I've been quiet on the topic for several reasons. First, the immigration subject riles to many emotions in people. Just what to call illegal immigrants gets blood boiling. Some opt for the politically correct "undocumented workers" over the more correct illegal immigrants. The issue is also very complex. People for and against immigration paint the issue in black and white. The "I'm right, you're wrong" syndrome that stifles open debate applies to immigration too. I doubt a real working solution will ever come about due the closed minded people on both sides.
A pragmatic solution that incorporates illegal aliens already here while securing the border is fundamental. Despite what extremist think, those illegals here will not be rounded up and deported. The cost of a round up operation runs into the billions of dollars. You might as well scratch a round up off the board. On the other hand, a tightly secured border is essential. Border security must tighten up and make any crossing attempt extremely difficult to manage.
After spending a while thinking about it, I will examine the situation and look at both sides. I will even offer some ideas of tenable solution. I will not please everyone and will definitely enrage both sides if anyone actually reads my posts. But I am willing to take a shot at this.
It's not easy but I've spent some time on it and hope that eventually a permanent solution, the right one at that, will eventually come to fruition.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
U.N. Investigator Thinks U.S. Drones Might Be Illegal
So a U.N. expert claims that U.S. use of drones to take out Al Qaida might be illegal? I have an answer for him. I don't care what he thinks.
The U.N. investigator, Philip Alston, claims that the CIA use might not fall under the rules of war and to many civilians are killed in the attacks.
In case Mr. Alston hasn't notices this isn't a conventional war. Terrorists don't wear uniforms. They hide among civilians. They don't attack military targets. They kill innocent civilians and hide like the cowards that they are. They don't have the balls to come out into the open. When they are discovered, a fast and efficient method is used to kill them. These terrorists are plotting and planning to kill. They want nothing else than to kill and impose their twisted sense of religion on people. There is nothing conventional about them. Unconventional enemies call for unconventional tactics.
Alston further states that CIA personnel may face extradition to the countries where the drone attacks occur. My counter to that is a state has to be willing to extradite a citizen to another country for trial. The U.S. government simply isn't going to send any CIA agent overseas to stand trial for actions that the government sanctions. I'm not sure if the concept of sovereign immunity applies in this case. No matter the U.S. would have to agree to any extradition. As an example, England asked for extradition for the suspect in the death of Alexander Litvinenko. Russia refused and case closed.
Also the implications within the intelligence community would be devastating. Who would want to work for a government that is going turn over its own agents that followed their marching orders? The Nuremberg trials rendered the "I was just following orders" defense invalid. But let's face it, Nuremberg was victor's justice. The winners of the war decided the rules of trial. The same concept applies somewhat here. The U.S. is obviously a powerful nation and as such is using its might to defend itself and make up the rules on how to do it. When was the last
time Israel turned over a Mossad agent for trial? How many times did the Soviets turn over a KGB agent for trial? The British? Never happened and never will.
So thanks for playing Mr. Alston but your report, the U.N. or anyone else
won't alter way the U.S. is defending itself and wiping enemies off the
face of the earth.
The U.N. investigator, Philip Alston, claims that the CIA use might not fall under the rules of war and to many civilians are killed in the attacks.
In case Mr. Alston hasn't notices this isn't a conventional war. Terrorists don't wear uniforms. They hide among civilians. They don't attack military targets. They kill innocent civilians and hide like the cowards that they are. They don't have the balls to come out into the open. When they are discovered, a fast and efficient method is used to kill them. These terrorists are plotting and planning to kill. They want nothing else than to kill and impose their twisted sense of religion on people. There is nothing conventional about them. Unconventional enemies call for unconventional tactics.
Alston further states that CIA personnel may face extradition to the countries where the drone attacks occur. My counter to that is a state has to be willing to extradite a citizen to another country for trial. The U.S. government simply isn't going to send any CIA agent overseas to stand trial for actions that the government sanctions. I'm not sure if the concept of sovereign immunity applies in this case. No matter the U.S. would have to agree to any extradition. As an example, England asked for extradition for the suspect in the death of Alexander Litvinenko. Russia refused and case closed.
