Just Words

So, I survived. Actually I did far better than that. I had a really great time. I found that people weren't nearly as distasteful as my paranoia led me to believe. There are four kinds of people at high school reunions. People you looked forward to seeing who showed up. People you were not looking forward to seeing who showed up. People you were looking forward to seeing who didn't show up. And, lastly, people you were not looking forward to seeing who did not show up. As it turns out, last night we had all four.

Overall impressions:
The girls who I thought were kind of snobby in high school weren't snobby at all last night.
The guys who I thought were snobby in high school were still almost as snobby last night as they were in high school.
Possible reasons for this: maybe I'm cuter now? Maybe the guys were the problem in the first place and I just didn't try to talk to the girls because of it? Maybe I'm just imagining the whole thing and there wasn't even a high school reunion?

The highlight of the evening was a 20 minute conversation with Morgan Laird. This guy used to be such a shithead in high school. Ballsy mouthpiece who was too small to pummel. And he hung out with the group of guys that didn't mix with me and my friends. And by "didn't mix with" I mean "seemed to hold an irrational (and unfounded) hatred for". But last night he was a totally different guy. He said that he feels like a dick now for the things that happened back then. So I told him to not worry about it. I certainly didn't care about it as long as he was willing to put it behind him. You can't carry that stuff around with you. And then we reminisced about how there were still a few guys from his old crowd that couldn't let things go and how it got messy from time to time at parties. Stupid shit that's way in the past. But now Morgan seems like a cool guy.

There were a few notable absentees. At the top of my list of people that I would like to have seen is Kim Debella. We were the only 2 people in a Calculus 12 class in our final quarter-year in high school. The school didn't want to cancel the class because they would have to pay the teacher regardless so they stuck us in a closet-room and we happily learned Calculus 3 hours a day for 10 weeks. And whenever one of us didn't get our homework done we would just tell the other to claim the same so that Mr Shockey would give us the first 20 minutes of class to finish. If he ever caught on to the fact that we neglected our homework in unison he never said anything about it. Good times.

All in all I had a great time and I'm looking forward to the beach thing tomorrow. I hope a few of the truants who live in Vernon show up because there are still more people I'd like to see again. Oh yeah, and as of tomorrow I should be blogging entirely from home because the @Home service is up and it works great (w00t!)

|

Wow. Hardly have any time to blog at all lately. That will all change this Friday when I get the internet at home (finally). Working long hours this week. We have a customer visiting us from California. His name is David. Here's a snippet of a conversation yesterday that pretty much sums up how my week has been so far.

Me: Thanks for the pizza today, by the way.
David: No problem.
Me: It's not often that I screw up royally and get pizza bought for me. That shows class.
David chuckles quietly.
Me: Can I just take this opportunity to say that I'm very sorry about that?
David: Oh, that's okay. Everybody makes mistakes.
Me: Yeah, I guess. But I much prefer the kind of mistake where I accidentally drop something and break it to the kind where I make a conscious choice to do something a certain way and it turns out to be the exact wrong thing to do.
David chuckles again.

Life isn't good. Life isn't bad. Life is just kind of wobbling back and forth between the two in an unstable system trying to find its equilibrium. And it probably would be able to stabilize a lot quicker if I stopped fidgeting. So, to answer the obvious question, yes I screwed something up. Yes it was fairly serious and no I can't blame anyone else. No, I'm not going to lose my job over it or anything like that. No, we're not going to lose David as a customer. Yes, what we're working on right now is going to take more time because of what I did and yes I feel terrible. No, I'm not going to tell you what I did because it would be several paragraphs of technical jargon that would only lead to more questions. Suffice it to say that life in the Engineering Compliance industry is never boring.

To change topics, I'm off to my ten year high school reunion tomorrow night. I feel like my life is coming to a nexus point and that something I do or say there could explode into a thousand possible future pathways. The respect of my peers has always been important to me. And the fact that the ingrates I graduated with, for the most part, didn't even know who I was is something that still chafes. Back then it was the snobbishness of people maturing and looking for a leg up on the societal food chain that caused the gap between me and them. Tomorrow night it will most likely be my own mistrust of them and their intentions that will keep the gap firmly where it sits. Waiting for the next high school reunion for another chance to close.

|

Microsoft recently gave $32 Billion to its shareholders in a one-time big money dividend payout. Apparently they have all this cash laying around the office that they just don't know what to do with. But I have a suggestion. How about hiring a few extra software engineers to debug Windows? They're making about a billion dollars in cash every month. You must understand something. That's a billion dollars... cash. Profit. That's not revenue. That's what's left over from the revenue after they pay all expenses. And they say that Windows isn't overpriced.

I must say that I love capitalism, but I hate Consumer Price Gouging (CPG), I think that if a company has a monopoly in some area of the market then it is in their best interest to:
a) not overcharge for their product
b) keep improving their product
c) use both a) and b) to maintain an edge in the market to keep out competition rather than using oversized marketshare.

Having one standard operating system for nearly all users and hardware developers was a great boon to the computer industry. But since then, Windows has only dragged the industry into its narrow viewpoint. The cause of the rise of the computer age is also what is now holding it back.

As for the $32 Billion, it's probably the only dividend payout in history that could have a measurable effect on the economy. Bill Gates gets just over 3 Billion dollars of it. He says he's giving the entire sum to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation bringing the foundation's assets to more than $30 Billion. This officially doubles the US government's yearly contribution to fighting AIDS. I'm glad to see that Bill Gates is using his personal income for something other than houses and yachts. Too often lately we see owners of big corporations use company money to give bonuses to the Board of Directors and pay for lavish birthday parties.

I feel a strange mixture of revulsion and admiration for Bill Gates. The monopolistic and price-gouging tendencies of Microsoft are deplorable. But outside the office, I can't help but think that he'd be a nice guy to sit down and talk with. He gives far more to charitable organizations than is strictly necessary for tax purposes and he justifies the view that someday the unpopular people in high school will someday rule the world.

|

Last week, Stephen Hawking admitted that he was wrong. For people who don't already know, this is a very big deal. Just as in real life, it is difficult for some scientists to give up on their theories because it has to do with how they see the universe. The more you know about something and how it works, less likely you are to allow the thought of something else to interfere with it. Your mind will create a block, censoring out the "erroneous" data and accepting the "useful" data. This is how subjectivity starts.

The idea that a very knowledgeable and influential scientist could be wrong is nothing new. It's happened many times in history. Isaac Newton produced a theory with experimental data to support it having to do with the propagation of light. His theory directly contradicted a different theory submitted by a scientist named Hooke. The two fought for years about who was right. In the end, every one in the world believed that Newton's version of the truth was correct because he'd never been wrong before. It was almost 200 years before the scientific world was forced to take another look at Hooke's work and admit that Newton was wrong. Perhaps if Isaac Newton were more open-minded like Stephen Hawking science wouldn't have been set back for that amount of time.

Most people are unaware, but Einstein also tried to admit that he was wrong. He said that his two biggest contributions to science, Relativity and Quantum theory, directly contradicted each other. He said that, when looking at each theory on its own, they both appeared correct but when they were placed side by side it was obvious that one was flawed somehow. The work of most modern science is based on one of these two theories so it is very important that they both be correct. Trying to reconcile this apparent contradiction has kept very many very intelligent people very busy for a long time. And all they have is more theories.

Quite a few of these theories have received quite a bit of attention. Time Magazine particularly enjoys publishing cover stories of "how the universe will end" and "what's inside a black hole" and such. But it's essentially all just theory published as if it were fact. And no one dares to doubt the word of a respected scientist and theorist like Stephen Hawking, or any of the other no-name brand scientists in these articles.

But science was built on doubt. It was first developed by people who didn't blindly accept the given explanations of the origins of the world and how it fit together. Where is that spirit? Where are the people who question the accepted theories? Why is everyone so afraid of being wrong? Why will everyone believe whatever is published on the cover of Time Magazine without questioning how it works? How is it that everyone is willing to blindly accept the explanation given by the latest person who is proclaimed as the resident expert?

I have a theory about the universe that is particularly unpopular and incongruent with most scientific theory of today. But is very much in line with Stephen Hawking's latest accepted truth. The universe is not nearly as complex and interesting as science and science fiction has led us to believe. There are no holes to other points in the universe. There will be no travelling through time or folding of space or any of that. Pretty boring. Which is what makes it unpopular. Everybody wants there to be exciting things in space to discover and explore. People want the place outside of our planetary shell to be wondrous and pocked full of possibility. This desire is particularly strong with theoretical physicists who have devoted their lives (not to mention their considerable intellects) to the study of the universe. All the time holding to the specific principles that all the great scientists who came before them were correct and infallible.

