Archives for the Month of October 2006 on Through the Magnifying Glass
Sigma Chi Fraternity at Johns Hopkins Suspended over "Hood" Party
The Sigma Chi fraternity at Johns Hopkins University was suspended because they held a "Halloween in the Hood" party that drew protests by black students.
It would appear that an invitation to the party, posted on the Facebook.com web site, encouraged guests to wear "regional clothing from our locale" with jewelry including "bling bling ice ice, grills" and "hoochie hoops."
Outside the fraternity house, a skeleton pirate was found hanging on a noose.
Black Student Union members protested the party saying the appearance of the image and the language of the invitation highlighted racial tensions at Hopkins and the strained relations between the University and the surrounding community. Protestors had signs depicting a historical lynching next to a picture of the fraternity's skeleton.
The University suspended the fraternity pending a full investigation. Sigma Chi's international headquarters has suspended the chapter's operations for 45 days and said further disciplinary action was possible. At a campus forum, members of Sigma Chi apologised for the actions of the author of the invitation.
The Baltimore branch of the NAACP intends to explore legal action against the fraternity and the university.
AP - Frat suspended over 'Hood' party
Author's Opinion
Does this show absolute proof that the fraternity is being racist against African-Americans? The media such as MTV and BET have glorified hip-hop culture where people boast about their "bling bling jewelry" and their "hoochie hoops." It would seem that if a white person said that, he or she is labeled a racist or making fun of blacks.
Now, the invitation was done in poor taste. In fact, in any Halloween party, people do dress up as hip-hop stars, gangsters, rappers, and what not. Should they be labeled race-hating persons if a white person was wearing them? It would seem to me that wearing any black-associated costume is a no-no for everyone else.
For Black Student Union members trying to link a skeleton pirate being hanged to a racist lynching is an extreme example at best. Obviously, pirates are usually hanged if they are captured. So what if the name of the party did not include the word "Hood," would the hanging skeleton be still considered a racist portrayal of a lynching? If that is the case, then I have to say that there are people out there who believe everyone is out to get them just because of the skin of their color. Sounds to me that it is more about racist paranoia.
But it doesn't stop there. The NAACP has to get in on the kill. Come on here, black students were not lynched or killed off. Suddenly, a party theme done in poor taste means that the whole University is considered to be insensitive to racial relations. Perhaps they can blame the Pirates of the Caribbean movie for showing hanging pirates. Yep, Johnny Depp is racist so let's go boycott Disney for making such a racist film.
This was an incident blown out of proporation. It would seem the University and the Sigma Chi international fraternity are more fearful about lawsuits and are willing to put up these fraternity members as the scapegoats. Then Johns Hopkins students would need to attend diversity training and have to sign some sort of multi-cultural pledge. Multi-cultural correctness gone amok.
Now this would all be different if this fraternity had racial problems in the past. If this was their first bad incident, it would seem that the reaction has gone quite overboard. It would seem more likely that the Black Student Union wanted the publicity to embarass the school. That is how I see that given the facts that are laid out. If there is any new information, I sure want to see it.
11/2/06 - The chapter has expelled social chair, junior Justin Park, for posting the advertisement on Facebook.com. The Black Student Union (BSU) continues on the warpath with demonstrations throughout the week, calling on Johns Hopkins to punish the fraternity severely. It has also challenged the administration to pursue a number of institutional changes that they "claim" are necessary to fight the latent undercurrent of racism on campus that has been ignored for years.
General sentiment at the party never thought that the pirate hanging decoration outside of the house party resemble a mockup lynching. This includes fraterntiy members and party attendees. It would seem more students were offended by the invitation than by the theme name for the party.
Marvin Cheatham, president of Baltimore chapter of NAACP, stated they had no plans to pursue legal action against the University.
I wonder how other Greeks at Johns Hopkins are responding to this.
Back to BSU complaints... it seems that the party was just one issue on top of a haystack. They have claimed that whtie and Asian students routinely snub black students when it comes to forming study groups, there aren't nearly enough black tenured faculty members and white faculty advisors routinely pressured black students to either change majors or drop courses; and the assumption that black students are unqualified to attend Hopkins and got a free affirmative action pass. It sounds to me there is a lot of pent-up frustration and the "hood" party just opened the floodgates.
Another shot at this "lynching" costume... black students claim that the hanging pirate was meant to symbolise a lynching. Suddenly, they are painting themselves as the victims. Come on here! Pirates were hanged. That is what they get for piracy. All hangings were NOT lynchings, and not all lynchings involved hanging.
11/3/06 - In response, the University will provide additional diversity training to students and faculty members, and plans to incorporate the history of racism into the campus curriculum and workshops, and better communication with multicultural groups.
Seems like students will have to sign a pledge to uphold the political correctness world of multiculturalism. Looks like I do not see any ban on hanging skeleton pirate decorations implemented yet.
But really, how much more diversity training is needed? Now everything what you say or type can be construed as offensive and racist. What happened to common sense?
11/5/06 - BSU protestors still think not enough is being done to address their concerns
11/8/06 - When you think about it... it was a Korean student that wrote the Facebook.com invitation. He called it "satirical" when some complained about the first version. He re-did and made it even more offensive. So I guess blacks are also calling Asians racist too. Just imagine when more hispanic students are at Johns Hopkins.
So Justin H. Park has been made the scapegoat. His statement: "I am not a racist - anybody who knows me will attest to the fact," Park wrote in the apology. "That my statement has been misconstrued as derogatory and hateful to a certain group of people is especially hurtful to me."
NAACP have claimed that Hopkins leaders are allowing a "racist" atmosphere to persist on campus. Really??? Hmm, I wonder if they got the data to prove that.
More Updates
Johns Hopkins University News Release on Investigation
Sigma Chi - Kappa Upsilon Chapter Suspended
Johns Hopkins News Letter - Sigma Chi's Long Night
Johns Hopkins News Letter - Protests Erupt Over Allegations of Racist Sigma Chi Party
BAW - Commentary: Before We Blast Others Who Promote Black Stereotypes, We’ve Got to Stop Giving Them Ammo
wjz.com - Johns Hopkins Halloween Controversy Will Not End
JHU Gazette - Steps Taken to Address Recent Racial Concerns
Examiner - Hopkins to up diversity training after controversial frat party
Baltimore Sun - Hopkins targets campus racism
Baltimore Sun - Hopkins protestors see little improvement
Case Technology Tax
I applaud Greg Szorc's efforts to point out the truth behind the Case Technology Fee that is being levied upon the whole student body, undergraduate, graduate, and professional, next academic year.
The fee will increase from $400 to $425. Instead of limiting the fee to on-campus undergraduates, it will now cover undergraduate commuters, graduate, and professional students.
The original intent of the tech tax was to cover the costs of networking equipment for students. This makes obvious sense why only on-campus students had to pay it. Lev Gonick has stated that the revenues from this "fee" will cover a broad range of ITS services. It's short-speak for general operating budget.
Applying the one fee with no specific criteria is unfair to students. The usage levels of an on-campus student versus a commuter student is quite different, and places an additional burden on the off-campus student since he or she would have their own Internet connection setup. The windfall from such an increase is expected to generate at least $4 million in revenue for ITS.