Also the implications within the intelligence community would be devastating. Who would want to work for a government that is going turn over its own agents that followed their marching orders? The Nuremberg trials rendered the "I was just following orders" defense invalid. But let's face it, Nuremberg was victor's justice. The winners of the war decided the rules of trial. The same concept applies somewhat here. The U.S. is obviously a powerful nation and as such is using its might to defend itself and make up the rules on how to do it. When was the last
time Israel turned over a Mossad agent for trial? How many times did the Soviets turn over a KGB agent for trial? The British? Never happened and never will.
So thanks for playing Mr. Alston but your report, the U.N. or anyone else
won't alter way the U.S. is defending itself and wiping enemies off the
face of the earth.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Stringing Through Multi-universes
I'm no scientist. I do hold a B.S. in Mechanical Technology - Manufacturing Systems. It's kind of misleading. The majority of my course work was in mechanical engineering. I switched because it allowed me to graduate faster. I needed to get done with school and start earning a living.
My educational background has: physics III, calculus III, differential and partial differential equations and several mechanical engineering classes like statics, dynamics, thermodynamics, mechanical design, hydrodynamics and basic electronics.
I point out my educational background as a basis to my views in science.
Now to my real topic.
Physics breaks down into two theories: Newtonian or classical and quantum. Newtonian physics deals with molecules all the way up to large bodies in the cosmos. Common equations like force = mass * acceleration and measurements like pressure all fall under Newtonian physics. At the subatomic level, Newtonian physics breaks down and quantum physics takes over.
A big quest for physicist and science in general is to establish a theory that ties the two together.
One theory that tries is called M-theory. M-theory supposes that there are eleven dimensions. Four dimensions are the ones we can measure. Length, width, height and time. The other seven constantly oscillate. You cannot see, touch, feel or hear these new dimensions.
Then there is the theory of the multi-universes. This theory posits that several universes exist and each has its own unique set of laws of physics. Only those that can stabilize, like our own, can continue to exist. This Darwinian approach states that other universes that cannot stabilize fail to succeed.
I'll never forget what a physics professor at the University of Houston once told the class. He said physics is full of fudge factors. For example, everyone knows Einstein's equation of E=mc2. E equals energy, m equals mass and c equals a constant. He explained that such constants usually mean scientists can't really figure out the bridge that ties the equation together neatly so they need to find a number that does it.
I'm not sure how right or wrong my professor was. When I see things science resorting to string theory and multiple universes I believe they may be fudge factors. Scientists are married to the idea of a one theory meets applies to all and might be grasping at straws. Instead of examining and modifying existing theories, they look for ways to wrap them up neatly in one package. Scientifically there might not be a way to test these theories. If scientists can't see other dimensions how do we know they really do exists. The same thing applies to multiple universes. How can alternate universes be observed in order to put the theory to test?
The multiple universe theory reminds of the DC Comics multiverses.
Fortunately there are scientists exploring alternate theories. Some are viewed as heretics while others are gaining support or at least getting some to question current practices.
Science is a constant quest for knowledge. Instead of trying to come up with more dimensions and universes, scientists need to examine what is in front of us and explore the visible and observable. I think one day a brilliant physicist, mathematician, philosopher or someone will make a drastic break through that will turn current ideas upside down.
My educational background has: physics III, calculus III, differential and partial differential equations and several mechanical engineering classes like statics, dynamics, thermodynamics, mechanical design, hydrodynamics and basic electronics.
I point out my educational background as a basis to my views in science.
Now to my real topic.
Physics breaks down into two theories: Newtonian or classical and quantum. Newtonian physics deals with molecules all the way up to large bodies in the cosmos. Common equations like force = mass * acceleration and measurements like pressure all fall under Newtonian physics. At the subatomic level, Newtonian physics breaks down and quantum physics takes over.
A big quest for physicist and science in general is to establish a theory that ties the two together.