Well what if they weren't correct and infallible? Most of the experimental data we have used to verify scientific theory all has the same thing in common, the experiments were performed very close to Earth and well within the bounds of our solar system. What if these things work differently outside our solar system? The data used to calculate the "Universal Gravitational Constant" is based mainly on the interactions between the planets and the sun. But what if this constant were dependent on factors we haven't even considered yet and it was somehow different in some other part of the universe? They use Newton's gravitational equation to explain that only 10% of our galaxy is visible and the rest is made up of something called "dark matter". But if the Universal Gravitational Constant isn't as constant as Newton first assumed (and no one has really questioned) then this could all be a bunch of crap. In my opinion, most scientists haven't moved forward with the right amount of caution and perspective.

We all need to understand more about science if we're going to exist outside the confines of our little planet someday. We all need to grasp the concepts that are shown to us. We can't just accept theories of the prominent scientists without question. We can't afford it. Science is built on the principle that every finding can be repeated and shown to anybody else. The proof doesn't exist in an evidence locker somewhere that only certain people are allowed to see. If it's real science it should be evident for anybody to see and experience. It should be true in all places, times and from all perspectives. There should be no subjectivity because it gets left behind when other people question the data that seems inconsistent.

So let this be my questioning of modern science. I am a scientist at heart. Which means that things are only true when I see them for myself. I'm convinced when I see that the universe has to be one certain way because all other possibility has been stripped away. And I haven't seen many scientists do that for a very long time.

|

3 homemade hamburgers with lettuce, tomato, cucumber, onion and cheese
2 barbecued corns on the cob
2 baked potatoes - one large, one medium-sized
1 pint of cold iced tea

|

My nephew Jager is the coolest kid. I told him I was coming to visit him this weekend so he insisted that Melanie drive out to Kelowna to pick me up last night. Even though he slept for the whole car ride and went to bed right away after getting home. Melanie and I watched a Anger Management and talked until 1 AM. I slept in Jager's bedroom and he slept with Melanie. At 6:30 this morning I woke up to an almost-5-year-old crawling under the covers with me and snuggling up. That lasted for all of two minutes before he started trying to find different ways of getting me to wake up while I tried to find different ways of ignoring him. This lasted for another 20 minutes before he got bored and let me sleep until 7:30.

Thursday was a big day for me. I finally broke through my block of anger and resentment and emailed someone I haven't talked to directly since late March. I find it hard to forgive people sometimes. And my anger usually gets stuffed down in to the lowest pit of my soul and only manifests in the form of vengeful thoughts and rude, biting comments. Very cold. Very calculating. I typically try to forget about people when they've done something to make me really angry because the alternative is so much more unpleasant.

She emailed back last night and I hope that we can talk like civilized people about the problems between us. But I'm not holding my breath. She is possibly the most explosively angry person I know. And the things I have to confront her about will not be pleasant. I'm optimistic but not blind or ignorant. What happens in the next week or so will either rebuild the bridge or nuke it for good. Here's hoping for the best.

|

Well. Back to the regular stuff. That is, if there's anyone left reading this blog after all this nonsense. It would appear that Arklahomboy (aka Chad) is not such a bad guy once he stops the foul language. I would like to formally accept the apology that he left in a comment earlier today. I would also like to apologize to Arklahomboy for the mocking tone I used last week while responding to his remarks.

Last Monday, when I first read all the comments on my "To start a war or to finish it" post, I felt insulted and challenged at what I saw was a hostile presence which threatened the peace of my webspace. I didn't want to delete the comments because I strongly oppose censorship and I'd like to stand by the name I so brazenly pasted across the top of this blog. Anything Goes. So without hardly even flinching I attacked back. I felt the need to drive the unwanted presence away and defend the right of any friendly visitors to leave comments unharassed. I was wrong to do this.

I have learned a lesson from my actions. I have acted in much the same manner as the US government that I sought to oppose. I lashed back at the invader without collecting appropriate data beforehand. I acted on instinct instead of intellect. This, in fact, makes me a hypocrite. I cannot deny it anymore than I can deny seeing it right in front of me. I have learned a little of what it is like to be an American living the the USA at this time and place.

So, while I don't support the US military action in Iraq I do recognize that it's not always easy to see the right thing to do in this crazy, mixed-up world. There will never again be a war whose purpose is as clear and definable as WW II. Perhaps a little leeway can be afforded the people in charge.

I would also like to say that I am comfortable with anyone challenging my opinions, or the facts behind them, as long as they are not rude to other commenters. Being rude to me is fine because, chances are, I deserve it. As a step toward seeing the other viewpoint more often (or maybe just as punishment for being so hypocritical) I will now place a link to Arklahomboy's blog on my sidebar.

|

While I like to express my own opinion I don't really like drawing conclusions for other people. Typically, I prefer to state the facts (as I see them) and pose a question that anyone who happens by can feel free to answer as they see fit. It's difficult for me to make sure my opinion is clear while still being objective about all the facts and allowing room for others to have their own opinions. If I fail in doing this then I apologize. I would also like to apologize for something I posted on July 12, 2004 I stated in a post that "Saddam did not have known ties to Al-Qaeda at any time." I apologize for not being as clear in this statement as I could have been. It should have been stated that there is no evidence to show that Saddam was co-operating with Al-Qaeda. Semantics are so difficult. I'm glad I'm not a politician.

Links. Links. Links. Links is such a loose word that hardly defines anything. To say that there are "links" between two parties is like saying that someone is holding a bunch of "things" or that someone knows a bunch of "people". It isn't descriptive of any kind of relationship. It's more of a gloss word than anything that can prove anything really. This post is just an introduction to the following four posts that are all meant to be taken together. I broke them up so that people can comment on each section if they want. Enjoy.

|

I've done a lot of looking into Richard Miniter and this op-ed piece that he's written. Strangely enough, there is very little information about him or any of the information he mentions here. Oddly, he seems to be the only person who's talking about these particular items. He mentions that the snippets of intelligence in this article are a matter of public record. There's a funny thing about a statement like "public record". Presumably it means that any US citizen could get ahold of this information. But Richard Miniter doesn't mention where this public record can be found. He also doesn't mention what other information can be found wherever he got this information. There's a particular problem that occurs when you zoom in too close on an issue and leave behind all other points of logic. It's important to keep some kind of perspective. To see all points of view. All facts. Not just the points of view or facts that will support the point you're trying to make. I really have nothing to say one way or the other about the information in this article. I prefer to zoom out and look at the big picture.


|

MEMBERSHIP

REPUBLICANS
Pat Roberts, Kansas, Chairman
Orrin G. Hatch, Utah
Mike Dewine, Ohio
Christopher S. Bond, Missouri
Trent Lott, Mississippi
Olympia J. Snowe, Maine
Chuck Hagel, Nebraska
Saxby Chambliss, Georgia
John W. Warner, Virginia

DEMOCRATS
John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia, Vice Chairman
Carl Levin, Michigan
Dianne Feinstein, California
Ron Wyden, Oregon
Richard J. Durbin, Illinois
Evan Bayh, Indiana
John Edwards, North Carolina
Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland

The Senate Intelligence Committee Report

While I would dearly love to publish the entire text version of the conclusion to the "Report on the US Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq" (it's so well worded) it's just a little impractical. The Conclusion document is 30 pages (2 Mb) and the full document is 521 pages (24 Mb). They can both be found here. You'll need Adobe Acrobat to view pdf files. There are 117 individual conclusions listed in the 30-page "Conclusion" document so I'm only going to list a few of them here and try to summarize the rest as accurately as possible. Quite a few of the individual conclusions are repetitive but I'm sure they were just trying to be thorough.

Why do I trust the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, you ask? Well, I don't really. I'm kind of stuck in the fact that they're not going to show me the data to draw my own conclusion and this is as close to the source as it gets (that is, the source of all the data.) Some words and phrases in the conclusion have been suspiciously blacked out. I don't believe in censorship but there's very little I can do about this. If they won't tell me then they won't tell me.

Overall Conclusions - WMD's
-Conclusion 1. Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence.
-Conclusion 3. The Intelligence Community (IC) suffered from a collective presumption that Iraq had an active and growing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program. This "group think" dynamic led IC analysts, collectors and managers to both interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD program as well as ignore or minimize evidence that Iraq did not have active and expanding weapons of mass destructions programs. This presumption was so strong that formalized IC mechanisms established to challenge assumptions and group think were not utilized.
-Conclusion 6. The Committee found significant short-comings in almost every aspect of the IC's human intelligence collection efforts against Iraq's WMD activities, in particular that the IC had no sources collecting against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after 1998. Most, if not all, of these problems stem from a broken corporate culture and poor management, and will not be solved by additional funding and personnel.
-Detail-From 1991 to 1998, the IC relied too heavily on United Nations (UN) inspectors to collect information about Iraq's weapons of mass destruciton programs and did not develop a sufficient unilateral human intelligence collection effort targeting Iraq to supplement UN-collected information and to take its place upon the departure of the UN inspectors. While the UN inspection process provided a valuable source of information, the IC should have used the time when inspectors were in Iraq to plan for the possiblity that inspectors would leave and to develop sources who could continue to report after inspectors left.
-Conclusion 7. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), in several significant instances, abused its unique position in the Intelligence Community, particularly in terms of information sharing, to the detriment of the IC's prewar analysis concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

Overall Conclusions - Terrorism
-Conclusion 10. The Intelligence Community relies too heavily on foreign government services and third party reporting, thereby increasing the potential for manipulation of US policy by foreign interests.
-Conclusion 11. Several of the allegations of pressure on IC analysts involved repeating questioning. The Committee believes that IC analysts should expect difficult and repeated questons regarding threat information. Just as the post 9/11 environment lowered the IC's reporting threshold, it has also affected the intensity with which policymakers will review and question threat information.

