In other news...

...I didn't save a bunch on my car insurance.

Explosives

So I've been thinking about this whole stink over some explosives (okay 400 tons of them) in Iraq. I don't know why the government is being obtuse about their whereabouts except if they had seized them and were gonna use them somewhere. Otherwise the US military's standard operating procedure when it comes across explosives that they don't want is to blow them up.

We had all kinds of surveillance up in the air at the time (and I assume we still do), so it wouldn't be trivial to smuggle out 400 tons of high explosives in 55 gallon drums.

So this one tape of the place filmed by a reporter in a plane that was flying over the facility shows "barrels" outside of the location they used to be. My question is... Where is the freaking huge blackened hole in the ground? I just can't imagine a unit giving up the opportunity to explode a really big pile of fireworks.

Zinger.....

I'm getting really good at writing nastygrams.

Normally they consist of...

*Introduction*

*niceties*

*whap*
*whap*
*whap*
*whap*

Bryan H.

The last one I sent I never got a reply to. However, the problem was fixed in a few hours. I wonder what this next one will do.

Life/2 or something like that....

So Half-Life II is scheduled to be released November now....

Any guesses if it will be? And for bonus points: Will it look old now and be overshadowed by whatever else is gonna be coming out this November?

And of course for uber bonus points: If they release it Nov 1st what percentage of the population will NOT be voting?

Fun with syllogisms

My previous post reminded how much fun one can have with logic. So here's some more for y'all.


Premise 1A) The United States has been victim to job exportation because of lower labor costs in Europe and China
Premise 1B) Energy costs in Europe, Asia, and developing countries is significantly higher than in the United States.
Conclusion 1) Raising energy costs high enough will bring jobs back to the United States.

Premise 2A) The United States primarily consumes oil from domestic sources, Venezuela, and Mexico.
Premise 2B) Europe and China consume oil from the Middle East
Conclusion 2) The United States, can increase world oil costs without significantly affecting its own.

Premise 3A) See Conclusion 1.
Premise 3B) See Conclusion 2.
Conclusion 3) The world opposed the Iraq invasion because it means they could very well loose the business of supplying American consumers to American Suppliers.



Hey that was fun, but doesn’t it naturally follow that we don’t actually care if Iraq stabilizes? Oh wait doesn’t that mean that repairing isn’t in our best interests?

Wow! I wonder why it’s European contractors frantically repairing the pipeline every time it gets sabotaged.

Aren't firends (ahem, enemies) great?!

So this evening I was talking to somebody I know, though I would not really consider a friend. More like a favorite nemesis. Anyhow, I asked why if they believed in democracy so much why they did not move to any number of democracies around the world that exist today.

The answer?

Because they had respect for this country and felt, it was wrong to have to move because "right wingers" were forcing them out. Moreover, because they wanted to make a difference.

This statement actually really gave me an incredible amount of insight into this particular individual. This statement has so very much information about the democrat condition that I would never have thought it possible to condense it down so far. Because it is so overwhelmingly dense, I will break it into parts and what I got out of it.

Respect for this country. Okay so maybe I cannot argue with this statement. Nevertheless, what is respected? The principles that the founding fathers based the nation of freedom; the final great step for humankind at the gold age of reason? For some reason I cannot believe that much because if that were true then how could one consistently believe in the gradual socialization that has gripped this nation.

If one does not believe in the principles that were used to forge this nation out of barbarism, then how can one claim a right to its protection? In fact, that is the tremendously awesome power of the principles of this nation's foundation, you can claim a right to reside here under its protection because it only cares if you obey the basic moral right: leave alone, and you shall be left alone.

Wrong to move because it would be paramount to be "forced out" by the "right wingers.” This is a highly amusing part of the sentence to me because it is inherently hypocritical. We will go for a syllogism:

Premise A) Democracy is rule of the many.
Premise B) "Right wingers" are the majority.
Conclusion C) Democrats should have no voice.

Isn't it wonderful that the United States isn't actually a democracy? Cause if it was can you just imagine what the outcome would be? Well it’s not too hard for me actually, considering how few people actually support most liberal causes. America is still quite full of the average hard working citizen that only wants to earn a living, raise a family, and not have to worry about the outside world encroaching upon his property and life. If the United States was not a Republic (and the very large population of people above the 45% registered to vote that are currently content decided to change things) then there would be no place for a democrat. Actually likely if we saw that 55% of eligible voters, vote, I don't think we'd be seeing many Republicans either.

Okay the statement is inherently hypocritical, but what other information can be gleaned from it? If I apply my principles, I would say that moving to any other country would be trading a higher value for a lower value, which would violate any number of morals in egoism. However, wouldn't the altruistic principles of Democracy obligate you to move as to increase the tax base of a true democracy and not lend support (in true non-violent protest?) to an evil enterprise?

Making a difference. Ah, the kicker right here. Thinking about everything above the natural conclusion I would draw is that a democrat can't make a difference because every step they take would end up reducing their power by the very nature of the American people.

Thank god for the people. Maybe they aren't as dumb as they sometimes seem.

Actually that leads right into a good article I found the other day:
Empire to the Pursuit of Happiness. I especially like it because it was written by an engineer (some of us actually do care about the conditions around us). In fact, I doubt anybody will ever argue that the arts and literature are what makes America the power it is. But I guarantee that plenty will argue that our innovation, production, and freedom of wealth do.

Go there

Go Here NOW!


that's an imperative sentence alright.

Deep Thoughts

Okay I have a few questions and a few semi-baked thoughts I wish to dump upon this world and possibly hear other people's opinions on.

• The premise I'm starting off with is the assumption that there exist genetic deficiencies in humans that we have been able over time to correct during a person's life.
  
• The next premise is that the world's population and hence population density is rising.
  
• And lastly that there exist certain environmental conditions that are conducive to increasing the probability that a genetic mutation will occur.
  

Given those stated premises my question is: Should we strive to prevent reproduction of those individuals that we have the ability to correct their defect and extend their life through the child bearing ages?

Which weight is greater: The natural right of people to reproduce? Or prevention of a generation dependent upon medical technology?

I can artificially created, through more discussion of course, a dilemma that I can not easily reconcile. However, I will end this post here in the hopes I will hear some thoughts.