One theory that tries is called M-theory. M-theory supposes that there are eleven dimensions. Four dimensions are the ones we can measure. Length, width, height and time. The other seven constantly oscillate. You cannot see, touch, feel or hear these new dimensions.
Then there is the theory of the multi-universes. This theory posits that several universes exist and each has its own unique set of laws of physics. Only those that can stabilize, like our own, can continue to exist. This Darwinian approach states that other universes that cannot stabilize fail to succeed.
I'll never forget what a physics professor at the University of Houston once told the class. He said physics is full of fudge factors. For example, everyone knows Einstein's equation of E=mc2. E equals energy, m equals mass and c equals a constant. He explained that such constants usually mean scientists can't really figure out the bridge that ties the equation together neatly so they need to find a number that does it.
I'm not sure how right or wrong my professor was. When I see things science resorting to string theory and multiple universes I believe they may be fudge factors. Scientists are married to the idea of a one theory meets applies to all and might be grasping at straws. Instead of examining and modifying existing theories, they look for ways to wrap them up neatly in one package. Scientifically there might not be a way to test these theories. If scientists can't see other dimensions how do we know they really do exists. The same thing applies to multiple universes. How can alternate universes be observed in order to put the theory to test?
The multiple universe theory reminds of the DC Comics multiverses.
Fortunately there are scientists exploring alternate theories. Some are viewed as heretics while others are gaining support or at least getting some to question current practices.
Science is a constant quest for knowledge. Instead of trying to come up with more dimensions and universes, scientists need to examine what is in front of us and explore the visible and observable. I think one day a brilliant physicist, mathematician, philosopher or someone will make a drastic break through that will turn current ideas upside down.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Unkle Monkee's Product Reviews
A new Unkle Monkee feature - product reviews. I don't often buy stuff but when I do I'd like to offer my take on how good, bad or horrible it is.
I have three products to review today.
The first is the Diamond TVW USB650. The USB650 is a tuner for watching a TV signal through you computer. I ended up returning the product. Why? The software that came with it appears not set up for Windows 7. I couldn't get the software to ever get a signal on my desktop. I did on the laptop which runs on Vista. I uninstalled the software and tried again. This time it hung up and would never reinstall. I tried several times but the process never completed. I went to Diamond's website to look for solutions or driver updated for Windows 7. None were available. An online form to register and ask for technical assistance is available. I registered my product and sent them an email about my issue. That was a week ago. I never heard back from them. I really had no choice but to return the tuner.
The second product is InvisibleShield protector for my cell phone. My opinion is that it's complete garbage. First the package appears deceptive to me. I thought I was buying a protective case and I read the packaging over several times before buying. When I get home and open it, I discover that InvisibleShield is nothing but peal away stickers to cover my phone. I have no idea how many stickers it had but it was several for various parts of my phone. I thought I might as well give it a try. The first part was just for the display face. I carefully tried to put the sticker on. It stuck immediately and bubbled up. I tried to peal it back and smooth it out. To late. It stayed bubbled and then it stuck to itself when I tried again. I returned the remaining stickers to Best Buy. Stay away from InvisibleShield.
Finally, a positive review on the Wisecomm 2.4 GHz Wireless Security Camera. I have no clue why I bought it except that it seemed like a good idea at the time. I initially bought it to hook it up to the computer via the USB650. Since the 650 was a drastic failure, I hooked it up to the TV. It works fine. Just plug it into the TV, set what channel you want it on and you can be a voyeur. For whatever reason you want it for, I give it Unkle Monkee's Official Seal of a Banana.
I have three products to review today.
The first is the Diamond TVW USB650. The USB650 is a tuner for watching a TV signal through you computer. I ended up returning the product. Why? The software that came with it appears not set up for Windows 7. I couldn't get the software to ever get a signal on my desktop. I did on the laptop which runs on Vista. I uninstalled the software and tried again. This time it hung up and would never reinstall. I tried several times but the process never completed. I went to Diamond's website to look for solutions or driver updated for Windows 7. None were available. An online form to register and ask for technical assistance is available. I registered my product and sent them an email about my issue. That was a week ago. I never heard back from them. I really had no choice but to return the tuner.