Overall Conclusions - Niger
~~~Background. The US IC thought that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger based on evidence received from various sources including British Intelligence and an episode involving a former diplomat. Later, an Italian reporter turned in some documents that looked like they may have had something to do with the transaction. Upon closer examination, the documents appear to have been forged. No information is given anywhere about how the forgery was detected.
-Conclusion 12. Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents* on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence.
*In March 2003, the Vice Chairman of the Committee, Senator Rockefeller, requested that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigate the source of the documents, [blocked out], the motivation of those responsible for the forgeries, and the extent to which the forgeries were part of a disinformation campaign. Because of the FBI's current investigation into this matter, the Committee did not examine these issues.

Nuclear Conclusions
~~~Summary - A great deal about some aluminum tubes that intelligence analysts drew incorrect conclusions from. Also a great deal more about incorrect statements made in various reports to administration staff.

Biological Conclusions
-Conclusion 48. The assessment in the October 2002 NIE that, "We judge that all key aspects - research & development, production, and weaponization - of Iraq's offensive biological weapons program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced then they were before the Gulf War" is not supported by the intelligence provided to the Committee.
~~~Followed by numerous other accounts of other parts of the NIE that were not supported by evidence.

Perhaps most interesting of all are conclusions 92 through 100.
-Conclusion 92. The CIA's examination of contacts, training, safehaven and operational cooperation as indicators of a possible Iraq-al-Qaida relationship was a reasonable and objective approach to the question. (emphasis added)
~~~Note: Nowhere in this statement does it say that there is a relationship. It only mentions the approach to the data analysis. -Conclusion 93. The CIA reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida throughout the 1990's, but that these contacts did not add up to a formal relationship.
~~~Note: Did not add up to a formal relationship even at that time.
-Conclusion 95. The CIA's assessment on safehaven - that al-Qaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad and in northeastern Iraq in an area under Kurdish control - was reasonable.
~~~Note: No mention of what the operatives were doing there. Only that they were there at one time.
-Conclusion 96. The CIA's assessment that to date there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaida attack was reasonable and objective. No additional information has emerged to suggest otherwise.
-Conclusion 97. The CIA's judgment that Saddam Hussein, if sufficiently desperate, might employ terrorists with a global reach - al-Qaida - to conduct terrorist attacks in the event of war, was reasonable. No information has emerged thus far to suggest that Saddam did try to employ al-Qaida in conducting terrorist attacks. (emphasis added)
-Conclusion 98. The CIA's assessments on Iraq's links to terrorism were widely disseminated, though an early version of a key CIA assessment was disseminated only to a limited list of cabinet members and subcabinet officials in the Administration.
-Conclusion 99. Despite four decades of intelligence reporting on Iraq, there was little useful intelligence collected that helped analysts determine the Iraqi regime's possible links to al-Qaida.
-Conclusion 100. The CIA did not have a focused human intelligence collection strategy targeting Iraq's links to terrorism until 2002. The CIA had no [blank] sources on the ground in Iraq reporting specifically on terrorism. The lack of an official [blank] US presence in the country [blank] curtailed the IC's human intelligence collecion capabilities.

Throughout the Conclusion are reiterations along the theme of something reported in the NIE was overstated or not backed up by evidence. Some mention is made about pressure on intelligence analysts and most of it is about the pressure for intelligence officials to not miss something like 9/11 again so they tended to overstate something rather than look at it objectively. The report is very careful to state in a few different places that at no time did administration officials (like Bush or Cheney) attempt to coerce or pressure any intelligence analysts. All right. Now give me the Pulitzer.

|

A friend of mine recently mentioned that Americans and Canadians aren't really very different. You can't really tell a Canadian band from an American band unless one of them is singing something particularly patriotic. You can't tell the Canadian performers from the Americans on Saturday Night Live or any movie in Hollywood. We eat the same kind of food and drink the same kind of liquor (with the exception of slightly stronger Canadian beer). We work the same kinds of jobs and tell the same kinds of jokes. Canadian winters are slightly colder and our cities are fewer and farther between.

But there is one major difference between Americans and Canadians that I can see. In general, Canadians treat other Canadians differently than Americans treat other Americans. Canadians treat people from other countries differently than Americans treat people from other countries. This is not only evident in the way individual Canadians treat other people, it also shows up in our foreign policy. Most foreigners who come to Canada see us as soft-spoken and tolerant. But anyone who's been in Canada for any length of time knows that this isn't the whole story.

|

After examining this report, I would like to reiterate my opinions as stated in the July 10, 2004 blog post "To start a war or to finish it". After the UN Security Council rejected the US proposal to invade Iraq, the US went out in search of allies to help popularize its already unpopular war. First stop -- Canada. It looks good to have Canada on the ticket because Canadians are close allies with the US out of necessity and we are generally well received and respected.

The US ambassador to Canada had several grave discussions with Jean Chretien and with Parliament. He mentioned strongly that the US was our largest trading partner and that it would be a shame if anything were to happen to that relationship. What he was really talking about was trade sanctions and that's the kind of action that should have been pressed against Iraq, not the countries that refused to follow the US into the war. And again, why didn't the intelligence impress or persuade Jean Chretien, or France or Germany that Saddam was a viable threat? Can it be that the intelligence reports were only very convincing to the US and Britain?

In addition, it is my opinion that the "group think" in the US intelligence and the British intelligence happening at the same time and coming to the same erroneous conclusions is very coincidental. It is my experience that coincidences this big do not happen. Therefore, I propose that either one of two things is true:

1) That there were WMD's in Iraq (that no one can find now). That the US and British intelligence services were accurate at the time (but wrong now) in their assessments of Iraq's capabilities and measured threat. That George W Bush is a truly honourable man who went to war only for the good of the world in general and the Middle Eastern region in particular and the fact that this region holds the largest readily available oil reserves in the world is just a coincidence.

or 2) That administration officials in both the US and Britain poked, prodded, and pulled at their respective intelligence services to come up with just the "right" information. And then further distorted the facts and assessments brought to them about the capabilities and potential threat that Iraq posed to the world and did what they had been shaping up to do for a long time.

I think it's obvious which of these two options I think is true. I leave it up to anyone who reads this to decide what they think is the real truth.

Arklahomboy, if I were you I'd be particularly upset at the state of the intelligence community of your country. You're in the military. It's your ass that's on the line for these political motivations. How much is your life worth? Would you risk it to bring home more oil to deserving SUV owners? Think about it.

|

A long time ago, Hitler told the German people that the enemy lived among them. That the enemy was devious and resourceful and would try to deceive them at every opportunity. He said that the enemy could strike at them at any moment if they did not rise up against it. He taught them to fear their neighbours and trust the State. He taught them to live in fear because that was the best way to stay cautious and aware against such a tricky enemy.

Hitler told the German people that it was their right to protect themselves by striking the enemy where it lived. He said that the world would be a better place if they invaded the countries that harboured their enemy. He said that these countries could not be trusted to simply hand over the enemy but rather that it was Germany's right as a powerful nation to enter these countries and solve the problem themselves. Hitler told the German people that they were the only ones who were powerful enough and moral enough to solve this worldwide epidemic that was caused by ignorance and complacency.

To anyone who lives in the USA. Compare this to the world you live in and tell me it's different. George W has talked about "blanket alerts" and "unspecified threats". Listening to radio stations in the US during the playoffs I was treated to the sound of people in places like Nashville and Tampa Bay being whipped up into a frenzy of fear. Being told to stay prepared for a possible terrorist attack at all times. Being told that just because they weren't in New York or Washington didn't mean that the fear shouldn't be real to them. Radio commercials giving the impression that the enemy can strike at any time with no warning in a replay of the terrifying events in New York City on 9/11. Forcing people to relive those moments every day. Yeah, like it was possible for them to forget.

Tell me that the people you talk to down in the US don't see this conflict in Iraq as part of their inherent right to peace and freedom. Tell me that they're not living scared of another terrorist attack. Tell me that the most powerful nation in the world isn't jumping at shadows and overreacting in paranoia.

While I don't believe that GWB is the next Hitler, I do believe that the strategies Hitler used to control and coerce the German people back then are being used on the citizens of the USA right now. And I also think that GWB is not smart enough to have thought of this all by himself. Maybe this is just a natural consequence of the fact that 9/11 was a tragedy that Americans are still having a hard time putting behind them. Or maybe the people in charge down there are only doing what's best for the people by keeping them afraid and there is no conscious intent to control or re-elect anybody. But as I've said before, I don't believe coincidences that big really happen.

