![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Cool stuff and some links - 27 May 2009
May. 28th, 2009 12:11 amThe dawn breaks, the new day begins (and ends), and as usual, Stuff Happens. Regarding the ruling recently made by the court about the legality of the initiative that placed California, supposed bastion of liberalism, behind at least one supposedly conservative Midwestern state, tucked into the ruling, the court said "Fine. You get exactly what's spelled out in this initiative - we can't call legal same-sex unions marriages - and nothing else". Meaning those unions are still legal in the state, those commited to those unions can say “husband” and “wife” if they wish, they will have those unions recognized as marriages in other states and areas where they are recognized, those people who were married before Prop 8 can still call their marriages marriages, and that the Prop 8 people spent a lot of money, capital, and ill will rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The Court just told them their victory was one of labels and not of the underlying substance. This explains how Prop 8 can coexist with other parts of the Constitution without conflict - the names have changed, but the rest is untouched. I’d have to go back into my archives, but I suspect someone else raised this as a possibility while the fight was going on. If we saw it, we probably latched on to it and said “Here’s hoping the justices are smart enough to do it that way.”
In essence, the court said, “Suckers!” And now, to distract you from that until it becomes encessary again, Look! The mother of Carrie Prejean dated a woman for a bit. There’s something about anti-homosexual crusaders - they seem to almost always have family members who are homosexuals or at least did some homosexual thinking or experimentation in their past. Strange, innit?
The General provides us with a timeline of stunning majority rule decisions in the same vein as Prop 8, except those ones had substance behind them.
Additionally, said SCOTUS, in a 5-4 decision, revoked the requirement for a lawyer to be present before the police can ask a suspect questions, although they left alone the Miranda protections that entitle everyone to have a lawyer appointed to their defense. The natural worry is that in that time in between the contact of a lawyer and the lawyer’s arrival, the police will resort to whatever they can to get information out of the suspect.
Elsewhere in the world, lest you think that deadline is an actual deadline in Iraq, the Army chief cheerfully tells us the Pentagon will ignore it if they feel the need to.
A secret Israeli document indicates Venezuela and Bolivia send uranium to Iran. To help with the civilian nuclear program going on there. But I’m sure this is only further ammo that Iran’s building a bomb and someone will have to stop them before it goes on too far.
Domestically, now that we know the name of the nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, and her backstory, let the attacks begin in earnest. She's a gun-control nut, who will open the path for cities and states to ban guns, says Mr. Blackwell. Ms. Rao is afraid she will be an "empathy" judge who will read the law so as to achieve her predetermined conclusions, which means she’ll make up new rights, not respect the text of the law if she doesn’t like it, and be a (you may cue O Fortuna now) judicial activist. Plus, she got picked because she was a woman and a minority, not because she's actaully qualified says the WSJ, and she’ll act accordingly, instead of according to the law and the Constitution.
The economy probably isn’t getting all that much better, either - if you're an autoworker, more job losses are likely (tell us soemthing we donn’t know, I hear), amidst the complaints that bondholders are getting short-sheeted on the bed they thought they'd made, and if you're a homeowner, your prices keep going down and foreclosures keep going up (also, tell us something we don’t know). (It's all because you bought soemthing you couldn't afford, and no amount of loan modifications can stop that, says the WSJ. Shame on you.) But hey, consumer confidence is up six points (which is something I didn’t know).
an EPA study suggests that climate cap-and-trade will hurt the economy and the job market, as corporations do what they do second-best when confronted with new costs and regulations - leave. (The first is, “pass those costs onto the consumer”, which will also be happening) And this is the watered-down, most permits-for-free version. (From CNS, so salt to taste.) If they do, they’ll be following the rich residents of Maryland, who didn't like having to pay increased taxes, and so left the state. This appears to be the great argument that trying to tax people only hurts the middle-class, so we should lower taxes instead to make the rich happy and paying. One notes, though, that lower taxes achieves what the rich and the corporations want in the first place - to keep as much of the money as they can.
In the “stupid, stupid pedophile” department, the defendant claimed he couldn't have raped the girl because his penis was too small and deformed to have done the deed. There were even pictures for the jury. He did not get acquitted of all his charges.
