up of their armaments and the preparation for attacks, can be easily seen, where as the terrorist are fighting an asymmetric war. The terrorists will come in small, well-trained, dedicated groups intent on killing as many as possible.

I have already stated the transnational nature of the terrorists, but now I wish to contrast that quality against the national nature of communists. The two groups are polar opposites in that regard.

Additionally, the adaptability of the communist was more limited than the transnational terrorists we now fight because of their ties to the nation state and big government. There is no bureaucracy to go through to bomb the US in the terror organizations.

While the enemy we fight now is smaller than the USSR, the new enemy is no less scary. It is more adaptable, quicker, more restless, harder to track, less rational, and wants destruction of the US, not just ideological dominance. The nature of the terrorist organizations, which we fight, can be seen in the fact that the crack down which we have arranged has hurt the enemy, but it has also driven it further under ground, making it harder to track.

And I repeat...
As shown above the battle against terrorism is a wildly different from the communist threat, and requires a new set of tools, which is what the bush administration has done.

In the next post I will go into the nature of terrorists, what terrorist need to survive, and the proper strategy that we should take against terrorists.



Asymmetric Warfare

Above is a great link about asymmetric warfare, I have not read any of the articles but plan to.

Monday, June 07, 2004

I think it is interesting...

That the people who want bush and his friends to admit that the government failed the American public also want to hinder that same government from achieving it's goals of protection.

Let me give an example:

The act and what it can do.

You can find many articles that talk about the patriot act, the TIA (total information awareness) project, and the martix ( Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange ).

The martix is the most interesting of them all, because the same company that was contracted for the martix did a demonstration after 9-11.


According to Seisint's presentation, dated January 2003 and marked confidential, the 120,000 names with the highest scores were given to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, FBI, Secret Service, and Florida state police. (Later, those agencies would help craft the software that queries Matrix.)

Of the people with the 80 highest scores, five were among the Sept. 11 hijackers, Seisint's presentation said. Forty-five were identified as being or possibly being under existing investigations, while 30 others "were unknown to FBI."

Out of the 80 to people with the highest HTF (high terrorist factor) 11 of them were directly involved in 9-11. Those results are absolutely amazing (and I bet with a little tweaking, the data could be improved), and if the information was received and acted on prior to 9-11, it would have never happened.

Let me restate that. If the federal government had mined the data it already had, for terror suspects prior to 9-11, and watched the followed around the most likely people for a few months, 9-11 would have never happened.

Of course the company who did the demonstration could have fudged the data. If they did not fudge the data, we had the ability to generate life saving information from other unused information, but because a combination of reasons we did not do it.

You can't have total protection with out an invasion of privacy. Our goal should be to place common sense restrictions on who gets the data, not stopping the government from getting the data it needs to protect us.


Friday, June 04, 2004

Nothing much to say

Today has been weird, I have spent the normal amount of time reading the news and looking at articles, but today I could not find anything I wanted to talk about (even the Tenet thing does not interest me, but I did find it surprising).

If Tenet is a fall guy, it won't appease the Democrats. The people leaning to the right may pay attention if the right can put the proper spin on it. The left will try to make it look like Tenet was the one who caused 9-11 and that bush should have fired him long ago.

I don't see how this can help bush in the election, and during election year I assume that everything is planned around the election if you are a politician, but I don't see how it can hurt him much either.


Thursday, June 03, 2004

Dude that has been done already

John Kerry says it's time for the U-S to directly engage North Korea in nuclear talks.

That has been tried and the went back on their word, here is another reason that I would not vote for Kerry. His policies on North Korea.

I think it was a good idea to talk to North Korea directly the first time around, because you can sit down like two old friends and discuss the matter, with out causing a lot of problems. They did not uphold their part of the bargain, and think that they used the talks and the time it bought to advance their nuclear position.

Talking to them directly has failed once. Is it always the democrats who want to try things that don't work, or ideas that have proven wrong?

"But he says the inspectors and cameras aren't there anymore, and that the North is suspected of having even more nuclear bombs now than it did before -- meaning the U-S is no longer as safe."

Can anyone say missile defense?


You are kidding me

"City of Brotherly Love Kicks Off Gay Ad Campaign"

I am never going to Philadelphia if i can help it.

That is really funny, of course they are going have an increased aids rate in about 2 to 3 years, but you know the old saying.
"Better be careful what you ask for, because you might just get it"

No, not that one, this one: "Don't have anal sex if you want to limit your chances of getting aids."

The solgan is: "Philadelphia - Get Your History Straight and Your Nightlife Gay."

Also, "The group estimates that the U.S. gay travel market is worth $54 billion annually. "

What happens if all the other people stop going there, oh wait that won't happen because by not offending gays they are not offending a majority of americans.


Wednesday, June 02, 2004

Tough Love Kerry

It seems that Kerry is trying to appear strong enough to protect America. Well, I don't see how the guy from MA can beat the Texas cowboy in this fight. Of course Bush has also had 4 more years of looking tough. (if anything you can criticize him for being to tough.)

How many countries have you taken over Kerry?

How many countries have you taken over Bush?
2, and you want to take over a few more. Ok.

Looks like Bush wins that battle.


Rob the right wing guy has a different and just as valid interpretation of why Kerry said what he said. I tend to lean toward a combination, if terrorist attacked, Kerry can go back to this remark and say that the will be tough on them, which will help him in the campaign. That scares me does Kerry know something that I don't?

An alternate view

Well I am back from a long weekend

I do have a few things to share. Some friends found this site a while back octodog.

And I found this item in the skymall magazine: a grand invention.

Now combined with mustard that does not drip, and Ketchup that you do not have to shake (both of with exist), you can make a meal in record time, and garnish it with an octodog.

On a different note:
This game has officially helped me out in life.

I was sitting at the airport terminal and the nice lady at the counter came over the microphone and said the airline had an overbooked situation on my flight. She related in her shrill voice that they were offering a 50 dollar voucher for anyone willing to take a later flight. I said to myself that is a little low, so I waited a little longer, and they bumped up the price to a 75 voucher about 10 to 15 minutes later.

I kept holding on, and the price got up to 100 , then 125, then 150 over the course of hour. At the 150 dollar voucher mark I went up the lady and said if they would bump up the voucher to 200 hundred dollars that I would take the later flight. They turned me down, but about 15 minutes later they called my name. As it turned out the terms and conditions of my ticket said that they could bump me from my present flight (cheap expedia ticket), and that I could do nothing about it. I ended up taking the 150 voucher for another flight, which if I would have been nervous and not waited I would have gotten screwed. I don't have a lot of experience in airline matters, but I was glad my battle honed instincts were right on this one.