Also, on-campus undergraduates were told in the beginning that the fee was to help cover the cost of all networking equipment in the SER rooms in the residence halls. This was part of the building of our gigabit network. The fee did not cover the Internet pipe or support. These features would be covered by the University budget through ITS.
Thus, the original intent of the Tech Fee has changed, very likely with no student input in the matter.
Another problem is whether this Technology Fee will lead to other "separate" fees being levied upon the students. Only the Student Activity Fee was a fee created and voted by students. Will there be a new student center fee? A new dining tax to support the Silver Spartan? Intramural fee for participating? Yep, it's all speculation, but it can happen.
The University could be doing this just to avoid giving students another double-digit increase in tuition.
Commuter students should feel upset since they now have to pay the University ISP in addition to their local ISP. Hmm, another way to pressure them to move on-campus?
More details to come...
Case Forum - IT Tech Fee Coming to All Students
PETAkillsanimals.com
Time to give the other side a shout out!
Iranian Threatens West Ham United's Spirit
When living in the UK, I became a passionate fan of West Ham United F.C., a East London team. They were promoted via the playoffs into the Premier League in 2005, and I purchased a season ticket for their first season back in the top flight. In that year, we reached 9th place, a finalist in the FA Cup, and a spot in Europe through the UEFA Cup.
For the 2006-07 year, many fans have held high expectations for the club...another top half finish, perhaps reaching the knockout stages of the UEFA Cup and so on. Instead, West Ham suffered 12 games without a win, got kicked out of Europe, and an early exit in the League Carling Cup.
All of this is probably attributed to Iranian businessman Kia Joorabchian. He engineered the transfer of Argentinians Javier Mascherano and Carlos Tevez to West Ham, and was probably called the coup of the transfer season. Yet, Joorabchian wanted to buy the club too. However, his takeover bid dragged on through September, October, and now into early November.
This Friday is the final deadline for the Iranian to present the 80 million pound buyout offer to take over WHUFC. One issue that the club's bankers have with the offer is whether the new consortium will pay off the club's debts of 23.5 million pounds, or have them serviced.
At the same time, it appears the club has rebuffed Eggert Magnusson's Icelandic group buyout offer. The strange thing is that Magnusson was unable to hold any negotiations to discuss his offer, so it seems there are some behind-the-scenes action going on.
Unfortunately, if West Ham chooses to accept Joorabchian's offer, the Iranian will sack popular manager Alan Pardew. Even though the club has suffered several back-to-back defeats, most fans love him for the being the manager that got them back into the top flight and for reaching the FA Cup Final and a 9th placing in the standings last year.
If his intent to rubber-stamp his image of "his" West Ham onto the whole club, it will prove unpopular with all the fans and supporters that are out there.
I find it unsettling that West Ham has chosen to ignore rival bidder, Icelandic biscuit baron Eggert Magnusson. He did offer to buyout the club for as much as 100 million pounds. Plus he is also head of the Football Association of Iceland, and a member of the UEFA's executive committee. It would seem he would make quite a respectable person to head a new West Ham club.
Joorabchian is an agent. Much of his takeover offer is supported by Israeli backer Eli Papouchado. His company, Media Sports Investment Ltd, is somewhat of a mystery. It purchased Brazilian club Corinthians last year. Rumors have been flying whether his company is being backed by Russian bankers. He is more intent at re-casting the image of West Ham in his stead, ignoring long years of tradition and style that make up the Hammers' attacking philosophy.
In any case, the Iranian could be the wrong choice for this aspiring club.
The Independent - Joorabchian to meet deadline for launching West Ham takeover
The Sun Online - Hammer blow for Pardew
The Guardian - Joorabchian takeover at West Ham expected by end of week
Taxes, Terrorism, and now Gay Marriage
For the past several months, President Bush has been boasting about how his tax cuts improved the U.S. economy and how people are enjoying having more money to spend from their pockets. He also defended his administration's policies against terrorsm and protecting national security.
But with fiscal conservatives unhappy with the increase in federal spending and the size of the government and military hawks becoming more nervous about rising losses in American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush has decided to bring up gay marriage to portray Democrats as being out of the mainsteam or against traditional family values.
By twisting the results given by the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that same-sex couples must be given all the benefits of married couples, Bush suggested that this "activist court" was trying to destroy the institution of marriage. Yet, he fails to mention that the court has referred the final decision to the state Legislature to decide whether civil unions or gay marriage should be approved. Plus, Bush does support civil unions, but he chooses not to mention that fact to social and religious conservatives.
The President and Republicans are hoping that social and religious conservatives, their most faithful and loyal followers, will turn out in large numbers to vote to keep their party in control of Congress. Yet, should these voters be confident? Bush did fail to bring about a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Or push for a total ban on abortion and suppressing obscenity.
But are moral issues under threat? Bush seems to want voters to see Democrats as being immoral and unethical, and unworthy. It seems to me that he wants people to see them as the party of sin versus Republicans, who are the party of the righteous.
I find it unfortunate that Bush is trying to use moral and social issues as our most major problems facing this country. Instead, it should be national security, terrorism, and economic security. He still fails to tell the people how he is going to help alleviate our $8.5 trillion national debt. At this point, he is giving so much praise to his administration for cutting the national deficit in half, and fails to mention that voters are paying over $400 billion in interest payments towards the national debt.
Another way to distract voters. sigh!
News - Bush hits hard at gay marriage
Could US Soccer get Klinsmann?
The US Soccer Federation (football) may get Jurgen Klinsmann as their new coach for their national team. The agreement has yet to be finalised and there are still 4-5 other candidates vying for the job.
The new coach would replace Bruce Arena, who saw the national team crashed out of the 2006 World Cup in the group stage.
If you did not know, Klinsmann was the national coach for Germany, and led their soccer (football) team to a third-place finish at this year's world cup.
BBC Sport - Klinsmann has talks over US role
Duke Lacrosse Rape Victim Case is becoming a farce
It was somewhat incredulous for the Durham District Attorney, Mike Nifong, not to interview the rape victim about the incident months after it occurred. Even though it would be difficult to recount that "horrible" day, the memory would still be fresh. Many people would consider that given the months past, the person could change her story by a bit to fit her alibi or "refute" the alibis of the accused Duke players.
This new relevation where the second dancer that attended the event with the victim has revealed that the she told her to "go ahead, put marks on me" after the alleged attack. Dancer Kim Roberts made the new allegation in an interview with Chris Cuomo on "Good Morning America."
Obviously, by revealing this new evidence, it would place more doubt on the prosecution case against the Duke players. Also likely, the victim's family and supporters will accuse the second dancer of being intimidated or even a liar. Kim Roberts said she would be willing to take a lie detector test about the new information. But in any case, she have proved herself as an unreliable witness to either the defense or the prosecution.
Three Duke lacrosse players — Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann — were charged last spring with rape and kidnapping for the alleged attack on the exotic dancer, who had been hired by the men to perform at the off-campus party.
All three men have vigorously declared their innocence, inside and outside of court.
Based on the latest new information, the prosecution cannot prove beyond any unreasonable doubt that the three Duke lacrosse players are guilty of the charges specified.