In the opinions, Mr. Davies, at Mind Set Central, wonders whether we could make an automaton that, for all intents and purposes in our society, would become totally successful and idolized, despite not having an organic thought in its head, or sparing any care or concern for philosophy or metaphysics.
Mr. DeLanda suggests we abandon the capitalism/statism divide, and instead concentrate on recognizing anitmarkets, which looks like they're competitive and aren't, and non-capitalist markets, which are organized collectively and spontaneously. For examples, he looks at how agricutlure and the methods for sustainable farming became agribusiness, where small farms vanish and large ones become dependent on outside resources for their survival.
An analyst takes a swipe at the President by declaring it's taken him less time to portray the United States as confused and helpless than Jimmy Carter did, mostly because the President didn’t take “decisive action” against North Korea when it detonated nuclear devices and launched missiles. Said article also references John Bolton and criticizes the United states for not being harsher with China and Russia when they wield their veto power on actions from the Security Council or other bodies. Other commenters believe North Korea is provoking, and the United States needs to respond with a smackdown to discourage North Korea from continuing nuclear ambitions. This is supposed to be a test of whether Obama diplomacy can succeed, we’re told, but results are what matter, and no result is success unless it’s a total stopping of North Kroean nuclear tech.
Elsewhere, the opinion is that the best way to get to a nuclear-free world is for the United States to maintain a credible threat of nuclear destruction on anyone who tries it, and then work with the other nuclear powers to get them to reduce their stocks and keep a lid on anyone else trying to develop nuclear weapons. So, basically, “We’ll keep ours, you get rid of yours.”
Mr. Stephens believes the administration is following a South Park Style three step - start process for result, ?, desired result. And it turns out to be an “eveeryone knows” about how all our taxes are going to go up and the world is going to go down because of this. So the colunm is kind of like Phase One: Think up possibly witty idea comparing politics to South Park, Phase Two: ?, Phase Three: Rehash old memes, declare column a success.
Mr. Jenkins, Jr. mangles a mataphor and accuses Intel and AMD of collusion in his dismissal of an antitrust fine levied against Intel in the EU. His choice of leeches being ineffective has been disproven by modern science, so he was already off on a bad foot. Beyond that point, he excuses Intel’s behavior, believing their line about overzealous people and saying that AMD is in existence only because people don’t want to buy stuff from Intel, even though the two share intellectual property and otherwise are joined at the hip. If that’s the case, why aren’t you gunning up for a trustbust of both companies, instead of dismissing the one as theater?
Mr. McGurn thinks that the best advice for Mr. Obama about Dick Cheney's resurgence is "Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience". And if Mr. Obama could hold the high ground through Cheney’s insistences that the new regime is making us less safe, then he probably would. Too many people would listen to Cheney, though, if only for the possibility that he might slip up and actually say something useful that could be used to settle the argument once and for all. (Or because they still believe him, but one could argue the President wasn’t convincing them he was making the country safe anyway.)
Mr. Thomas follows on the Cheney line, proclaiming the contradictions of the President in referring to the Constitution while needing judges to interpret it, as well as Mr. Obama grandstanding that he would have done things differently after 11 September, and praising the effectiveness of the Bush-Cheney way of handling terrorsts and land wars in Asia. Once again, the absence of proof is not proof of absence. You can’t make the claim that we’re safer now because of them - unless you are willing to release all the data on how many attacks were stopped and plots defeated, and are willing to have them checked over so that the synagogue bombers referred to in the column are properly dismissed as having never been a threat, and are then able to defend those decisions, including the repeated violation of law and treaty in detention centers. Mr. Prager doesn't beleive the President's claims there are more effective means than torture to get information, thinking they don’t exist or the President doesn’t know what they are, while pointing out that the President is also admitting that torture worked. Sure, it worked, and you might have gotten lucky that the subject you were questioning on was real and the person had real information. But torture isn’t designed to extract information - it’s designed to get someone to say what you want them to say. As for more effective methods, surely you’ve seen the reports saying that Kalid Sheik Mohammed was cooperative using standard interrogation material from the FBI, and then clammed up when the torturers arrived. So those methods have already been revealed, even to the select few.