The second product is InvisibleShield protector for my cell phone. My opinion is that it's complete garbage. First the package appears deceptive to me. I thought I was buying a protective case and I read the packaging over several times before buying. When I get home and open it, I discover that InvisibleShield is nothing but peal away stickers to cover my phone. I have no idea how many stickers it had but it was several for various parts of my phone. I thought I might as well give it a try. The first part was just for the display face. I carefully tried to put the sticker on. It stuck immediately and bubbled up. I tried to peal it back and smooth it out. To late. It stayed bubbled and then it stuck to itself when I tried again. I returned the remaining stickers to Best Buy. Stay away from InvisibleShield.
Finally, a positive review on the Wisecomm 2.4 GHz Wireless Security Camera. I have no clue why I bought it except that it seemed like a good idea at the time. I initially bought it to hook it up to the computer via the USB650. Since the 650 was a drastic failure, I hooked it up to the TV. It works fine. Just plug it into the TV, set what channel you want it on and you can be a voyeur. For whatever reason you want it for, I give it Unkle Monkee's Official Seal of a Banana.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Home Grown Terrorists
Many worry about the issue of home grown terrorists in the United States. The Jihad Jane brings the issue to the forefront again.
The media and others jump and holler that domestic terrorism will infect the nation or poses the greatest threat to American soil.
While they are right to some degree, I can't help but remind them that homegrown terrorism runs deep in the fabric of American society. The threat from Islamic terrorists may be newest threat but certainly not the first.
The attacks of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols still sear my brain. Up to the Sept. 11th attacks, those two perpetrated the largest terrorist attack on American soil.
Ted Kaczinski aka the Unabomber also comes to mind. He carried out 18 attacks from 1978 to 1994 that took three lives and injured several people.
Before there were other were domestic terrorism groups like the Ku Klux Klan. They only intimidates, lynched and burned crosses and houses of blacks.
To a smaller degree the Symbionese Liberation Army qualifies as a domestic terrorist group.
Up in the woods and hills there are many Neo-Nazis or anti-government types running camps to dislodge the U.S. Government.
My point is that there will still be homegrown terrorist talent and we must be vigilant against it. Yes, Al-Qaida and radical Muslims want to attack the United States. We must continue to monitor those groups. However, remember that domestic attacks by the homegrown people aren't limited to Islamofacists. If you the historical data on U.S. soil attacks, Al-Qaida pulled of the largest more complex operation but there are still some homegrown plots brewing. Historically those attacks have been by American's own and haven't been religious based.
The media and others jump and holler that domestic terrorism will infect the nation or poses the greatest threat to American soil.
While they are right to some degree, I can't help but remind them that homegrown terrorism runs deep in the fabric of American society. The threat from Islamic terrorists may be newest threat but certainly not the first.
The attacks of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols still sear my brain. Up to the Sept. 11th attacks, those two perpetrated the largest terrorist attack on American soil.
Ted Kaczinski aka the Unabomber also comes to mind. He carried out 18 attacks from 1978 to 1994 that took three lives and injured several people.
Before there were other were domestic terrorism groups like the Ku Klux Klan. They only intimidates, lynched and burned crosses and houses of blacks.
To a smaller degree the Symbionese Liberation Army qualifies as a domestic terrorist group.
Up in the woods and hills there are many Neo-Nazis or anti-government types running camps to dislodge the U.S. Government.
My point is that there will still be homegrown terrorist talent and we must be vigilant against it. Yes, Al-Qaida and radical Muslims want to attack the United States. We must continue to monitor those groups. However, remember that domestic attacks by the homegrown people aren't limited to Islamofacists. If you the historical data on U.S. soil attacks, Al-Qaida pulled of the largest more complex operation but there are still some homegrown plots brewing. Historically those attacks have been by American's own and haven't been religious based.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