I think it would be useful if the world's most powerful nation (with the ability to land a buttload of nukes anywhere on the planet) acted more responsibly with its power. I think the whole world would breathe a little easier knowing that the USA isn't so edgy. Then maybe some of these foreign countries wouldn't be so trigger-happy.

These middle-Eastern countries have no viable defense against invasions by the powers of the Western world. The US has proven that thoroughly with its spanking of Iraq. Do you think Iran will be any different? The only way these countries can conceive of keeping the US out is by scaring them into staying away. Iran claims to have nukes already. They produce weekly threats to the US reminding them which part of the world doesn't belong to the US.

This sounds more like bravado than anything else. The little poodle who barks extra loud because it can smell the big dog in its neighbourhood. What's this I read in the New York Times today? The US is looking into Iran's WMD capabilities? Are they going to use the same intelligence gathering techniques they used in Iraq? They're accusing the Russians of selling equipment to the Iranians that could help them to produce nukes. Why would the Russians do that? They have nothing to gain from it. The more countries that have nukes, the less power each current nuclear power has. And the Iranians live in Russia's backyard. Why would the Russians want a potentially volatile and suicidally-courageus nation so close to them to have nukes? It doesn't make any sense. I'm skeptical about all of it. I've found in the past that most things that don't make sense seem that way because either something I think I know is false or there's more to the story than I'm being told. All I know for sure is that this issue of war in the Middle East is potentially very far from over.

|

Went to see Stompin' Tom Connors last night. Great show. And Dad liked it too. Here's a newfie joke that he told at the concert.

Two newfie's go to Toronto to look for work. After a week of looking they give up and decide to go back to Newfoundland. Before they leave town, one of them spots a police station.

First Newfie: "Hey. Maybe we could get a job there."
Second Newfie: "Okay. You go check it out."

The first newfie goes into the police station and walks up to the front desk.

First Newfie: "I'm looking for a job. You hiring?"
Cop: "Well let's just see if you're qualified first."

The cop takes out a bible and puts it on the counter in front of the newfie.

Cop: "Do you know what that is?"
First Newfie: "No."
Cop: "Well that's the bible. Do you know who killed Jesus?"
First Newfie: "No."
Cop: "Well you take this here bible and you go out and study it for a few days and you come back when you can tell me who killed Jesus."
First Newfie: "Sure thing."

The first newfie walks out of the police station with the bible and heads back to the second newfie waiting in the car.

Second Newfie: "Did you get the job?"
First Newfie: "Damn right. I'm already working on my first murder case."

For my 100th post I want to do something that I've been meaning to do for quite a while. For anyone who doesn't know, I work for a company that tests and certifies cellphones, handheld radios and other wireless devices (wireless modems, WLAN-802.11 cards, etc). The testing category is known as SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) and every model of wireless device that is sold on the consumer market in the USA or Canada needs to pass the SAR test. For a detailed explanation about SAR go here.

For my part, I get to see all kinds of neat cellphones and transmitters before they hit the public market. But it also means that I have to know how to navigate the FCC's bureaucratically (is that even a word?) extreme website to find the highest SAR level measured during the testing of every wireless device available for sale in the US. This is really only for anyone who's curious about the possible health risks of electromagnetic radiation levels close to their bodies. Since there aren't many devices that are sold in Canada but not the US this seems like a very universal solution for most anybody who will be reading this site.

First, find the FCC ID of your cellphone/radio/wireless device. For most cellphones it is located near the serial/model information underneath the battery. For handheld radios it could be underneath the battery or it could be stamped on the back or bottom someplace. For wireless modems and WLAN cards it will be on one side of the card near the serial/model info. In all cases it should be clearly labelled as "FCC ID" followed by a series of numbers and letters. My phone is an Audiovox CDM-8900T and the FCC ID is PP4TX-95C.

Next, follow this link to the FCC Equipment Authorization System Generic Search. Hopefully the instructions will be easy to follow but just in case I'll talk you through it. The first 3 characters (numbers and letters) of the FCC ID are known as the "Grantee Code" (in my case PP4) and the remainder of the characters are the "Product Code" (in my case TX-95C). Input the Grantee and Product codes into the appropriate fields. Leave everything else blank. Hit the "Start Search" button at the bottom of the page.

What you see now might be a little confusing. Don't worry if the manufacturer listed isn't the same as the name on your phone. It's common practice for one company to design and file compliance for the radio and sell it to another company. My phone is an Audiovox but the radio and filing were both done by Hyundai. There are often multiple reports to display especially for devices that operate in multiple modes and frequency bands (anybody have a Tri-mode phone?). Look for the column that says "Application Purpose" and find any entries that say "Original Equipment". For each original equipment application there will be 2 links in the "Display Exhibits" column, "Detail" and "Summary". Click on the "Detail" link.

On the page that shows up now, there will be a table with a column that is labelled "Description of Exhibit". The really useful information is in the "SAR Main Test Report" and the "SAR Test Data plots" links. Be aware that the names vary slightly from one filing to another (for example, "Main SAR Test Report" might just be "SAR Test Report") but the overall idea is the same. The links to the actual files for each row are located in the "View Attachment" column. The FCC's server can be slow at times so it may be useful to right click the link and select "Save as" to download the files you want to see. Most SAR test report information is in pdf format so you may need the latest version of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

The Main SAR Test Report should have SAR test information for all frequency bands and modes. The highest SAR measured for each frequency band and test mode should be listed somewhere on the first page. The SAR Test Data plots are usually quite a bit larger in size (several Mb) so people with dial-up conections are encouraged to move into the new millenium with us and upgrade to broadband service. The SAR plots are a good visual representation of where the RF (radiofrequency) energy is radiating off of your phone into your head or body. I hope no one who looks up this info decides to panic about what the radio energy might be doing to them. Radios are not allowed for sale without being lower than the limits set by the FCC. The Industry Canada limits are exactly the same as those set by the FCC. If anyone wants help interpreting the data just email me at spencerwatson@gmail.com

|

As the earth spins on its axis, each side gets a set amount of sunshine each day.  Plant life is the beginning of all life here on earth.  Photosynthesis acts to collect the sun's energy and trap it as chemical potential energy.  As each plant dies it deposits this chemical potential in the soil for other plants to feed on.  Some plants are eaten by animals who use part of the chemical potential of the plant to live and store the remainder in a higher potential energy state.  In turn, some of these animals get eaten by other animals in the same usage/storage/higher energy state process on up the food chain.

At every step, the energy accounting is never wrong.  Whatever is not used gets stored someplace.  Potential.  Many millions of years ago, large reptilian creatures died in a particular way.  Their bodies trapped in tar pits, decaying slowly in large volumes over millions of years.  Coal.  Oil.  Potential.  Millions of years worth of chemical potential stored in large volumes rotating and settling lower and lower under the earth's surface.  This slow accumulation would continue indefinitely if not for humans.  We are the quintessentially clever beings who have finally found a use for all that energy.

With the sole exception of nuclear power, every joule of energy we use has come from the sun at some point between the beginning of life on this planet until now.  Everything we do, everything we produce and everything we eat depends on how much energy we have at our disposal.

Freedom is about choices.  The freedom to live farther than walking distance from where you work will require the means to get there and back each day.  The freedom to live in any kind of climate will require the means to make your house a livable temperature.  The freedom to take a vacation will require the means to travel there.  The freedom to eat food that is not grown near you requires the means to import it from where it is grown.  It all comes down to energy.

Strangely, even though this one asset in its many forms is the sole reason we are alive, we do not use it to calculate our worth.  What do we use instead?  Gold.  Money.  A representation nearly as old as the written word.  Gold equals wealth.
 
Gold has always baffled me.  You can't eat it when you're hungry.  You can't fertilize your crops with it.  You can't burn it to heat your home, cook your food or power an engine.  It's very heavy to carry in large quantities.  It's very soft and marks easily.  The only remarkable qualities it has are that it conducts electricity very well and shines for a long time without need of polishing.  And it makes nice jewelry.  Is this the sum total of human worth?  To make nice jewelry?

Capitalism is based on the supply and demand principle.  This is why I believe that capitalism is the correct, if not always totally fair, way for humans to live.  Even if you don't trust yourself to supply and demand it doesn't really matter because it will affect you anyways.  As well not trust in gravity or electricity.

Supply and demand is a fairly simple way of judging the value of a product or service.  If there is a product you need, then you're going to pay whatever price to get it.  But if the person you're buying from doesn't know you need it then you can convince said person to lower the price.  No one wants to be short of something they need to exist.  But no one wants to pay more than they need to for something either.

World Primary Energy Consumption by Region, 1992-2001
World Primary Energy Production by Region, 1992-2001
Total US Energy Consumption in Quadrillion Btu in 2001 = 96.32
Total US Energy Production in Quadrillion Btu in 2001 = 71.37

Using more of something than you have available is commonly known as a deficit.  In this case, an energy deficit of 24.92 Quadrillion Btu.