This story will never be over. I would not even be surprised if certain folks called the whole thing a consipracy.
Update 11/07/2006
According to The News & Observer newspaper, the accuser in the Duke lacrosse case told co-workers at a Hillsborough strip club that she was going to get money from some boys at a Duke party who hadn't paid her, the club's former security manager said.
Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong stated nearly a month after the party, the woman appeared too traumatized to talk about what had happened to her. Throughout the April 11 meeting, the woman seemed near tears and had trouble making eye contact.
In contradiction, the former security manager, H.P. Thomas, said that less than a week after the party, the woman seemed fine, and weeks later, realized a friend of his had a video of her dancing at the club in the early hours of March 26.
The accuser never gave any indication that the party was a bad time, let alone that she was assaulted or raped, Thomas said.
Sounds quite fishy. It is becoming more apparent that her goal is to extort money from the Duke lacrosse players.
Update 12/13/2006
DNA testing conducted by a private lab in the Duke lacrosse rape case found genetic material from several males in the accuser's body and her underwear _ but none from any team member, including the three charged with rape, according to a defense motion filed Wednesday.
The case should be dismissed and the dancer should be charged with perjury.
Breitbart.com - DNA Tests Reportedly Clean Duke Players
NYS announce surplus at least $1 billion
Quite interesting for a state government that is so complex that even a newly elected state rep or senator would have trouble handling.
According to the govt, New York is on track for an over $1 billion surplus for the 2006-07 fiscal year. They got better than expected economic growth and lower spending levels for the surplus.
When anyone mentions the word "surplus", two things happened:
1) Republicans would call for a tax-cut, to return unnecessary money back to the residents
2) Democrats would call for additional spending to "shore" up needed projects to benefit residents
Even more likely, both parties would love to add more local projects to keep their voters happy.
Instead, the surplus money will go to several funds, including the state's Rainy Day Reserve Fund. The Governor's office reports so far that there is over $3 billion in total reserves.
For a state such as New York, it's not enough.
Gosh, if only the federal govt can produce a surplus...
WROCTV - NYS Budget
Democrats & Republicans Ignore Fiscal Responsibility
David M. Walker is in one of the safest jobs in the federal government. He is the comptroller general and heads the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress that audits and evaluates the performance of the federal government. He is currently serving a 15-year term that runs through 2013.
He is basically the nation's accountant-in-chief and possibly the most ignored person by both political parties.
He is talking about the country's dirty little secret - impending financial ruin.
It is a problem that most voters do not take seriously since tackling the defict and the national debt do not break the top ten issues facing voters each election season.
Their basic message is this: If the United States government conducts business as usual over the next few decades, a national debt that is already $8.5 trillion could reach $46 trillion or more, adjusted for inflation. That's almost as much as the total net worth of every person in America - Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and those Google guys included.
Why is America so fiscally unprepared for the next century? Like many of its citizens, the United States has spent the last few years racking up debt instead of saving for the future. Foreign lenders - primarily the central banks of China, Japan and other big U.S. trading partners - have been eager to lend the government money at low interest rates, making the current $8.5-trillion deficit about as painful as a big balance on a zero-percent credit card.
Yep the government is sending interest payments overseas to foreign banks. Thus, the country is at the mercy of foreign lenders who may lose their enthusiasm to financing the U.S. debt.
What can we do? Sacrifices must be made. Our politicians continue to focus on the war in Iraq, social issues, and cutting taxes, but federal spending continues to go up. Certain taxes must be raised, benefits need to be re-figured in order to avoid macroeconomic meltdown.
All of us are basically giving our children and grandchildren a bankrupt country to live in, or perhaps a country that may no longer exist.
The last six years of Republican rule have produced tax cuts, record spending increases, and a Medicare prescription drug plan that has been declared fiscally unsound. Nice job!
Usually, fiscal responsibility is good when one party controls Congress and the other controls the WHite House. When President Clinton handled a Republican Congress during the 1990s, spending limits and other legislative tools helped produce a surplus.
No matter how high the national debt has become, Walker is not optimistic.
"Realistically what we hope to accomplish through the fiscal wake-up tour is ensure that any serious candidate for the presidency in 2008 will be forced to deal with the issue," he says. "The best we're going to get in the next couple of years is to slow the bleeding."
Slow the bleeding. This is very scary to know that our federal government will not be able to reduce its debt by a significant margin to help its finances.
I hope that in any Q&A with 2008 presidential candidate, they MUST be asked how they will handle a $8.5 trillion national debt. I would not be surprised when Bush steps down, our national debt is hitting $10 TRILLION!
myway - GAO Chief Warns Economic Disaster Looms
Poll: Less Government please
CNN poll finds most Americans still agree with the bedrock conservative premise that, as the Gipper put it, "government is not the answer to our problems -- government is the problem."
2001 - Discretionary spending was $649 billion
2005 - Spending is at $968 billion
Data: Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
72 percent said the size of the federal government has increased in the past four years
86 percent said federal spending has gone up during the same period
54 percent said govt is trying to do too many things
Quote from Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana, Chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, a 110-member caucus that supports limited government and lower taxes - "I believe that as a movement, we have veered off course into the dangerous and uncharted waters of big government Republicanism."
Quote from Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona - "Conservatives came to office to reduce the size of government and enlarge the sphere of free and private initiative. But lately, we have increased government in order to stay in office."
Is There Progress Through Loss?
A good editorial by Peggy Noonan on the OpinionJournal (WSJ). She talks about why some conservatives may want a Congressional loss this November in order to further the conservative agenda, not Bush's conservative agenda, but the "real" conservative agenda.
I really like this sentence:
First thing you do when you get power is move to keep power. And after a while you don't have any move but that move.
But is this true... [voters] want to fire Congress because they can't fire President Bush?
Just less than two weeks to see how it plays out.
Britain criticises US gambling ban
Britain's culture secretary compared the U.S. crackdown on online gambling to the failed alcohol ban of th Prohibition.
At the online gambling summit attended by 30 countries which includes Great Britain, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand, they will discuss ways to regulate the industry, including the protection of minors and keeping the industry free of crime.
As expected, the U.S. has declined to participate.
Antigua, a strong defender of Internet gambling, will bring up the U.S. ban to the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
BBC - US gambling flawed - Jowell
Why do we think that an absolute ban will always work? It seems there are people who are unwilling to research and find different ways to solve the problem, and just say "just ban it and leave it alone."
Either Congress should repeal the Ban on Gambling or the WTO should penalise the U.S. until the law is rescinded.
Omarosa who?
Yep... Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth ...the egotistical, D-List celeb from Donald Trump's The Apprentice Show.
I really thought she would just disappear from the spotlight. She is just one of those reality-show contestants that wanted to milk her 15 minutes worth of fame way too much.
So why is she back in the news? She got implants!!!
Before
After
Why pull a "Pamela Anderson?" Please just go home and mind your own business. Your spotlight has been turned off permanently!
11 Years under House Arrest
11 Years... the length of time for Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest in Myanmar (Burma). She is a pro-democracy activist and leader of the National League for Democracy.
She was awarded the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize for her peaceful and non-violent struggle under a military dictatorship.