The WSJ makes itself a quiche recipient with a smug, "Hey, that&aops;s demcoracy" editorial on the Prop 8 decision, especially with their continued lament that judges making things is unstable and doesn’t respect the will of the people (like abortion), and shouldn’t those gay people be happy that they have the substance of it, anyway, instead of insisting that all gay people be able to marry and call it that? So really, unless you can get the legislature to pass it and the governor/president to sign it, gay people, be quiet and stop challenging the law in the courts. Have a nice ring of bronze quiche, painted with a rainbow.
Two columns to follow - one reasoned and well-written, except for one bit, and one that wins the dishonor of the silver quiche. The good one first - Ms. Byrd gives us her Memorial Day column by telling us the media doesn't cover the heroes in the military, despite all the medals and commendations given out in the conflicts so far. The members of the military do deserve our respect. And we give them that. We’re fighting the battle one level removed, on the commanders and politicians sending those people into places - if we don’t believe in the mission, then we’d rather they weren’t there. And thus, we’d discourage people from signing on to the military, knowing full well they were going to participate in an unjust war. It’s too bad Ms. Byrd equates lack of media coverage with lack of respect, because otherwise, we agree with the column - vets need to be taken care of, active members need to be respected, and everyone should give thanks to their deity or the random factor when someone comes home in one piece.
And now, the bad. Rebecca Hagelin gives us her Memorial Day column, staring by accusing educators of teaching revisionst, "blame America" history and denigrating the Armed Forces at every turn. Not a good start, and it only gets worse. We’re too busy chasing pop idols, gansta rappers, and being indoctrinated with anti-patriotism, you see, that we don’t want to become superheroes, like soldiers, when we grow up. Instead, we want to be scantily-clad pop idols or thug rappers and criminals, making them into our heroes, instead of rescue workers, Founding Fatehrs, and soldiers, the real heroes. So we need more contact and we need to let them tell their stories and that will inspire our children to folow in their footsteps, says she. So what she means is that we need to teach jingoism in schools (rather than taking a stab at teaching actual history from multiple perspectives), and get kids to idolize people who shoot guns, kill people, and do violent things as a part of their career. But they do it For Freedom, so that makes it all okay. Besides, as we well know, most of the time, we either stop idolizing or find new people to look up to as we mature and grow. “What do you want to be when you grow up?” is a question whose answer changes from moment to moment. Wouldn’t it be better to advocate for actual history so that chidlren can make those decisions about who to idolize on their own? And to give them all sorts of opportunitiees to talk and discuss career options, and to encourage those students to find work in the places they want to go? Knee-jerk heroism of soldiers prevents the discussion of the wider context, and provides nice cover for those commanding those soldiers to do and get away with dishonorable actions. I respect that a soldier is necessary in this time period. I will still hope for a time when soldiers are not needed. I think that’s the greatest respect we can give our soldiers, to build a world where they are obsolete.
And then one that reminds me totally of propaganda and then some. Mr. Lewis turns the FUD about North Korean and Iranian nukes up to 11, painting both leaders as irrational and suicidal ideologues who will launch nuclear weaponry when they have the chance, or at the very least, will sell their weapons and technology to whomever wants any. The proposed solutions, to strike first, as Israel did against Syria in 2007 and may yet do to Iran if they get too twitchy, or to build more antimissile weapons and scatter them in strategic places, both do nothing to address the underlying causes as to why nations want nuclear power and nuclear weapons, nor do they take into account the other countries around the hostile nuclear powers. And really, what’s with the assumption that the Untied States will be the first target of either country? Iran would try to nuke Israel (good luck on that) and North Korea has two nuclear powers in its front and side yards, both of whom would be pretty perturbed at a missile launching, just in case it was aimed at them. I would expect those missiles to be blasted long before they got anywhere close to their targets, just from all the people potentially in the nuke path that would not want it flying over their airspace.
Proliferation of neighbors is a decent point. There would be a lot more nuclear powers, but so far, everyone seems to understand that M.A.D.‘s last word is destruction, and generally speaking, unless you can shoot first and overwhelm everybody with an interest in shooting back, you’re going to get shot back at. You can’t claim victory over the opposition if there’s nobody there to cheer.