Major Sources of U.S. Petroleum Imports, 2001
Highlights: In 2001, the USA imported more oil from Canada than any other country, 1.79 mb/d (million barrels/day)

Some interesting oil industry statistics
Highlights: Domestic US oil production has fallen from 8-9 mb/d in 1986 to 5.9 mb/d in 2002.  By 2002, 14% of the Natural Gas used in the US came from Canada.
 
Selected World Gasoline Prices

Despite the fact that the USA is the country with the highest demand for oil with an ever-depleting domestic supply, the price for gasoline at the pump is the lowest in the world.  One can only wonder how this is possible in a free market economy that adheres to the otherwise universal law of supply and demand.

One thing I am sure of.  The US domestic supply will not replenish itself.  And the US demand is unlikely to decrease.  Most people in the world are convinced that gold is the universal currency but it's not true.  The worth of a nation is judged by its production and production requires energy.  Those who have energy will tend to become richer and those who don't have it will tend to become poorer.  Who here would trade their energy for gold?
 

|

Wow. As a chess player I've obviously heard of the legendary Bobby Fischer and I'd heard all kinds of rumours about him being eccentric. But now I'm pretty sure he's too far gone for mere eccentricity. Direct quotes from the article:

'He is outspoken in his loathing of Communists, reporters, Jews and women. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, "Death to the U.S.A" became his invariable greeting.'

'In radio interviews after the attacks, he said America should be "wiped out" and he referred to Jews as "thieving" and "lying."'

That's extreme. And it's sad, really. One would hope that one of the former world chess champions could be a little more sane than this.

Apparently he was found today in Japan. He's been under arrest since 1992 when he participated in a chess rematch in Yugoslavia. The US had some kind of law against their citizens participating in any business with Yugoslavia at the time and since the game took place there and he collected a sizable purse for winning they placed him under arrest and have been looking for him ever since. I'm not sure if it matters that he all but renounced his US citizenship and hadn't resided there since long before 1992. Or that he wasn't technically doing business with the Yugoslavians. If they extradite him and press charges I think they should force him to play Kasparov first. That would be the coolest chess match ever.

Editorial Note: The New York Times Website won't let you view the abovementioned article unless you have the appropriate cookie on your hard drive. And since I'm sensitive to possible cookie-paranoia (we all know how scary cookies can be) I'm providing this link to an MSNBC article about the Fischer arrest in Japan. For anyone who's interested in viewing some Jew hatred crap, here's a link to a site I found while looking for the MSNBC replacement article that appears to be (I haven't read it entirely yet) an website that tracks and supports Bobby Fischer's irrational hatred for Jews. The site says you need Japanese language support but it shows up fine on IE without it. There are some real wackos out there (as oppposed to the wackos who are just faking it).

|

Something New

Hmmm...  this must be why Blogger was closed down for a few hours the other day.  Today's new thing to brighten your mood is How Far Can Your Drunk Ass Walk.  Courtesy to Thomson, or otherwise known as He Who Is Blogless.  My farthest distance is 84 meters but I can't prove it so don't ask.

p.s.  If you can read this then you're too close to your monitor. 


|

The exchange of opinions is ending now and I apologize to anyone who's been annoyed at all this. I certainly have. I like to post about my opinion on political issues once in a while because it's a part of the world I live in. I never intended for this space to become hijacked by the stupid Iraq thing. With that said, this is the posted response to Arklahomboy's latest response in the ongoing argument. But after this it's back to regular blogging if there is such a thing.

Posted as 2 separate comments in the "Comments" link of Arklahomboy's latest response

Your first link is inconclusive one way or the other. Your own intelligence officials seem unconvinced about the validity and meaning of the info. The author of the article seems convinced that we'll have to wait for the final report to be released on July 26.

Your second link is from an ultra-right-wing online magazine that only shows news about things that help Bush. You were saying something about partisanship?

Your third link is from an Australian tabloid. Not a very reliable news source.

And your fourth link is just an opinion piece from an English paper. Not sure but it may be a tabloid too with a name like "The Telegraph".

--------------------

Is this all you could come up with? Incidentally, the same site that your second link points to is running an opinion piece citing the same report I originally posted about (remember, the one that started this whole thing) with the same evidence I posted about (except that he had the time to use direct quotes) but with a different conclusion based on his opinion. He's smart so he doesn't bother with the shaky news sources you resort to relying on.

On my own blog, I will state my opinion on whatever the hell I want. Free speech and freedom of the press guarantees that. I don't really think the sane and respectable right-wingers want you trying to make their point for them. So out of respect to them this is over.

|

If the violations of international law were the reason the US went to war then Bush should have said so in the first place. If the US had legitimate reasons to go to war without the exaggeration of intelligence reports then Bush should have just come clean a year and a half ago. If you claim to have 40+ allies in Iraq then list them. Oh wait, I'm sorry. You were referring to the first Gulf War when you said that. My bad. If you want to come to my site, be rude and call other visitors "douche"s then expect a response. I'm still wondering how you and your friends ever thought your empty threats could be carried out (someone said something about ripping me a new asshole and reaming that one too?). Good point. Way to use your wordsmithery to your advantage. I'm disappointed. Hollywood has lied to me again. They led me to believe that you southerners were more polite than this. You act more like a 14 year old boy who hasn't understood the world than someone in his early 20's.

After WMD's the biggest justification for an invasion of Iraq is the issue of Saddam's alleged ties to Osama Bin Laden. Here is the link you provided to prove this point. An article written by a Richard Miniter. Incidentally he has just released a book entitled Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror and this opinion piece is probably in support of his capitalist goals. A simple Google search for "Iraqi ties to Al-Qaeda" provided these links:

Iraqi Ties to Terrorism
-April 23, 2003 - Council on Foreign Relations - Synopsis: Iraq supports and trains terrorists but not likely Al-Qaeda and is only 4th in the world for most active states to sponsor terrorism
9/11 report finds no Iraqi ties to bin Laden
-June 17, 2004 - Guelph University student newspaper - Synopsis: The staff of the bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on America has concluded there is no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the attacks or with Osama bin Laden.
Iraq-Qaeda Links Doubted
-Nov 20, 2003 - CBS News - Synopsis: Memo supporting Saddam-Qaeda links is doubted by Pentagon officials and other people in the US intelligence community.
Split at CIA and FBI on Iraqi Ties to Al Qaeda
-Feb 2, 2003 - NYT - Synopsis: Both FBI and CIA officials doubt connections between Saddam Hussein and Qaeda/Bin Laden.

Your loud mouth is only rivalled by the inaccuracy of the words you use. Why don't you call me stupid one more time. It might make you feel better. I have given facts to back up my opinions, not just a "Yeah he did" or a "Well, yes we do" as a response. Even when I was mocking you I was polite about it. You give no reliable facts or sources for your data. You merely claim repeatedly that the things you say are true and your buddies high-5 you when you say it to make you feel good.

I could sit here all day and poke holes in the "points" you made about me but any reasonably intelligent person already knows what I would say and those are the only people I want visiting this site anyways. Don't forget to call me a douche on your way out the door.

|

Countries suspected of having WMD's that the US has not invaded (since 2000 when this list was compiled). Countries on this list who are part of the current occupying force in Iraq are in bold text.

Algeria (Nuclear)
Belarus (Nuclear)
Bulgaria (Biological)
Chile (Chemical)
China (Nuclear, Chemical, Biological, Missile)
Cuba (Biological)
Ethiopia (Chemical)
Egypt (Chemical, Biological, Missile)
France (Nuclear, Chemical, Missile)
India (Nuclear, Chemical, Biological, Missile)
Indonesia (Chemical)
Iran (Nuclear, Chemical, Biological, Missile)
Israel (Nuclear, Chemical, Biological, Missile)
Kazakhstan (Nuclear)
Laos (Chemical, Biological)
Libya (Chemical, Biological, Missile)
Myanmar (Chemical)
North Korea (Nuclear, Chemical, Biological, Missile)
Pakistan (Nuclear, Chemical, Biological, Missile)
Romania (Biological)
Russia (Nuclear, Chemical, Biological, Missile)
Serbia and Montenegro (Nuclear, Chemical)
South Africa (Nuclear, Chemical, Biological, Missile)
South Korea (Chemical, Biological, Missile)
Sudan (Chemical)
Syria (Chemical, Biological, Missile)
Taiwan (Chemical, Biological, Missile)
Thailand (Chemical)
Ukraine (Nuclear)
United Kingdom (Nuclear, Chemical, Biological, Missile)
United States (Nuclear, Chemical, Biological, Missile)
Vietnam (Chemical, Biological)

In Addition: The nations that hold the world's largest arsenals of WMD are Russia and the United States. While the U.S. holds some 10,250 nuclear weapons compared to Russia's 8500, Russia holds less than 40,000 tons of chemical weapons to the U.S.'s 24,000 tons. Neither claim to hold biological weapons.