One of her most famous speeches was "Freedom from Fear" speech, which begins:
"It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it."
Her NLD party won the general elections in 1990, instead the military junta nullified the results and refused to hand over power.
Suu Kyi continues to be imprisoned under the 1975 State Protection Act (Article 10 b), which grants the government the power to imprison persons for up to five years without a trial.
11 Years where a country has been under military dictatorship.
Strange enough, the U.S. has been using diplomatic pressure through the UNSC but no actual action is being undertaken. In September 2006, the UNSC voted to put Myanmar on the agenda docket. (Wow! What progress!)
No unilateral force yet... very strange.
US Foreign Policy: example of double-standard
While the U.S. has been pursuing economic sanctions against Iran and North Korea through the United Nations Security Council, there is one detail left out that most people did not know.
Back in the day when India and Pakistan conducted their nuclear test, the United States BLOCKED enforcement of Security Council Resolution 1172, which calls on India and Pakistan to eliminate their nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Instead, President George W. Bush signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with India and has announced the sale of nuclear-capable fighter-bombers to Pakistan.
The U.S. has also BLOCKED enforcement of Security Council Resolution 487, which calls on Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the trusteeship of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and continues its close strategic cooperation with Israel.
Since the U.S. loves to snub Security Council resolutions at will, other member nations are asking "Hey if the U.S. tells the UNSC to f*ck off, then so can we!"
Jihad Watch: Abdul Rahman
Remember Afghan citizen Abdul Rahman. He made international news last spring when he converted from Islam to Christianity. He was arrested by the government and put on trial for apostasy. He was then spirited away to safety in Italy.
Jihadists in Afghanistan then went and kidnapped Italian journalist, Gabriele Torsello, and demanded that Abdul Rahman be returned to their country to be tried for his crimes.
Yet, it is quite obvious that if Rahman returns to Afghanistan, he will either be killed by extremists or be sentenced to death since that is the punishment for apostasy.
Moderate Muslims have maintained that Islam contained no provision against apostasy. M. Cherif Bassiouni, Professor of Law at DePaul University said "Leaving Islam is not a capital crime."
I guess Prof. Bassiouni needs to check IslamOnline which explains that “if a sane person who has reached puberty voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be punished. In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.”
To be killed over religious conversion is not civilised.
The Italian government should refuse to extradite Abdul Rahman back to Afghanistan. The Afghan government must control its ability to maintain freedom of conscience and religion if it hopes to continue the support of the United States.
Watch Jihad Watch video on Abdul Rahman
I am about this close...
Honestly, would it be great to see both Democrats and Republicans thrown out of Congress? Instead of voters being anti-incumbent, how about anti-establishment?
How about electing a new national party that does not have establishment ties with multi-national corporations or special interest groups?
How about a party where it does not always have to answer to the unions, think tanks, lobbyists, and other so-called "political" elements?
Perot's Reform Party was an excellent example but its presence was mostly concentrated on the national election, not the state or local levels.
I really hate it when Democrats and Republicans accuse independent candidates of being politically inexperienced. Obviously, they're experienced because they got the money from their lobbyists and special interests and biased pollsters.
Who knows if the media and polling organisations are downplaying third-parties from becoming more powerful?
Would it require a billionaire like Ross Perot to jump start a third national party?
Would people stopping thinking of third-parties as being the "contributing" factor to the defeat of a major party candidate?
If voters are sick of a scandal plaguing one major political party, why choose the other major party as the saviour and not a third-party?
Should the Federal Elections Commission reduce the percentage needed to qualify for the presidential debates?
UK wants global warming tax on holidaymakers
In a thisislondon.co.uk article, Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said holidaymakers should be charged a "global warming tax" of up to 50 quid under plans aimed at forcing airlines to reduce gas emissions.
In her keynote speech, she urged Brussels to encourage airlines to fly more fuel-efficient planes and deter people from travelling by air.
Experts say it would put 50 quid more on a flight from London to California, 35 quid to New York, and between 5 and 10 quid for inter-Europe travel.
However, her comments seem to have been contradicted by the Department of Transport document - said: "In some circumstances, air transport may be a viable alternative and cannot be ruled out from the onset."
Shadow Transport Secretary Chris Grayling (opposition) branded the plans "ridiculous" and accused the Government of having "no idea" on how to tackle global warming.
Now, even though it's a European issue, I am concerned about Alantic travel. Flying is perhaps the best viable method between our two continents where it would take about 7-8 hours. Being encouraged to travel by cruise ship will take days to complete. Thus, Beckett's reasoning would make no logical sense in this type of situation.
Travelling by train in Europe is quite ideal because of its extensive rail network, on-time schedule, and reliability. I cannot say the same for Amtrak at this point.
David Zucker's new political ad
Remember filmmaker David Zucker (Airplane) made a naughty political ad about Madeleine Albright and North Korea? Well, he made a new advertisement, this time, it's about the taxman.
If Democrats want to roll back tax cuts, just do it to the really wealthy ones. But what defines rich? If a person was making $100,000, is that considered to be too rich? In some places it may be true, but in other places, people earning $100,000 barely keeps them going.
Both Democrats and Republicans say they want to protect the middle class, so what is the income range for that group? According to various sources, it could be as low as $35,000 to about $52,800. However, some data mentioned that it could go as high as $100,000.
Middle class can be defined as consisting of all those who are neither "poor" nor "rich" or one may define the middle class as being a relative elite of professionals and managers, defined by lifestyle and influence.
So if a rollback of tax cuts is being considered, politicians should know who they are hurting. By all means, I am sure you can tax up the wazoo on Donald Trump and Bill Gates, but do not assume a person earning $100,000 is that well off. A lot of factors are involved so keep that in mind.
Tennessee Republicans Question Ford's Playboy Party
Republicans are criticising Tennessee Democratic Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr. for partying with Playboy playmates at a Super Bowl Party last year.
Even though the Ford camp has been giving varied answers on whether he had attended such a party, Republicans have been advertising two commercials questioning his moral values because of his partying lifestyle.
Ok so everyone... attending a Playboy-sponsored event or mansion party is taboo to running for elective office.
Let's add liquor-sponsored events too since they always include beautiful babes.
Let's throw out Spring Break out too.
If you want to run for office, you MUST be morally perfect. So no drinking, partying, having sex before marriage, drugs, skinny-dipping, and eating red meat.
Why not dump all of the candidates and create genetically perfect humans instead?
A Republican Loss in November would be a good wake-up call
The Republicans should lose power. When the GOP first took over Congress in 1994 with their Contract on America, the voters looked at this party having a set of ideas and principles that they trusted. Most of us probably felt that was the time for a change in power. We got tired of decades of Democratic control and the usual politician answers. Even though Republicans have been in control, more or less, for about 12 years, they had done quite enough, and they cannot blame the Democrats for all their troubles.
Today, only 16 percent of Americans approve of its performance.
The economy has been doing well, but take a look at the Republican principle on smaller government. According to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, federal spending has increased by 45 percent during Bush's presidency, three times as fast as it did under Bill Clinton.
Don't blame Osama. Non-military spending has gone up by 44 percent. So far, GOP's grade on fiscal management is pretty much an F.