And then we get to the other point, one echoed earlier, that the Obama administratino is like the Carter administration, appeasing hostile countries, ignoring nuclear proliferation problems, and generally not caring to pay any attention to the threats developing. If you’re in the belief that the United States is the world’s policeman, then yes, this could be a problem, assuming that the Obama administration really does believe in doing nothing. I don’t. I’d like some proof of this, but the Obama administration strikes me as people who would give an attempt to figuring out the underlying causes of why countries are seeking weapons, with the hope of dissuading them from pursuing the course by offering enticing incentives, then turning to diplomacy with the neighbors in the region to get them to keep their rogue possibility in check, and then, as a last resort, deploying weapons to ensure the MADness of firing.
I am reminded there are some treaty obligations that must be fulfilled, including mutual defense with South Korea, which I believe are helpfully satisfied by the presenece of naval ships capable of knocking down a missile in flight. The proposition continues to be a losing one for a rogue state firing. The opinion seems to be more a wish for a President with an itchier trigger finger that’s frustrated with the patient approach of the current one than any serious indication as to why we should be worried that the United States will be nuked by North Korea or Iran. Be afraid. Be very afraid, and use that fear to urge others to destroy a country because we don’t like them and they have nuclear technology. It’s a gold-quiche effort.
In technology, a different method for packing nearly ten times the data onto a standard-size DVD than the holography methods, more interpretation of data that indicates liquid water on Mars is a possibility, albeit only in a narrow window, poking fun by creating "Autonomous Living Units", which are basically chairs that supposedly provide everything we need to live, some doubt on whether neurons thought to help with empathy are activating on the observation of an act, an artificial nanoswimmer modeled on spermatozoa, the completion of the mouse genome, confirmation that genes related to periodontal disease also increase the risk of coronary heart disease, organic plastics get some orders-of-magnitude effectiveness boosting, a portable EEG device that could make stroke diagnostics and ADHD diagnoses more accurate and swift, rooks are tool useres when confronted with the need to use tools to achieve rewards, and a possibly simple solution to help with climate change - paint the rooftops reflective colors. It might even help cut down on your air conditioning bills. For those that can, installing solar panels would probably help some, too.
Last out, fidgeting and moving helps kids with ADHD, possibly because the movement helps keep their system awake and lets them concentrate on problems that tax their brains and memories, like memorization and recall.
And author Brent Hartinger explains why Dungeons and Dragons is responsible for much of the learning, growing, and development of the person he is today.
In essence, the court said, “Suckers!” And now, to distract you from that until it becomes encessary again, Look! The mother of Carrie Prejean dated a woman for a bit. There’s something about anti-homosexual crusaders - they seem to almost always have family members who are homosexuals or at least did some homosexual thinking or experimentation in their past. Strange, innit?
The General provides us with a timeline of stunning majority rule decisions in the same vein as Prop 8, except those ones had substance behind them.
Additionally, said SCOTUS, in a 5-4 decision, revoked the requirement for a lawyer to be present before the police can ask a suspect questions, although they left alone the Miranda protections that entitle everyone to have a lawyer appointed to their defense. The natural worry is that in that time in between the contact of a lawyer and the lawyer’s arrival, the police will resort to whatever they can to get information out of the suspect.
Elsewhere in the world, lest you think that deadline is an actual deadline in Iraq, the Army chief cheerfully tells us the Pentagon will ignore it if they feel the need to.
A secret Israeli document indicates Venezuela and Bolivia send uranium to Iran. To help with the civilian nuclear program going on there. But I’m sure this is only further ammo that Iran’s building a bomb and someone will have to stop them before it goes on too far.
Domestically, now that we know the name of the nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, and her backstory, let the attacks begin in earnest. She's a gun-control nut, who will open the path for cities and states to ban guns, says Mr. Blackwell. Ms. Rao is afraid she will be an "empathy" judge who will read the law so as to achieve her predetermined conclusions, which means she’ll make up new rights, not respect the text of the law if she doesn’t like it, and be a (you may cue O Fortuna now) judicial activist. Plus, she got picked because she was a woman and a minority, not because she's actaully qualified says the WSJ, and she’ll act accordingly, instead of according to the law and the Constitution.