Source

Again, it begs the question, why hasn't the US seen any of these countries as a threat when they were going after countries with suspected WMD's? Why Iraq and not these countries?

It's amazing what you can find on Wikipedia, isn't it?:)

|

[insert Dukes of Hazzard theme here]

The link to the full article is provided below but I thought it would be fun to clutter this area up a bit for anyone too lazy to follow links.

The Nations involved in the occupation of Iraq
United States - 124,000 troops, planned reduction to 115,000 canceled, instead expansion to 135,000 to 138,000 troops
United Kingdom - 8,700 troops, prime minister Tony Blair is considering an expansion of 1,500 to 2,000 troops to replace the troops of Spain and other departing nations. However, military commanders as well as former diplomats criticizing US military tactics put this into question. [1] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1205713,00.html)
Italy - 2,950 troops
Poland - 2,500 troops; also commanding a number of other coalition troops. According to some sources [2](http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2004/0420/3783682793HM1SCALLY.html) pull-out planned for the end of 2004, although all government officials have denied validity of that claim. However, minister of defense Jerzy Szmajdzinski announced that the number of troops will be significantly reduced after the Iraqi elections planned for January 31 2005. (See also: Polish contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq)
Ukraine - 1,650 troops in Kut, currently not leaving their base, but intend to stay in Iraq. Increase of troops possible

Nations with fewer than 1000 troops deployed
Romania - 700 troops
Netherlands - 850 troops, No commitment beyond June 2004
Australia - 850 troops. Under discussion in view of the upcoming elections in Australia sometime in 2004. If elected, opposition leader Mark Latham has made public his wish to pull a number of Australian troops out of Iraq by Christmas 2004. Current prime minister John Howard plans for the troops to stay at least until mid-2005. (see also: Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq)
Japan - 550 troops based in Samawah (southern Iraq) on a humanitarian aid mission to rebuild local infrastructure, purify water and provide medical assistance. The reconstruction mission in Samawa limits the troops' activities to "non-combat zones". [3] (http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsArticle.jsp;:40850e58:6bc53b4b1d2ed44?type=worldNews&locale=en_IN&storyID=4874610) (See also: Deployment of Japanese troops to Iraq)
Bulgaria - 480 troops, working with the Polish forces near Kerbala. Officially staying, but allowing any of its troops who want to go home to do so. 62 of the 480 had left as of April 17th, 2004
Thailand - 443 troops, currently not leaving their base, scheduled till September 2004. Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra announced withdrawal if the situation becomes too dangerous
Denmark - 500 troops, (submarine & warship, and a medical team). Elections in June 2004
South Korea - 600 troops, expansion to 3,600 troops planned, but discussion still ongoing. Has refused to deploy its troops to around Kirkuk as initially planned due to instability
El Salvador - 360 troops, planned stay till August 2004. Further commitment unclear, new President Antonio Saca takes office on June 1st 2004
Hungary - 300 troops
Mongolia - 180 troops
Azerbaijan - 151 troops
Norway - 150 troops, will be pulled out without replacement at the end of their term on June 30 2004
Latvia - 121 troops
Portugal - 128 troops. Investigating withdrawal
Lithuania - 105 troops
Slovakia - 105 troops
Georgia - 150 troops. Plans to increase troops to 550

Nations with fewer than 100 troops deployed
Philippines - 96 troops, withdrawal considered. Has put a hold on new deployments
Czech Republic - 80 troops, intended pull out in early 2004
Albania - 70 non-combat troops under US command near Mosul, announced troop increase
New Zealand - 60 army engineers, intended pull out in September
Estonia - 55 troops
Macedonia - 28 troops
Moldova - 24 troops

Nations No longer Participating
Singapore - 200 personnel returned recently, no further commitment
Nicaragua - 230 troops left in February 2004, no replacement, attributed to financial reasons. While in Iraq, the troops were under Spanish command
Spain - had 1,300 troops in Najaf and commanded the troops of Honduras, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, and of Nicaragua. Newly elected Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero declared the end of the mission on April 28, 2004 with the withdrawal of the last 260 troops
Kazakhstan - 25 troops withdrawn as planned in May
Honduras - 368 troops withdrawn by end of May along with Spains'
Dominican Republic - 320 troops withdrawn by end of May along with Spains' and Honduras'

Recap
Counting the US that's 30 countries in Iraq. 25 with fewer than 1000 troops deployed 7 with fewer than 100 troops involved. 6 countries no longer participating. That makes 35 allies total. 29 allies now, perhaps fewer now that the government has been handed over. Never were there 40+ allies in Iraq as you claim. Only 4 allies with more than 1000 troops deployed and all of the US's allies combined do not equal the US troop deployment level.

Source of information

Mr. Arklahomboy,

You'll be happy to learn that I took your advice and used Wikipedia. Learn to count. Look up some stuff before you speak. Most of these "allies" are not worth mentioning. They have put in a token effort to appease the US but nothing more. The US's only major ally in this thing is Britain.

As justification for invading Iraq, Tony Blair claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that were an immediate threat to Britain and could be deployed within 45 minutes. How this was supposedly possible is anyone's guess seeing as how no WMD's or long-range delivery vehicles have been found in Iraq since the invasion began.

|

I've been having violent thoughts lately and I don't know why. Maybe it's all the war stuff I've been doing lately. Just finished watching Band of Brothers. (props to Thomson) Excellent re-creation of a WW II paratrooper company. Very well done. But not something to improve my mood. Also started reading Clash of Eagles last week. WW II-based fiction about a Nazi invasion of Eastern US. So far it's decent. Not a lot of battles because it's more about the effects of occupation but there's a lot of violence and it also doesn't do anything to make my mood rosier. Also, just watched Elephant this afternoon. Excellent movie about Columbine. It brought back a lot of memories of my own experiences in school which were often less than pleasant. And then, to top it all off, I got the official invitation to my 10-year high school reunion (yeah, big day for me). So then I wrote this piece. It had been sort of in my head for a while but I didn't have enough shape to get it all out until today. I'm not going to tell you to enjoy it because I didn't write it to cheer anybody up. Maybe I'm just hoping that it affects you and makes you think.

-------------------------------------
Full Circle

In the beginning you start out like a weak, pathetic creature. Pitiable to all who behold you. The other little people (children) trying to step on your head so they can seem taller. Trying to pull you down so they don't drown alone. And their words like sharp little daggers, stabbing at you. Attacking you. Ganging up on you knowing that you won't stand a chance if they have sufficient numbers.

So you seek protection. You keep your psyche in a plastic cup like some small larva trying to change in to a butterfly. Making sure you poke tiny holes in the top for air. Keeping it moist and fed. But most important of all, keeping it away from everyone else. The only thing that trusting other people with your feelings can do is hurt you. The only thing other people can do with your secrets is betray you.

You put your psyche in an incubator to help it grow. Protect it from the outside world. Talk to it encouragingly when no one's around. Make your body numb and senseless so the words that seek to carve you up will never find anything of value to loot. As your psyche grows you keep it in an aquarium. Ever careful of it, never allowing the outside world to see what you've done. Knowing somehow that other people will seek to break down and belittle this evermost part of your life. They want you to be senseless and dumb. Lifeless. They hate that you think and feel. They wish they could take it away from you. But they can't. The next best thing is to get you to hide your claim to these qualities. And in this, they have won. And you don't care. You know it's better to be a real person in no place than to be a fake person everywhere. Better to be a real person with no friends than a fake person with a lot of fake friends.

As your psyche gets bigger you pick out a cage for it. Just a small cage you can hide in your backpack or your closet. You're still afraid to let anyone see the inner life you've built for yourself on fantasy and table scraps of real emotion. Starved of affection and real human contact you can feel the gap between you and other people. You can sense the difference between you and them and you wonder if you were born different or if everybody is truly unique and you simply can't tell everyone else apart from each other.

You try to mimic the movements of other people. Seeking to blend in and be unnoticed. You want to find some way to let your psyche out of its cage. To just be yourself without anyone particularly caring. You look in the mirror every morning and you can't see anything about yourself that makes you terribly different from other people. But inevitably, every time you change something about yourself somebody notices and points it out to everybody they see. It's worse than Big Brother looking over your shoulder because at least he only cares about your politics, not your appearance. And Big Brother doesn't using a snide, mocking tone.

In time, you need a larger cage. Your inner self has grown teeth and claws. It's no longer a frightened and weak thing. It's large and disgruntled by its captivity. It rattles the iron bars of its cage when its hungry or when it sees the sunshine outside that it wants to play in. You don't leave the house with it any more. Instead you keep it in your room. You're no longer protecting it from the world. Instead, you're protecting the world from it. Still not fully understanding the real world and how to live in it you now have to live with a beast inside of you. Knowing that if it ever gets free it will damage people you know and love.