How about free trade? Republicans passed steel tariffs. It surrendered its leadership during the Doha round of the world trade talks. Passing a trade agreement with Jordan does not seem to be a significant example.
How about defense? This would have been the Republican's strongpoint, but progress in Iraq has been floundering. There are issues with its contracting procedures and the way they award deals to certain companies. Why military purchases now cost more and takes longer to build? It would seem that Republicans have not been doing well in supporting military veterans.
Instead of accepting blame or being proactive in combating corruption and special interest influence, they have blamed Democrats, liberal organisations, and conspiracy theorists. To most people, they represent a group more absorbed with staying in power than doing something effective with it.
Perhaps giving the Democrats a chance to control one or both chambers of Congress will give a good wake-up call to the Republicans. We certainly do need it. At this stage, voting Democrat seem to be the lesser evil this year. Of course, voting third-party would be great but there is no strong independent party out there yet. Both parties are pretty much the same. Both lack concrete ideas to solve Social Security, immigration, and a plan to fix Iraq.
So for the next two years, seeing a break in Republican control of our entire federal government would be nice to have.
Hey media folks - this politician said "injun time"!
Remember everyone critcising Republican Senator George Allen (Virginia) for using the word "macaca" to a person of Indian descent. Now people are saying he lost the chance to run for President because he has made racist and insensitive remarks.
Here's one for you. Democrat Steve Kagen, candidate for Wisconsin's 8th Congressional District, used the phrase "injun time" at an Aurora Healthcare forum.
According to a recording of the remarks, Kagen opened by introducing a staff member.
"I want to thank you for driving me around the district this morning. I really appreciate you getting me here almost on time," he says to laughter. "Our excuse, uh, in Oneida was, well we are on injun time. They don't tell time by the clock. Our excuse here is I'm a doctor and we're never on time."
So he said "injun time". Isn't that demeaning to American Indians?
So far I haven't seen this plastered on every national newspaper.
Oh wait, he kinda apologised for his "unfortunate" remark.
"I did not mean any harm by my words, and I humbly apologize if I offended anyone. That was not my intent. Instead of words, however, let's talk about actions. I have been a great supporter of Native American issues during this campaign and am proud of the strong relations I have with Native American communities in the 8th Congressional District. John Gard, meanwhile, has repeatedly taken aim at Wisconsin's Native Americans, working to dismantle tribal sovereignty, targeting Indian economic development, and shamelessly using the tribes as a political pawn against the Governor." -Dr. Steve Kagen
So should we just drop it? Or got absolutely nuts?
Most would say "he's sorry, all is forgiven"
Why do I see this reaction only for Democrats, but not for Republicans?
Oneida Tribal Chairman Gerald Danforth said "Indian time" was "one of those cliches for why you might be late for an event."
Ok, so "Indian time" is ok to use? Alright, you gave me permission.
Another example of hypocrisy.
And better yet, let's stop with the "racism" excuses and accusations. Have we gone off the deep end with politically correct phrases? Honestly, have any of us heard the word "macaca" before? So if I mentioned it while talking, would you call me a racist?
Free Speech Debate Continues at Columbia U
As noted in the Columbia Spectator, the Student Affairs Caucus adopted a resolution addressing the Minutemen incident which will be sent to the full University Senate for approval.
Some students have objected to this resolution because it is disproportionately directed towards disciplining the protestors and not the Minutemen and their supporters.
One attendee from the Law School Senate open forum on the resolution quoted "This whole veneer of protecting free speech kind of betrays [the Senate's] true intentions ... they should also be passing something that says we support our Latino students' right to be here without being attacked."
Another stated "I don't really see anything of substance in this [resolution] ... is everybody allowed to come here? Are we going to be cool if the KKK is stomping through campus?"
One student suggested that controversial speakers should be balanced by inviting a guest with an opposing agenda, in order to "create a forum for debate, as opposed to a stifled situation where one side is spewing out one particular view and creating a hostile environment."
/ Soapbox on
It would seem a good part of the student body are sympathetic to the International Socialist Organisation and Latino Caucus' right to stage a disruptive protest. They have continued to reason that they are the victims, and the Minutemen and their supporters were the instigators. This is based on the knowledge that a Minutemen supporter (outside the Columbia community) had kicked a protestor in the head. By this violent act, they believe that everyone should focus their efforts on the Minutemen group for their "dangerous" behaviour and the College Republican student organisation for their lack of control. For them, they would applaud themselves for using their "aggressive" passive disobedience in bringing out the true nature of the Minutemen.
Who knows if certain students within the governing bodies are looking for some excuse to de-recognise the Columbia College Republicans group. It would seem the logical step to stop a group from bringing controversial speakers on campus.
The idea of bringing an opposing speaker "to create a forum for debate" is supposed to be used for actual debate events and competitions. Why should groups, liberal and conservative, have to bring an opposing speaker for a lecture event? If we want to debate, then stage an actual debate or arguing competition. Even if this idea is implemented, I would want to see a pro-choice student group invite a pro-life speaker and vice versa. I want to see a capitalist speaker invited to an ISO event and vice versa.
Furthermore, the idea is somewhat unoriginal. So because of this Minutemen event, this student suddenly had a vision of bringing opposite speakers to a controversial lecture. My god, I am sure I did not think about that before! I am quite sure that none of the liberal or Democratic groups had problems about bringing their own speaker and suddenly this idea appears after a conservative group bring theirs. Quite an example of hypocrisy.
Of course I support that criminal procedures should be taken if the identity of the Minutemen supporter is discovered. But I will ask that indentifiable student protestors that rushed the stage be penalised too. Despite the so-called "hostile" speech by Stewart and Gilchrist, the protestors limit themselves to heckling and protest chants. Rushing the stage crossed the line. It is quite simple.
/ soapbox off
Jon Stewart has his say with the Columbia protestors:
Jon got it right.
Update 10/26/06
Jim GilChrist writes commentary for CNN
One way to handle a heckler
During the Connecticut Senator debate between Joe Lieberman (I), Ned Lamont (D), and Alan Schlesinger (R), a heckler was interrupting Lieberman's closing statement.
Schlesinger had enough with the heckler, stood up, and yelled "Show some respect for Senator Lieberman, leave this audience now."
Jeffrey Skilling, former Enron CEO: 24 years in prison
Former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling has been sentenced to 24 years, 4 months in prison, the harshest sentence given out for corporate fraud in America.
He was the last top former official to be punished for the accounting tricks and shady business deals that led to the loss of thousands of jobs, more than $60 billion in Enron stock and more than $2 billion in employee pension plans when Enron collapsed.
Michael J. Fox - Stem Cell Research & Claire McCaskill
This ad was shown during the World Series in St. Louis.
Naturally, it was a political ad, but you have to feel so sad seeing him try to give his message in his condition.
Some call it exploitation believing that Democrats are being desperate. Some believe stem cell research are killing the unborn. Yet, we do not do enough to adopt unwanted children or people forget that artificial insemination also involve embryos being destroyed in order to produce a baby for infertile couples.
For some of you that believe that Michael is play-acting, think again. He has Parkinson's Disease.
I am curious, should sacrifices be made to benefit the entire society as a whole? If you knew there was a chance to cure cancer, would you sacrifice a few for the many?
