Saturday, September 24, 2011

Obama and the Unions (and Big Business)

Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?

These guys: Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and consumers.

Rather than "Hope" and "Change", Obama is delivering corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics. In this explosive book, Carney reveals:

* The Great Health Care Scam—Obama’s backroom deals with drug companies spell corporate profits and more government control

* The Global Warming Hoax—Obama has bought off industries with a pork-filled bill that will drain your wallet for Al Gore’s agenda

* Obama and Wall Street—“Change” means more bailouts and a heavy Goldman Sachs presence in the West Wing (including Rahm Emanuel)

* Stimulating K Street—The largest spending bill in history gave pork to the well-connected and created a feeding frenzy for lobbyists

* How the GOP needs to change its tune—drastically—to battle Obamanomics

If you’ve wondered what’s happening to our country, as the federal government swallows up the financial sector, the auto industry, and healthcare, and enacts deficit exploding “stimulus packages” that create make-work government jobs, this book makes it all clear—it’s a big scam. Ultimately, Obamanomics boils down to this: every time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich, and those somebodies are friends of Barack.

Sunday, September 04, 2011

Will China Listen in on YOUR Phone Calls Today?

Pentagon fears listening posts from China; tech firm tied to nation’s military
By Eli Lake
The Washington Times
Thursday, September 1, 2011

A Pentagon report has found that a multibillion-dollar Chinese telecommunications company that has been seeking to make major inroads in the U.S. market has close ties to China's military, despite the company’s denials.

The Pentagon’s annual report to Congress on China's military, released last month, identifies Huawei as a high-tech company linked to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

“The shipbuilding and defense electronics sectors, benefiting from China’s leading role in producing commercial shipping and information technologies, have witnessed the greatest progress over the last decade,” the report states. “Information technology companies in particular, including Huawei, Datang, and Zhongxing, maintain close ties to the PLA.”

That last sentence prompted Huawei’s vice president for external relations, William Plummer, to write a letter last week urging Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta to rescind the allegation.

“This reference has no basis in fact and unjustly perpetuates an aura of doubt and distrust around Huawei that has the effect of prejudicing potential U.S. customers away from the products and solutions that will modernize our communications infrastructure,” Mr. Plummer wrote.

At issue for Huawei is widespread concern among U.S. military and intelligence agencies that Huawei’s switches, chips and firmware contain “back doors” that can give China's military the equivalent of listening posts all over the U.S. telecommunications infrastructure.

Huawei’s defenders have countered that the company is being singled out because it is based in China and that U.S. companies such as Cisco Systems contract the development and production of their equipment to foreign countries and are at the same risk for back doors as the gear sold by Huawei.

In the past four years, Huawei has tried to acquire American high-tech companies and win contracts to build up the U.S. 4G wireless network. The company’s efforts, however, have run into resistance from the U.S. government.

In 2008, the Treasury Department-led Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States blocked a proposed sale of the software company 3Com to Huawei, based on national security concerns.

Last year, representatives of the National Security Agency urged major telecommunications companies such as AT&T and Sprint to cancel a deal that would put Huawei firmware and hardware on the cell towers of the 4G wireless network.

“U.S. businesses and government entities should be very wary of entering into business with any of the companies identified by the Pentagon’s report on Chinese military power as having ties to the People’s Liberation Army,” said Dan Blumenthal, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former China policy official at the Pentagon.

“The report is vetted by the secretaries of state and defense and the national security adviser. It represents the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community,” Mr. Blumenthal said.

In his letter to Mr. Panetta, Mr. Plummer said: “Huawei has always operated and continues to operate, independent of any ownership, control, or linkage with the Chinese government or military.”

He added that Huawei’s equipment has “been audited and passed the security requirements of 45 of the top 50 global telecommunications operators. No customer or government has ever found any variance from international standards at any time, including those material to national security.”

Huawei was founded in 1988 by Ren Zhengfei, a former PLA engineer. The company has provided wireless network products to many countries in the Third World and more recently has helped build the wireless network for the United Kingdom.