The economy probably isn’t getting all that much better, either - if you're an autoworker, more job losses are likely (tell us soemthing we donn’t know, I hear), amidst the complaints that bondholders are getting short-sheeted on the bed they thought they'd made, and if you're a homeowner, your prices keep going down and foreclosures keep going up (also, tell us something we don’t know). (It's all because you bought soemthing you couldn't afford, and no amount of loan modifications can stop that, says the WSJ. Shame on you.) But hey, consumer confidence is up six points (which is something I didn’t know).
an EPA study suggests that climate cap-and-trade will hurt the economy and the job market, as corporations do what they do second-best when confronted with new costs and regulations - leave. (The first is, “pass those costs onto the consumer”, which will also be happening) And this is the watered-down, most permits-for-free version. (From CNS, so salt to taste.) If they do, they’ll be following the rich residents of Maryland, who didn't like having to pay increased taxes, and so left the state. This appears to be the great argument that trying to tax people only hurts the middle-class, so we should lower taxes instead to make the rich happy and paying. One notes, though, that lower taxes achieves what the rich and the corporations want in the first place - to keep as much of the money as they can.
In the “stupid, stupid pedophile” department, the defendant claimed he couldn't have raped the girl because his penis was too small and deformed to have done the deed. There were even pictures for the jury. He did not get acquitted of all his charges.
In the opinions, Mr. Davies, at Mind Set Central, wonders whether we could make an automaton that, for all intents and purposes in our society, would become totally successful and idolized, despite not having an organic thought in its head, or sparing any care or concern for philosophy or metaphysics.
Mr. DeLanda suggests we abandon the capitalism/statism divide, and instead concentrate on recognizing anitmarkets, which looks like they're competitive and aren't, and non-capitalist markets, which are organized collectively and spontaneously. For examples, he looks at how agricutlure and the methods for sustainable farming became agribusiness, where small farms vanish and large ones become dependent on outside resources for their survival.
An analyst takes a swipe at the President by declaring it's taken him less time to portray the United States as confused and helpless than Jimmy Carter did, mostly because the President didn’t take “decisive action” against North Korea when it detonated nuclear devices and launched missiles. Said article also references John Bolton and criticizes the United states for not being harsher with China and Russia when they wield their veto power on actions from the Security Council or other bodies. Other commenters believe North Korea is provoking, and the United States needs to respond with a smackdown to discourage North Korea from continuing nuclear ambitions. This is supposed to be a test of whether Obama diplomacy can succeed, we’re told, but results are what matter, and no result is success unless it’s a total stopping of North Kroean nuclear tech.
Elsewhere, the opinion is that the best way to get to a nuclear-free world is for the United States to maintain a credible threat of nuclear destruction on anyone who tries it, and then work with the other nuclear powers to get them to reduce their stocks and keep a lid on anyone else trying to develop nuclear weapons. So, basically, “We’ll keep ours, you get rid of yours.”
Mr. Stephens believes the administration is following a South Park Style three step - start process for result, ?, desired result. And it turns out to be an “eveeryone knows” about how all our taxes are going to go up and the world is going to go down because of this. So the colunm is kind of like Phase One: Think up possibly witty idea comparing politics to South Park, Phase Two: ?, Phase Three: Rehash old memes, declare column a success.
Mr. Jenkins, Jr. mangles a mataphor and accuses Intel and AMD of collusion in his dismissal of an antitrust fine levied against Intel in the EU. His choice of leeches being ineffective has been disproven by modern science, so he was already off on a bad foot. Beyond that point, he excuses Intel’s behavior, believing their line about overzealous people and saying that AMD is in existence only because people don’t want to buy stuff from Intel, even though the two share intellectual property and otherwise are joined at the hip. If that’s the case, why aren’t you gunning up for a trustbust of both companies, instead of dismissing the one as theater?