I know one for sure, some politicians view embryos as unborn voters. Disgusting.
Update 10/25/06
Opponents have hit back with a political ad responding to Fox's. It includes Royals player Mike Sweeney, former St. Louis Rams' Super Bowl quarterback Kurt Warner, actress Patricia Heaton, actor Jim Caviezel, and St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Jeff Suppan.
Seems to be overkill including 5 celebrities against Michael J. Fox.
In the commercial, Sweeney says "Missouri, don't be fooled." Suppan says "It makes cloning a constitutional right. Don't be deceived."
Again, groups are equating embryonic stem cell research to cloning since it will generate fear into the American public that scientists are trying to grow body parts and throwing out the rest.
Others are criticising Fox for exaggerating his physical condition. But you know what? The likely end result for many Americans with Parkinson's is what Fox is enduring.
It would be difficult for Republicans and conservative groups to attack Michael J. Fox directly. He is quite a popular actor and mostly everyone knows his condition when he went public in 1998.
Barron's: Republican Majority
Barron's Online article stating that the Republicans will barely maintain their majorities in both houses of Congress.
Their method: the campaign finances
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, House races back to 1972 showed that the candidate with the most money has won about 93% of the time. In recent years, it was closer to 98%.
Obviously, I am sure everyone will disagree with the author since this year is no ordinary year where the stakes are much greater than how much cash is in your campaign chest.
The author did note that in 1958, 1974, and 1994, the wave of anti-incumbent sentiment was so strong that money did not trump voter outrage.
More Iraqi Dead
So another 44 Iraqi people were reported killed across the country. Militants targeted police recruits and shoppers doing last-minute purchases to mark the end of the Ramandan holy month.
The U.S. military announced the deaths of eight soldiers, raising to 86 the number of American servicemembers killed in October.
U.S. President George W. Bush stood firm in his support for al-Maliki, saying he "has got what it takes to lead a unity government." But the president noted the urgency the new government faces to stop the killing.
"I'm patient. I'm not patient forever, and I'm not patient with dawdling," Bush said. "But I recognize the degree of difficulty of the task, and therefore, say to the American people, we won't cut and run."
So far, it seems that al-Maliki is not strong enough take on the dissenting factions in his government.
Cut-and-Run, Mr. President?
How about Search-and-Destroy? Sweep-and-clear?
I find it unsettling for the President to call the American people "cowards" if we leave Iraq. We are spending billions in Iraq with no end in sight. Hundreds of millions dollars are supposedly lost by the Iraqi government. We have a secretarian civil war on our hands.
By the end of 2006, we will have spent almost $420 billion on Iraq and Afghanistan.
One good thing that Senator McCain did on one of the recent war spending bill. He sponsored an amendment (passed 98-0) ending the practice of submitting war emergency bills separately. "We're adding hundreds of billions to conveniently named emergency expenditures" that do not have to be accounted for in the budget, he said.
The amendment would only apply to war spending and would allow additional emergency Pentagon spending with justification.
Marquette University: Anti-Dave Barry
A Dave Barry quote:
"As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government."
This quote was seen on Ph.D. student Stuart Ditsler's office in Marquette University. On Sept 5, Philosophy Dept Chair James South sent Ditsler an e-mail stating that he had received several complaints and therefore the quote was taken off his door. South wrote, "While I am a strong supporter of academic freedom, I'm afraid that hallways and office doors are not `free-speech zones.' If material is patently offensive and has no obvious academic import or university sanction, I have little choice but to take note."
FIRE has an article on this.
Come on here, the quote can be true if our government chooses to intrude on the rights and privacy of the people that are being governed by it. I have to imagine if Distler had Homer Simpson's quote on alcohol, would that get removed?
No extra-large portions
The one thing that I appreciate while staying in Europe was that the restaurants always know what is the proper portion to serve out.
It looks like in the United States, having extra large portions seems to be the normal way, and the basic expectations among fatty Americans.
In a USA TODAY survey, most restaurants are dishing out portions that are 2 to 4 times bigger than the government's recommended serving sizes.
A typical restaurant meal alone would contain at least 60% more calories than the average meal at home.
The survey noted that older chefs tend to serve smaller portions, and younger chefs dish larger ones. It seems that seeing a empty plate after dinner is a no-no. Oh yes, they want to give you a large-sized portion just to see if you can manage to eat it all.
Restaurants worry that customers would notice the small-sized portions if they tried to cut back. Why worry??? Who knows they will seek out a buffet restaurant offering unlimited food for only $8.95 and they can eat till they gain a waist size or two. Honestly, buffet eateries should disappear as well as all-you-cat eat promotions. They just ruin your food intake.
This is why dessert is always skipped.
Basic Vehicle Necessity: Rear View Camera for Parking
The problem we have here is being able to parallel park correctly. As we go to the movies, shop, or just drive to some destination, we often find owners trying to fit their vehicles into a tight open space along the sidewalk or being unable to determine how much space should be left over when you finished parking. I am sure most of you including myself have backed a bit too much, and hit the front bump of the vehicle behind you. I am sure very few of you have moved back a bit too quick, and causing the vehicle's alarm to go off.
In recent news, Lexus announced that their LS model will come with a "Park Assist" feature. Yet, the price tag for a luxury model would be pretty much out of the price range of many college students (except for the most rich =P). Mercedes and BMW have also announced similar features.
Yet, the one necessity that is considered to be a normal part of a vehicle in Japan, but as a luxury feature in the U.S. is the backup cam and/or sensor. Parallel parking for large-sized SUVs is probably very difficult given the harder perception to determine the amount of distance available in the rear. Your sideview mirror can help, but remember "objects in mirror are closer than they appear."
Even if you do manage to parallel park, you get out and check, and you notice that you got a lot of space still. Now this is my complaint. In most cases, the driver would just leave the car as-is. It would be nice to get back into your vehicle, and adjust accordingly just for courtesy sake.
I do not see why car dealers should treat the backup cam as a "extra" item for your vehicle. It ought to be part of the base model. It would help avoid potential car damage and limited liability.
If this keeps up, I may have to jury-rig a webcam in the back by myself.
A Driver Rant
Will owners of the Ford F-150 truck please do not park in the first spot in the parking garage row. Did you know that your vehicle extends out quite a lot so it blocks a quarter of the passing way.
Should "Terror" Political Ads scare us?
Above is a GOP ad set to air this weekend called "The Stakes," which prominently features al Qaeda leaders threatening to kill Americans.
It is available on the Republican National Committee web site. The ad is pretty much reminiscent of Johnson's 1964 "Daisy" ad, where a small girl counts to 10 as she picks petals from a flower. When she reaches 10, the camera zooms in on her eye and an ominous voice counts backward from 10 to zero. When the countdown reaches zero, a nuclear bomb explodes, followed by Johnson speaking.
"These are the stakes to make a world in which all God's children can live or to go into the dark," Johnson says on the ad. "We must either love each other or we must die."
Reagan's campaign used a bear to symbolise the threat of the former Soviet Union.
Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney statement:
"Once again we see that the GOP will truly do and say anything regardless of whether or not it's true, they are so desperate to hold onto power. Clearly Republicans are so afraid of their abysmal record they can't offer one example of what they've done to keep America safe."