Born in misunderstanding, raised in resentment, and cultured by loneliness, the only emotion you can manifest consistently is rage. You seek an outlet. Somewhere you can go to blow off a little steam. But every time you let a little out you're overwhelmed by how much you're still keeping in. Allowing yourself to feel at all is only a reminder of how much anger you have left to express. The contrast between all the years you spent trying to not feel anything at all and the nearly unsuppressable geyser inside you is extreme.

The gentle exterior self you've cultivated is a lie. You aren't that person you once thought you were. Not the person everybody around you thinks you are. In a way you've become just like those fake people you tried to rebel against. But, you tell yourself, at least you tried.

|

Not being one to back down, I feel compelled to say just a few things on the topics you have raised at this time. First of all, I'd like to reprimand you on your knowledge of history. You seem to eager to claim the facts of previous wars without actually knowing them. Here's a link to Wikipedia. I do hope you use it. Secondly, the matter of the justifications for war. Not every country needs a justification for war and usually we refer to this as fascism. But that's not the way of things in the western world anymore. We defeated fascism (with our 40+ allies). Your nation and my nation and all those together.

But now we find that we have all these political entanglements. You're a military man and I can understand your directness and need to never back down even if I think it is crude and overstated. I first caught your link from a Liberal friend of mine. Actually it was a link to your FiveWasps site which is no longer in operation, more's the pity. I was delighted to hear that you, in particular, would be keeping up your own site. I'd hate to think that such remarkable fact-finding ability would be wasted on the real world when we so desperately need you here on the internet. I understand that you're still using Fox News as your major source. Good to see that you're sticking to the basics.

Back to this issue of a justification for war. Saddam did not have known ties to Al-Qaeda at any time. The little bit of intelligence your CIA did gather has proved that. Al-Qaeda made a few offers but Hussein rejected them all. And when I refer to "3 more months" I'm referring to 3 more months of intelligence gathering (maybe with some "actual agents" this time) not "3 more months" of inspections. There hadn't been any inspections for years already when the US invaded. No, the justification for the war was that Hussein had KNOWN WMD's that could reach Britain (presumably from a plane of some sort?) Everyone knew that he was a bad person. That he stole money from his people. That he was a tyrant. These are all reasons to impose trade sanctions (if you didn't need the oil so badly) but not reasons to go to war.

As far as all the people without their heads in the sand who supposedly thought the Iraqis had WMD's, how many of them followed you to Iraq? Do you have 40+ allies there? The fact is that UN weapons inspectors were the closest thing the US had to intelligence officers in Iraq. Keeping up the inspections was the only way to keep any kind of an eye on Iraq. So, yes, the US pushed, pulled, and prodded the UN to "make the right choice" on the weapons inspection issue. I think you owe my friend Chloe an apology. It may turn out in the end that someone has been staring at their colon, but I don't think it's Chloe.

As for the other comments you made, yes we all heard the window smash. Canada joined the US in Afghanistan because we sought an end to Al-Qaeda the same as all the other countries that went there. We, in Canada, are not in a position to have to "whine" about energy. We have it. You don't. As energy prices increase, Canada becomes more powerful in relation to the US. If you want to understand how seriously Canada is taken you just have to wear a Canadian flag pin on your jacket when you travel. All will become clear to you then.

Next, let's look a little closer at you. You seem to support the partial separation of the Southern US from the rest. Maybe not on a map but I've checked out your friend the Southern Nationalist and I must say that I found it very interesting. I'll have to read further to discover exactly which part of your American constitution was "usurped in 1861". A very interesting read. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't the idea of "Southern Nationalism" technically treason? Not to cast a pall over your catch-phrase. I personally fully support the secession of the southern US from the rest. It would relieve a big headache for Canada and the rest of the world. We would never again have to deal with another Republican president. We might even start getting a fair price for the energy we export to you guys once our own politicians get some balls and demand it.

|

So I guess they've finished their inquiry into the intelligence misunderstanding in the Iraq war controversy. Apparently the president didn't do it. Surprise, surprise. According to the findings of the inquiry, the CIA actually lied in intelligence reports. They conducted all their research with the assumption that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program and all they had to do was prove it. And how can you blame them? This is the premise upon which all criminal investigations are undertaken in the US. First they find out who did it, then they prove it. The US government has been talking about Iraqi nuclear weapons like it was a well-known fact for a long, long time. How are we to know that the CIA wasn't told to act with this assumption?

And why wasn't anyone else fooled? Why didn't these falsified reports convince Jean Chretien that Canada should send troops to Iraq? Why didn't this intelligence convince the French and the Germans to go? Why isn't the Bush administration apologizing to all of us for putting us through all of that hassle about the strong possibility of "bad relations" if we didn't participate. Aren't we allies? Isn't an ally just the political version of a friend? And when your friend decides to do something monumentally stupid that eventually ends in disaster and you refuse to go along, doesn't that give you the right to say "I told you so"? Doesn't that mean that the friend who did the monumentally stupid thing should apologize to you for putting you through so much shit?

The Americans have accused us Canadians of not standing by them during this whole Iraq war thing. But since the war is unjustified, isn't it them who has refused to stand by us this whole time? If the US had waited an extra 3 months to gather more information before making a decision, would the war have happened at all?

Saddam Hussein was a dangerous dictator. Yeah? So are a lot of world leaders. What was up with the elections in Mexico for so long? The same party ruling for over 80 years? You can't say they weren't subverting democracy down there. Did the US invade? No. Has the US invaded Cuba despite the fact that they hate Castro? No. But they obviously consider him to be a dangerous dictator. They have 3 times as many CIA agents tracking his movements than they do people looking for Bin Laden. Why haven't they just invaded Cuba and got the whole stupid thing over with?

The US does not like it when other countries don't do what they're told. Cuba is hated because they're not democratic. France is hated because it's the home of the metric system. Even friendly Canada can't escape the US's ire when it refuses to take part in the US's war. Did anybody hate Switzerland at the end of WW II? The US has "installed" so many leaders of countries and has so much influence in these places that they are just a few steps away from being the Empire of America. It may be that every US president has had good intentions in every conflict the US has been involved in. But that can't hide the fact that the whole place is looking like one ugly mess. There is a price for freedom. It's energy. More freedom takes more energy. How much does energy cost? We'll know the true answer in about 100 more years. It doesn't seem like a long time...

|

Okay class, get settled in because we have a lot or material to cover today. 3 topics, all of which I read about just this morning. Legality of music downloads in Canada. The price of software piracy in Canada and the world. And the future of electronics in automobiles. Quite a bit today as it is very slow at work this week and I have very little to do but look busy. I've manipulated the post times so that they appear in order from this post to the last.

|

The article is interesting, the findings of the study are probably biased and the best we can do is go with our own judgments. I am of the opinion that the music industry has been run by gigantic fatcats who care more about profit than the quality of music or the audience. CD's used to cost $20 - $25. This is the same price that most DVD's cost today. Which is more expensive to produce, a record or a movie? And the fact that some music might even cost this much to produce is ridiculous.

I'm aware that my engineer comrades (rise up, brothers) in the recording studios need to get paid for their art. But they're getting paid by the hour, not 50 cents per album sold. The record label will tell you that 80-90% of the price you pay for a CD is in the recording/editing/refining process. Actually a large portion of that 80-90% is in the marketing and getting-the-music-heard process. But how much marketing does Eminem need nowadays? None. The dude markets himself. How about old tired acts that won't go away like Def Leppard and Motley Crue? There's no amount of marketing in the world that can save these guys, yet they're still flogged in record stores even now.

Marketing is supposed to be about finding out what the demands of the market are and then providing a product or service to fill those demands. Apparently it's more about force-feeding the public whatever sugar-coated crap they can stomach. And why would I want to pay some rich guy to force-feed me music that I don't even like? Where do you think Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake came from? Semi-talented people who wouldn't be able to make it on their own so the record companies wrapped them up in a pleasing package and over-marketed them to the point where we're now gagging. Why is Britney getting so much radio airplay? Probably not because it was requested. Record companies get a larger share of the profit from acts that can't make it on their own. But I digress. This is really about downloading music.

So we've established that the music industry is bloated and is over-charging the public. And the money isn't going to the artists where it should go if this society is really as self-righteous as it wants to be. Now, apparently CD sales are slumping. No shit. Of course they're slumping. People are d'loading the songs for free, did you think they were all also going to pay for them? Most people are there for the music, not the cover art and the thank you list. So, yeah, they haven't bothered to pay for the CD's. But let me make that point a little clearer. Most people are there for the music. So you're thinking, yeah? So? Say it softly to yourself one more time. Most people are there for the music.

The market has demanded more bang for their buck and the industry is too bloated to provide it. D'loading music does hurt the artists. But it also helps them. What if it were the other way around. What if all music was free and there were no record labels. And then some rich guy came by and offered some artists a deal saying, "I'll take your collection of songs, remaster them in a studio, put them on a hardware product, and charge $15-$20 each for them in every mall across the continent. Then you'll see $2 (max) of every album sold and I'll keep the rest for my trouble and hard work." Would anybody fall for this?