War with Mexico Coming

Okay for decades I heard these weird conspiracy theorists blab about how the Mexicans wanted to take back part of the USA, the southern part, mainly California. As seriously screwed up as Cali currently is right now, can anyone say we'd miss them?! Haha. However I ignored these weird Doomsayers, these odd Cassandra's, but boy was I foolish in doing so. A hispanic reporter in Phoenix proudly posted the upcoming War With Mexico, and how and when it will happen. Its a shocking post that I am reposting below. Read it and BELIEVE it my friends, they have plans for dismembering the USA. What really upsets me is that Mexico truly has no claim on any of America. The native American Indians that owned the lands still live on them to this day: the Choctaw, the Apache, the Cherokee, etc. Only the Spanish conquistadors attack on these people before the white man came allows them any claim, and its a BS claim at that. Central American tribes have no claim on North American tribal land....period. Oh and if they want a war, they've got one: North Americans are heavily armed. :)

Latino group claims Aztlán war in next five years
Miguel Perez
Phoenix Civil Rights Examiner
August 27, 2011

Phoenix-based Nuestros Reconquistos claims that there will be a war very similar to the Civil War fought in the next five years. “La Raza and MEChA have already talked to Latinos and Phoenix and explained that Latinos need to arm themselves for war,” says Nuestros Reconquistos President Manuel Longoria.

Cecilia Maldonado of Chicanos Unidos Arizona isn’t hoping for any sort of war, but believes it may be unavoidable. “For generations, our people have prepared us to take back the lands of the Southwest that were stolen from our Mexican ancestors. Because of the bad economy and many racist laws, Latinos will be forced to fight sooner than later,” says Mrs. Maldonado.

Latino groups believe they have enough people in states such as California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas to successfully wage a war on the United States. Who’s side will you be on?

Monday, August 08, 2011

Devilish Downgrade

To Be Fair, Obama’s Responsibility for the Downgrade Is only 15 Percent
August 7, 2011 by Dan Mitchell

It was a strange experience to read the comments and emails generated by yesterday’s post on the “Obama downgrade.”

Democrats and liberals were upset that I blamed Obama for the downgrade, as you might expect. Republicans and conservatives, however, were agitated that my first sentence pointed out that Bush bore significant responsibility for the spending binge that created the fiscal crisis.

This got me thinking about the underlying causes of America’s long-term fiscal problems and whether it might be possible to come up with some sort of reasonable estimate on which Presidents are most responsible for fiscal crisis.

So I decided to look at the most recent long-run forecast from the Congressional Budget Office. As you might suspect, entitlement programs are THE reason why the United States is in deep trouble.

What does this allow us to say about various presidents? Well, it turns out that Social Security is a relatively minor part of the problem, so even though President Roosevelt’s policies exacerbated and extended the Great Depression, the program he created is only responsible for a small share of the fiscal crisis. To give the illusion of scientific exactitude, let’s assign FDR 13.2 percent of the blame.

The health care numbers are much harder to disentangle because it’s not apparent how much of the increase is due to Medicare, Medicaid, Bush’s prescription drug entitlement, and Obamacare. A healthcare policy wonk may know these numbers, but the CBO long-run forecast didn’t provide much detail.

So with a big caveat that these are just wild estimations, I feel reasonably comfortable in saying that both Bush and Obama made matters worse with their reckless entitlement expansions, but that they merely deepened a fiscal hole that was created when President Johnson imposed Medicare and Medicaid.

With that in mind (and ignoring, for the sake of simplicity, the role of other Presidents – such as Nixon – who expanded the size and scope of health entitlements), here is my ranking of presidential responsibility for America’s fiscal decline.

This does not mean, however, that it was unfair yesterday to apply the “Obama Downgrade” label.

In part, he is responsible because the downgrade from Standard & Poor happened on his watch. But the real reason he earned that label is that he doubled down on the reckless policies of his predecessors and demagogued against lawmakers such as Cong. Paul Ryan who actually have tried to solve the problem.


The Myth of the Anti-War Left, or “No Blood For Incompetence!”

In an earlier thread, I observed the distinct absence of the sort of vitriolic, unrelenting protests against America’s military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan since Obama took office in 2008, and logically postulated that as a result, what the MSM regularly referred to as “the anti-war movement” was in reality, nothing more than a sustained, petulant tantrum directed at a Republican president.

Indeed, even those few on the far-left who still can’t rid themselves of their Bush Derangement Syndrome recognized a long time ago just how utterly devoid of character their fellow progressives really are:

Progressives have made a deal with the devil. And the bargain is this: they’ll shut up about murdering innocent Afghan and Pakistani civilians, about US assassination squads, and about the wholesale assault on our civil liberties, if they can get the goodies they want here at home: more government spending, more government employees, and more government period. After all, who cares if a lot of foreigners get killed? As long as they get theirs.

Oh, so true.

The Best Video EVER

Amazing businesswoman rails against Obama's disastrous economic policies, watch it, its EPIC!

Note what she says at 1:47; she acknowledges the president inherited a mess, but points out that as a CEO of a company, she inherits a mess everyday. ”That is my job title, to fix problems, to get people to work together in harmony for one common goal.” Finally, she says the president needs to put together a plan asks the president, “Why can’t you put together a plan.”