Republican National Committee statement:
The ad "underscores the high stakes America faces in the global war on terror by using the words of the terrorists themselves as they describe their intention towards the United States."
Will Human Remains remain as a permanent obstacle to rebuilding Ground Zero?
On Friday, New York City announced that it will search parts of the World Trade Center site again for remains of the Sept. 11 dead after several bones were pulled out of an abandoned manhole.
It appears there were bone fragments, and were almost as large as a hand or arm, plus a few personal effects.
The Sept. 11 victims' families have demanded that all construction be stopped at ground zero until remains of all their loved ones are recovered. They also called for a state and federal investigation into the failure of recovering all human remains.
Yahoo AP - NYC to look for more remains at WTC site
Baltimore Sun - More pain, another search of Ground Zero for remains
Diane Horning, where her son, Matthew Horning, who was killed in the attacks, stated at a news conference: "We cannot stress strongly enough that we are outraged by the continued cavalier attitude toward the retrieval of human remains. This new development makes us all physically ill and fills us with renewed pain."
She even suggested that the remains in the manhole could be more of her son since part of his body was found not far from there.
Alright, I am sure all of us do sympathise with the families on that awful tragic day, but we really need to face reality. Ever since 9/11, over 20,000 pieces of human remains have been found, but the DNA in thousands of fragments was too damaged to yield any identification. More than 1,100 of the 2,749 victims have not been recovered.
The remains found in the manhole could be any one of the 1,100 or perhaps any one of the 2,749 victims. The WTC Families for Proper Burial has filed a lawsuit against the city calling for a search and burial. (Ok how many organisations are out there with the name WTC Families or Victims? Too many.) They alleged that the city "does not care" about recovering all human remains and did the process too quickly.
So one unfortunate discovery is an example of widespread carelessness? Everyone has been trying to do their very best. Imagine if remains were found along the Battery Park, should we shut down the entire park and surrounding buildings and do a thorough search? Should residents living in nearby buildings around Ground Zero be subject to fine or prison time if they are alleged to have cleaned up "human remains" that may have floated into their residence? That debris smoke field was quite extensive.
Life must continue on. If new DNA methods are found, they must be used, but in an effective manner. The city cannot just shut down their financial hub for search and burial. Let's be realistic.
Deputy Mayor for Administration Edward Skyler said "The recovery effort after 9/11 was one of our city's finest hours. We will continue to conduct this important work in the same dignified and caring manner as we did in the past, befitting those we lost and this great city."
A lawsuit is not the answer. Let the city be able to do its job to find what went wrong. Involving the state and federal authorities invites more red tape and bureaucratic nonsense.
Space is U.S. Territory?
Since when did space become U.S. territory? President George W. Bush has signed a new National Space Policy that rejects future arms-control agreements that might limit U.S. flexibility in space and asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone "hostile to U.S. interests."
Does this mean that Bush has withdrawn the United States from the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, a multilateral treaty governing space arms control? Here is a list of all space treaties listed under the UN. It would seem that Bush has taken upon himself to make the U.S. the sole regulator of space.
How would this affect the Moon Treaty of 1979, the Convention on the Registration of Space Objects Launched into Outer Space of 1976, and the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects of 1972?
The revised National Space Policy placed its emphasis on security issues, private enterprise in space, and defining the role of the U.S. space diplomacy to basically persuading other nations that the U.S. position is right, and they are wrong.
The introduction summarises the U.S. posture: "Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power." One senior administration official remarked unofficially that "this policy is not about developing or deploying weapons in space. Period."
Yet, one think tank, the Henry L. Stimson Center, believes that the policy change would just reinforce international suspicions that the U.S. may seek to develop, test, and deploy space weapons. It would make logical sense since Bush does not want to revise or negotiate any new arms-control agreements regarding space and the Moon. Also, by asserting that it has the "authoritative" right to deny other nations access to space, it would make nations think that the U.S. can try to bomb or sabotage a nation's space launch capability, or if a nation manages to reach space and start deploying satellites and space stations, the U.S. would need to deploy satellite weapons or other space-related weapons to disable or destroy such installations.
The Center for Defense Information states that the new policy "kicks the door a little more open to a space-war fighting strategy" and has a "very unilateral tone to it."
The Bush administration denies this saying the policy will help encourage international diplomacy and cooperation. I wonder if involves facing a loaded gun in the face and being asked to cooperate or face the consequences. One official even said that no new arms-control agreements are needed because there is no space arms race.
I should sit down and laugh about this. Of course we do not want any new arms-control agreements. The U.S. wants to be more flexibility and who knows, they can launch a secret project to deploy certain space weapons that are not covered by the space treaties, so they can just say "Oops" when the whole plot is uncovered! Bush wants to adopt a reactive position, not a proactive position. Who knows if Bush would just call Russia, China, and the UN and say the U.S. is going to withdraw from the space treaties because they do not apply anymore.
Under Clinton, the goals were to "enhance knowledge of the Earth, the solar system and the universe through human and robotic exploration" and to "strengthen and maintain the national security of the United States."
Under Bush, the revised goals are to "strengthen the nation's space leadership and ensure that space capabilities are available in time to further U.S. national security, homeland security, and foreign policy objectives" and to "enable unhindered U.S. operations in and through space to defend our interests there."
A more militaristic tone, don't you think?
Another recent example is the United States being the lone country to vote "no" against a UN call for negotiations on a ban on space weapons. The other 160 countries voted "yes."
The Heritage Foundation applauded the new policy. One defense analyst supported the policy's rejection of international agreements or treaties, and the need to protect military assets and place missile defense components in space. He even suggested that with private enterprise being developed for space use, they would need U.S. "protection."
It would seem justified when China recently "painted" a U.S. satellite (spy or reconnassance?) when it flew over their territory. There has been suggestion that China was trying to blind or perhaps, disrupt the satellite.
Further Thoughts
The United States wants to be the dominant space power above the planet. It's plain obvious. Of course I am sure some space military hawks would like the whole space surrounding the planet covered with U.S. space weapons, but I do not want to know what would the reaction be from China and Russia if they are forced into a corner.
No wonder the U.S. was opposed to the deployment of the Galileo GPS system (developed by the European Union). Even though their official reasoning is based on the fact that Galileo will provide an unnecessary backup to the U.S.' GPS system, there are military concerns that enemy nations may be able to access Galileo's precisioning to launch coordinated attacks. Galileo is supposed to be operational by 2010.
As for Russia, they have their own system called GLONASS (Global Navigation Satellite System), with about 12 active satellites as of 2004. They hope to reach full operational capability of 24 satellites, with assistance from India, by 2008.
Would the U.S. even try to stop China from deploying a space station or a manned mission to the moon? Currently, the U.S. would be a few years behind in sending a manned mission to our celestial neighbor, but think of how the hawks in the military and in the government would feel to see a Chinese presence on the Moon. Who knows what secret weapons or projects they are setting up there? Gotta love paranoia!
How about a bit of common sense? We should develop a defensive capability space-to-space, not space-to-ground, and with emphasis on stopping an asteroid from hitting the planet. Earth is our only home, and currently, we are quite vulnerable out there.