Whereas, if they cut down the cost of the production (putting the talent back into the hands of the talented) and cut out the force-feeding, the price of a CD would be a lot cheaper and people couldn't afford not to pay for a hard copy. It would be reaching a wider audience base and more people would be inundated with different kinds of music. And what a wonderful world this would be.

I wouldn't be listening to any of the music I currently listen to if it weren't for freely downloadable music. I'm not the kind of person who likes to take a CD up to the counter and listen to the whole thing before deciding if I want to pay for it. I'd feel strangely obligated to buy it having put the people at the CD store through so much trouble. I think it's the atmosphere they cultivate at the brick and mortar stores. I'm not vain enough to think that I deserve the other person's time and energy without giving some kind of payment in return. But at home I can download anything I want.

I used to be able to look through what other people had in their d'loaded collections which was a great way of picking up on new artists but Kazaa stopped that which makes me sad:( Having an artist or a product be popular on Kazaa can create a demand for it in stores. This is the same reason why so many bands get started by selling demo tapes out of the trunks of their cars. They can prove a demand for their stuff, prove that it's marketable (which is really what the record label is supposed to do, isn't it?)

D'loading is also a great way to get the rare bootleg stuff that just isn't available in any store. This is a big reason why I'd like to make the move away from the big labels. They choose what is available for me to buy and listen to. What if I want to hear some freestyle rap stuff about one artist dissing another artist. This stuff can be hilarious. And it's a great show of a rapper's talent because they're making it up as they go along.

But you could never buy a CD of freestyle stuff. At least not the freestyle you might want to hear. A record label would sift through what's available and leave out the stuff that insults or upsets another of their artists. Whereas, I want it to be raw. Off the cuff. I love that a rap artist can take any beat and just throw words into it. I love that a dj can mix stuff on the fly. I want to hear that stuff. But without the internet I would have to wait until enough other people wanted it that the record labels finally catch on and put it on a CD, in a store, on a shelf. And then I would have to wait another few years for the market to grow enough that I get to hear the stuff that I want as opposed to just what the labels think is the safely marketable stuff. Fuck that. I'll just download it.

|

I love these stats in the article. They calculate the amount of money they're losing by taking the amount of unregistered software and multiplying it by the retail value. Like all those people would pay for that software if it weren't available for free online. Get real. Probably 90% of the people in Canada who have pirated software are home users who hardly use the stuff enough to warrant paying retail value. Frivolous use. They mostly have it simply because it's available. It is, however, the best advertising those companies could get. Because when it comes time for any of these users to recommend software for anything, guess which brands they're going to recommend.

And what's this? 91 - 92% counterfeit software rate in Vietnam, China and Ukraine? It's probably the only way the people in these countries can get the software they want. Keep this in mind. Over 90% of the software in these countries is counterfeit. Not 90% of the people have counterfeit software. It would be interesting to see what the value of the counterfeiting is compared to the $990 million in Canada.

And perhaps the most important, yet unanswered, part of this article, how many people paid for their current version of Windows? Come on, let's see a show of hands. Don't be shy. How much of the $990 million of counterfeit software in Canada is just Windows operating systems? I'll start paying for Windows when it becomes worth buying. XP is close to being a stable enough OS, but I think that judgment may be clouded by all the years I struggled with 95 and 98. It would be nice if there weren't so many unknown security holes that hackers figure out before the actual software people at Microsoft. What was that virus called that came out a couple of months ago that could infect your system with any email attachment or user interference at all? And how long did it take for Microsoft to come up with a patch? Like 3 days? They must have had some idea that the security breach was there and what it was about in order to respond so fast. Fucking lying bastards. And they want me to pay $300 for that? I don't think so. If I ever meet Bill Gates the first words out of my mouth are going to be, "I've never paid money for a Microsoft product."

|

Take a look at this article. It's no wonder the auto industry has been reluctant to use very many software controlled devices in cars for the past 20 years. What with Microsoft dominating the market with flaky, unreliable sotware. Does anyone remember the software on the Mars Rover Spirit crashing? Yes, that's right, it was a Windows problem. Apparently the software tried to do too many things at once and used up all its memory and froze. Bill Gates said, "What's the matter? You just reboot the thing and it's fine. What's the big deal?"

Having a large volume of electronic devices in cars is the true point of no return for the electronics industry. This is the part where high school mechanics teachers take electronics crash courses in night school and start teaching it to the kids as an introductory lesson. The point where full-time electronics courses get offered at every high school, not just as a smaller part of a shop class or Physics course. Can you imagine a world where 1 in 3 people knew enough about electronics to replace a softkey controller chip in a vehicle? Right now we're lucky if that many people know how to upgrade a video card in a PC. In fact I know we're not that lucky because I currently run a phone-in technical support hotline for about 15 close friends and relatives. (Not that I'm bitter, you guys. Don't think that. Call me any time.)

Electronic devices are getting cheaper, smaller, more efficient, more useful, and more available. There's no other industry in the world that can claim the same thing. But right now the life of any given piece of electronics is about 2 years. After that it's totally garbage. It won't be long before electronics gadgets will be the number 1 item in our landfills by volume. Quite simply there is no economical way to recycle any of it. And why is that, you ask? 2 reasons. First, anyone who is qualified to fix it when it breaks is already hired to design and build the next generation to replace it. Solution: train more people in electronics repair. Second, aside from PC's, there are no electronic devices that are designed to be upgraded or repaired. Since there is nobody qualified or available to service them, devices are designed to be thrown away and replaced. This is a dream for marketing people. An industry where everything is replaced (paid for again) after only a few years. But we can't survive this way for long. The massive production of the most productive society in history is being cycled to landfills at an increasingly rapid pace.

Here's a question. What would happen if we funneled a small portion of our production to make out of date electronics for people in poorer countries. It would be cheap to produce and not likely to give any foreign competitors a technological advantage. What would Cambodia be like if there were a 386 in every home and every school had a 10 Mbps ethernet LAN connection? What would the children in Kenya do if they could cruise the internet on 14.4 kbps modems to do school projects? Alas, capitalism just doesn't provide for that kind of philanthropy. Maybe we'll never know.

|

I love days like this where I pretend to work while actually accomplishing nothing. It doesn't happen very often. Sometimes I fell a little badly about it but then again the company I work for doesn't pay for any sick days so I guess this makes up for it. I added a link to Urban Legends because I'm sickandfuckingtired of people saying, "It's true, man. My cousin sent it to me on an email. It happened to his wife's aunt in Virginia." And for all those people who once told me anything about Coca-Cola here's Cokelore for you. In my strange brain there can be no coincidence that it rhymes with "cokewhore".

|

Yesterday I threw away 480 Polymer (read: old) cell phone batteries. I was originally going to save them for Lola so she could power the robot she's building but my boss said they were defective. Sorry Lola. Oh, and by the way, take a look at who else is building a robot.

|

Abe is in the lab today. For any that can't remember or weren't here, Abe is Bernie's dad who was jumped and beaten with a skateboard near his house a few weeks ago. He said that he knows who did it but he can't identify them well enough for the police to take action. Apparently there was another incident in the same area last week.

If this were a member of my family who was hurt like this it would be easy for me to act. It would be little more than reflex. I guess I have kind of an eye-for-an-eye mentality. My morals allow me a great deal of leeway when it comes to dealing with people who will willfully damage another human for a watch or a little bit of cash. People who believe that they deserve the little bit of money they can take from others because they can take from others.

But Abe isn't my family. Abe is Christian. And I'm not entirely sure how far his morals will take him down the slippery road of revenge. Violence is a tough subject to bring up with someone. To see that someone you know and respect is capable of violence is an unsettling thing. If Abe were to see me beating the crap out of those two punks who got him, would he silently cheer me on or would he see little difference between them and me?

Violence is a dangerous force within a human soul. Nothing can de-humanize and disconnect a person from society more than committing a violent act. Would I be a better person if I were only violent in the name of good causes? Perhaps. But only marginally. This is why super-heroes in the comic books and cartoons never kill or even severely thrash (any more than they have to, that is) the bad guys.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is just as true in psychology as anywhere else. To willfully damage another person also damages the person inflicting the damage. The only way around it is to convince yourself that you're not really hurting the person you're hitting. This is why you often can't really hurt anyone in your dreams. No matter how hard or often you hit them they always come out unharmed. This is your brain's way of protecting your psyche from the emotional damage that would be caused by inflicting wounds.

Why is the gun so immensely popular as an offensive weapon in our society? Sure, it's effective from a distance. But it's also loud, expensive and traceable. From a mechanical and efficient point of view, a phone cord wrapped around a person's throat while they sleep is much, much better. So why guns? Guns can kill from a distance. They can remove the immediate and gruesome nature of the crime. (And I'm referring to crime in the psychological sense.) The farther away the better. The more impersonal the action the less the damage on the psyche. Or, at least this is the way it seems at first glance.

|