Mr. McGurn thinks that the best advice for Mr. Obama about Dick Cheney's resurgence is "Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience". And if Mr. Obama could hold the high ground through Cheney’s insistences that the new regime is making us less safe, then he probably would. Too many people would listen to Cheney, though, if only for the possibility that he might slip up and actually say something useful that could be used to settle the argument once and for all. (Or because they still believe him, but one could argue the President wasn’t convincing them he was making the country safe anyway.)
Mr. Thomas follows on the Cheney line, proclaiming the contradictions of the President in referring to the Constitution while needing judges to interpret it, as well as Mr. Obama grandstanding that he would have done things differently after 11 September, and praising the effectiveness of the Bush-Cheney way of handling terrorsts and land wars in Asia. Once again, the absence of proof is not proof of absence. You can’t make the claim that we’re safer now because of them - unless you are willing to release all the data on how many attacks were stopped and plots defeated, and are willing to have them checked over so that the synagogue bombers referred to in the column are properly dismissed as having never been a threat, and are then able to defend those decisions, including the repeated violation of law and treaty in detention centers. Mr. Prager doesn't beleive the President's claims there are more effective means than torture to get information, thinking they don’t exist or the President doesn’t know what they are, while pointing out that the President is also admitting that torture worked. Sure, it worked, and you might have gotten lucky that the subject you were questioning on was real and the person had real information. But torture isn’t designed to extract information - it’s designed to get someone to say what you want them to say. As for more effective methods, surely you’ve seen the reports saying that Kalid Sheik Mohammed was cooperative using standard interrogation material from the FBI, and then clammed up when the torturers arrived. So those methods have already been revealed, even to the select few.
The WSJ makes itself a quiche recipient with a smug, "Hey, that&aops;s demcoracy" editorial on the Prop 8 decision, especially with their continued lament that judges making things is unstable and doesn’t respect the will of the people (like abortion), and shouldn’t those gay people be happy that they have the substance of it, anyway, instead of insisting that all gay people be able to marry and call it that? So really, unless you can get the legislature to pass it and the governor/president to sign it, gay people, be quiet and stop challenging the law in the courts. Have a nice ring of bronze quiche, painted with a rainbow.
Two columns to follow - one reasoned and well-written, except for one bit, and one that wins the dishonor of the silver quiche. The good one first - Ms. Byrd gives us her Memorial Day column by telling us the media doesn't cover the heroes in the military, despite all the medals and commendations given out in the conflicts so far. The members of the military do deserve our respect. And we give them that. We’re fighting the battle one level removed, on the commanders and politicians sending those people into places - if we don’t believe in the mission, then we’d rather they weren’t there. And thus, we’d discourage people from signing on to the military, knowing full well they were going to participate in an unjust war. It’s too bad Ms. Byrd equates lack of media coverage with lack of respect, because otherwise, we agree with the column - vets need to be taken care of, active members need to be respected, and everyone should give thanks to their deity or the random factor when someone comes home in one piece.
And now, the bad. Rebecca Hagelin gives us her Memorial Day column, staring by accusing educators of teaching revisionst, "blame America" history and denigrating the Armed Forces at every turn. Not a good start, and it only gets worse. We’re too busy chasing pop idols, gansta rappers, and being indoctrinated with anti-patriotism, you see, that we don’t want to become superheroes, like soldiers, when we grow up. Instead, we want to be scantily-clad pop idols or thug rappers and criminals, making them into our heroes, instead of rescue workers, Founding Fatehrs, and soldiers, the real heroes. So we need more contact and we need to let them tell their stories and that will inspire our children to folow in their footsteps, says she. So what she means is that we need to teach jingoism in schools (rather than taking a stab at teaching actual history from multiple perspectives), and get kids to idolize people who shoot guns, kill people, and do violent things as a part of their career. But they do it For Freedom, so that makes it all okay. Besides, as we well know, most of the time, we either stop idolizing or find new people to look up to as we mature and grow. “What do you want to be when you grow up?” is a question whose answer changes from moment to moment. Wouldn’t it be better to advocate for actual history so that chidlren can make those decisions about who to idolize on their own? And to give them all sorts of opportunitiees to talk and discuss career options, and to encourage those students to find work in the places they want to go? Knee-jerk heroism of soldiers prevents the discussion of the wider context, and provides nice cover for those commanding those soldiers to do and get away with dishonorable actions. I respect that a soldier is necessary in this time period. I will still hope for a time when soldiers are not needed. I think that’s the greatest respect we can give our soldiers, to build a world where they are obsolete.