If we want a space arms race, let's think outward instead of each other.
Washington Post - Bush Sets Defense As Space Priority
Dartmouth Afraid of Active Alumni?
In Wall Street Journal's Opinion section, a Dartmouth alum, talks about an attempt by the University and the Alumni Governance Task Force to re-write the alumni constitution in response to the election of three recent alums (including the author of the WSJ editorial) to the Board of Trustees.
It seems that the intent of these three recently elected alumni board trustee members to make Dartmouth a place of high academic standards, maintaining the importance of freedom of speech on campus, and the need for the institution to strive to remain the best undergraduate program in the country has scared the current establishment.
Each of the three alums utilised the petition mechanism to get onto the board. Each gathered thousands of signatures to get their name on the ballot, and they each defeated the other official candidates for the open position.
In response, the 9-person Alumni Governance Task Force, proposed a new alumni constitution that would force petition trustee candidates to announce their intentions before the nominating committee announced the official slate. This would allow the committee to game each election by choosing its candidates to split the opposition vote. Balloting on this new constitution, which is open to all 66,500 alumni, began in mid-September and will continue until the end of this month.
An example of where the current education establishment is afraid of change and are willing to take steps to maintain the status quo.
WSJ Opinion Journal - The Dartmouth Fracas
Jesus saves Tiger Woods
From the New York Post's Page Six:
Tiger Woods had a Q&A session with guests at the 2006 "Tee It Up with Tiger Woods" event in Los Angeles. According to one source, most people were asking about their swings or golf questions until some guy - a guest of Nike - stood up and said, 'Have you accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior? And if not, prayfully, would you?' " The source added, "You could have heard a pin drop. People were mortified. But Tiger was as unflappable as he is on the golf course and responded, 'My father was a Christian - of course Christianity was part of my life - but my mother is Asian and Buddhism was also part of my childhood, so I practice both faiths respectfully.'
I wonder if the Jesus-loving guy was happy with Tiger's answer.
A New Korean War?
While some have played down the possiblity of another Korean War on the peninsula, it cannot be wholly discounted. Today, North Korea has declared that the United Nations sanctions being levied against the country is equivalent to a "declaration of war." It has declared that it would not accept any heavy handed pressure since it was a nuclear power.
In its first official response to the sanctions, the statement said North Korea wanted "peace but is not afraid of war." It would "deal merciless blows" against anyone who violated its sovereignty.
At the same time, intelligence officials in South Korea, Japan, and the United States have detected preparations for a possible second nuclear test. This would indicate that North Korea is more willing to engage in provocative acts against the international community.
But could a resumption of war on the Korean peninsula start up again? South Korea remains optimistic still. Chun Young-Woo, Seoul's lead negotiator in the stalled six-nation talks called it "the usual rhetoric that they have been using" and it was nothing new since the crisis started over the North's nuclear test.
Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is embarking on a diplomatic drive to persuade Asian allies and Russia to "intensify" North Korea's isolation by enforcing U.N. resolutions. She will visit Japan, China, South Korea, and Russia. She assured her allies that the United States "has both the will and capacity to meet the full range of our security commitments to allies like South Korea and Japan."
She even tried to extend of an olive branch by saying "If North Korea reverses course and embraces the path of cooperation, if it makes the strategic choice to dismantle its nuclear weapons completely, briefly and irreversibly, an entirely new and better future would be open to it and to its people," she said.
At this point, unilateral force by the United States would be disastrous. There would not be a coalition of the willing since South Korea, Japan, and Australia would not go along with it, and it may face intervention by Chinese and Russian forces on behalf of the North Koreans. Thus, the U.S. is using Cold War diplomacy: containment and deterrence.
In an opinion piece, David Sanger of the New York Times, writes that the "United States still boasts the world's largest military, most dynamic economy and a culture that the world snaps up, there is rising evidence that many countries - Russia and the PRC among them - sniff a distinct change in the strategic atmosphere. While North Korea knows it would not last a day in a full-scale war with the United States, it skillfully exploits an American soft point when it stirs fears about its potential to sow havoc among America's Northeast Asian allies and crucial trading partners - Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and China."
James Steinberg, dean of the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, served as deputy national security advisor under President Clinton, noted the fact that America was willing to invade Iraq, he said, so it led North Korea and Iran to conclude that they needed nuclear weapons to deter America from putting them in its gunsights next. "And now, by failing to subdue Iraq and move on, we've encouraged them to conclude that there is little risk to them if they just speed forward into nuclear breakout.
Sanger continues: "It's not only that American hard power is tied up in Baghdad and Kabul; Mr. Bush has acknowledged that soft power - the ability to lead because you are admired - is suffering, too. Abu Ghraib 'kind of eased us off the moral high ground,' he volunteered at the news conference the other day. In short, being a sole superpower isn't what it was cracked up to be 17 years ago. Back then, you could measure a nation's power in throw-weights. Now, it's the amount of weight you can throw around."
Other development include Japan considering re-deploying its naval assets from the Indian Ocean (where they are currently assisting US operations in Afghanistan) to waters near the DPRK.
It will also bring up debate of whether Japan should possess nuclear weapons as a response to DRPK's nuclear test.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Would North Korea invade first? Their forces number approximately 1.1 million soldiers. South Korea has about 690,000 and the U.S. has about 37,000. Not to mention that Pyongyang has about 100,000 in their special forces.
Along the DMZ, South Koreans and Americans are at Watchcon Three condition (surveillance/alert level). Two condition would have been a heightened state of alert. Watchcon One would be a state of war.
Certainly, North Korea's MiG-29s and Su-25S aircraft would not survive against US and South Korea air forces given their current state of readiness and short fuel supply. Thus it would need to utilise a blitzkrieg approach across the DMZ in addition to using their special forces to wreck havoc among South Korean infrastructure and installations.
Seoul, the South Korean capital, is unfortunately in range of the North's 12,000 artillery tubes and 2,300 MLR (multiple-launch rockets/medium-long range) hidden in caves and underground. North Korean jets can reach the capital in about 6 minutes.
North Korea would be favored if their timing is right. A few minutes of confusion would all be needed to carry out a crippling blow against the South's infrastructure, military, and otherwise. It would involve surprise in sending divisions of troops across the DMZ. Even though the mines and early-warning posts would trigger any warning, it would really depend on how fast the response time among the South Korean military forces. At the same time, North Korean special forces would already be conducting acts of sabotage to slow down reinforcements to the front lines.
Even though superiority through air and sea will be controlled by US/South Korea and other allies, land forces will certainly be difficult. No one really knows if Seoul can be defended during the early actions of the attack. US reinforcements will have to come from their Japanese bases (approx 47,000 personnel and 20,000 marines) plus the U.S. Seventh Fleet (USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier).
Additional fleet assets include the USS Stennis and Reagan aircraft carriers task groups which are currently based in the Pacific. Army and air force assets will have to come from either Afghanistan, Guam, and Western U.S. via Pearl.
I am quite sure the North Koreans will be beaten, but are we prepare for the cost for it?
Related Links
Wikipedia - Korean Demilitarised Zone
Wikipedia - United Nations Command Korea