And then one that reminds me totally of propaganda and then some. Mr. Lewis turns the FUD about North Korean and Iranian nukes up to 11, painting both leaders as irrational and suicidal ideologues who will launch nuclear weaponry when they have the chance, or at the very least, will sell their weapons and technology to whomever wants any. The proposed solutions, to strike first, as Israel did against Syria in 2007 and may yet do to Iran if they get too twitchy, or to build more antimissile weapons and scatter them in strategic places, both do nothing to address the underlying causes as to why nations want nuclear power and nuclear weapons, nor do they take into account the other countries around the hostile nuclear powers. And really, what’s with the assumption that the Untied States will be the first target of either country? Iran would try to nuke Israel (good luck on that) and North Korea has two nuclear powers in its front and side yards, both of whom would be pretty perturbed at a missile launching, just in case it was aimed at them. I would expect those missiles to be blasted long before they got anywhere close to their targets, just from all the people potentially in the nuke path that would not want it flying over their airspace.
Proliferation of neighbors is a decent point. There would be a lot more nuclear powers, but so far, everyone seems to understand that M.A.D.‘s last word is destruction, and generally speaking, unless you can shoot first and overwhelm everybody with an interest in shooting back, you’re going to get shot back at. You can’t claim victory over the opposition if there’s nobody there to cheer.
And then we get to the other point, one echoed earlier, that the Obama administratino is like the Carter administration, appeasing hostile countries, ignoring nuclear proliferation problems, and generally not caring to pay any attention to the threats developing. If you’re in the belief that the United States is the world’s policeman, then yes, this could be a problem, assuming that the Obama administration really does believe in doing nothing. I don’t. I’d like some proof of this, but the Obama administration strikes me as people who would give an attempt to figuring out the underlying causes of why countries are seeking weapons, with the hope of dissuading them from pursuing the course by offering enticing incentives, then turning to diplomacy with the neighbors in the region to get them to keep their rogue possibility in check, and then, as a last resort, deploying weapons to ensure the MADness of firing.
I am reminded there are some treaty obligations that must be fulfilled, including mutual defense with South Korea, which I believe are helpfully satisfied by the presenece of naval ships capable of knocking down a missile in flight. The proposition continues to be a losing one for a rogue state firing. The opinion seems to be more a wish for a President with an itchier trigger finger that’s frustrated with the patient approach of the current one than any serious indication as to why we should be worried that the United States will be nuked by North Korea or Iran. Be afraid. Be very afraid, and use that fear to urge others to destroy a country because we don’t like them and they have nuclear technology. It’s a gold-quiche effort.
In technology, a different method for packing nearly ten times the data onto a standard-size DVD than the holography methods, more interpretation of data that indicates liquid water on Mars is a possibility, albeit only in a narrow window, poking fun by creating "Autonomous Living Units", which are basically chairs that supposedly provide everything we need to live, some doubt on whether neurons thought to help with empathy are activating on the observation of an act, an artificial nanoswimmer modeled on spermatozoa, the completion of the mouse genome, confirmation that genes related to periodontal disease also increase the risk of coronary heart disease, organic plastics get some orders-of-magnitude effectiveness boosting, a portable EEG device that could make stroke diagnostics and ADHD diagnoses more accurate and swift, rooks are tool useres when confronted with the need to use tools to achieve rewards, and a possibly simple solution to help with climate change - paint the rooftops reflective colors. It might even help cut down on your air conditioning bills. For those that can, installing solar panels would probably help some, too.
Last out, fidgeting and moving helps kids with ADHD, possibly because the movement helps keep their system awake and lets them concentrate on problems that tax their brains and memories, like memorization and recall.
And author Brent Hartinger explains why Dungeons and Dragons is responsible for much of the learning, growing, and development of the person he is today.