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Norway and Kill Cultists

First recognized about ten years ago in the United States, Kill Cultists have spread to a half dozen Western nations on Earth, including gruesome strikes in the cities of Norway, Spain, France, the USA, and the United Kingdom. These horrible terrorists are the bane of law enforcement officials everywhere since they try and "rack up" as many dead bodies as possible before they are killed. Kill Cultists believe they will attain notoriety and immortality by becoming "famous" by mass murdering as many people as possible. They follow a few odd rules, however, which (luckily) keeps their overall death count low: all "kills" must be by hand or something made by hand (ie a bomb). Although nuclear or bioweapons haven't been used yet, many government officials fear just that and are working towards a real way to deal with them across Earth. Kill Cultists usually do not survive their "spree" but if they do advocates for their punishment encourage a swift death sentence so that they can mitigate their "popularity" (famous kill cultists like Charles Manson have become popular with the fringe by publishing books, articles, and random messages to the public). America, because of its many personal freedoms, has been a nation which has been hit by a dozen strikes by these one-man terrorists over the last few years, mainly on college campuses and malls. Supporters of a quick death sentence say that to kill these people (like Timothy McVeigh) stunts the individuals popularity among his/her group, a policy that appears to be working (no McVeigh repeats so far). Kill cultists are almost exclusively young males.

US Base in Bahrain in Danger
July 26, 2011: The United States is quietly looking for another country, on the west coast of the Persian Gulf, to host an American naval base. This is because months of political unrest in Bahrain has put the American base there in danger. So the U.S. Navy is looking at the possibility, and cost, of moving the Bahrain base to Dubai or Qatar. The navy is not happy about making the move, as it would be expensive and disruptive. But if the unrest in Bahrain continues, and escalates, there may be no choice.

Over the last few years, the U.S. has been expanding its naval base in Bahrain. The navy has taken over the Mina Salman port, which transferred all commercial operations to the new Khalifa bin Salman port. The navy has leased 28 hectares (70 acres) of waterfront space at Mina Salman. At the capital, the navy has an .4 hectare (one acre) area at the port there, and 17 hectares (42 acres) at a nearby base. The new port is large enough to berth the largest U.S. ships (the Nimitz class carriers.) The port currently supports over a dozen American warships operating in the area.

Thus the U.S. Navy has turned a minor naval station in the Persian Gulf, into one of its most crucial bases for the war on terrorism. The U.S. moved into Bahrain in 1973, when the British gave it up. The Bahrainis, like most of their Arab neighbors, like to have some friendly Western power in residence. This provides some insurance against Saudi Arabia to the west, and Iran to the east.

Before 1918, the British presence helped keep the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire off their backs as well. All the Bahrainis ask is that the foreign troops be quiet, and discreet. Until 2002, the Bahraini base was just a place where U.S. warships could tie up for repairs, or recreation for the crews. About 3,600 American military personnel were stationed there. There was an airbase for navy and air force transports and warplanes. The Bahrainis denied much of this activity, so as to avoid getting pilloried by other Arab states. But Bahrain is a small place (a 655 square kilometer island about 20 kilometers off the Saudi coast, with a population of about 1.1 million), and it's difficult for things like warships and warplanes to go unnoticed.

In the last eight years, several hundred million dollars has gone into building more permanent facilities. The trailers and other "temporary structures" were replaced by more permanent buildings and facilities. This included a new pier, just for military ships. There is a shopping center just for the military, and a lot of recreational facilities for the troops. Until 2004, some troops could bring their families. But now it's all military, and the brass try to keep everyone happy on base. It's a one year tour for most, but Bahrain is pretty popular. Living conditions are good, and the local Bahrainis are pretty mellow and friendly by Middle Eastern standards, at least most of the time.

Iran Blows Up Cyprus Naval Base
July 29, 2011: On July 11th, some 2,000 tons of Iranian munitions and explosives, stored in the open at a naval base in South Cyprus for the last two years, caught fire and exploded. The blast knocked out a nearby power plant (supplying 60 percent of the electricity in South Cyprus), killed over a dozen people, damaged hundreds of buildings and was totally avoidable. Munitions experts had warned the government against storing all those explosives in the open, under the hot Mediterranean sun, was dangerous. They were right.

Although most of these munitions were of recent manufacture, you cannot be too careful how you store, and handle, this stuff. For example, last year, four Ukrainian sailors were seriously injured when two 30mm cannon shells spontaneously exploded. Actually, those shells didn't go off entirely without warning. The navy reported that the shells were old, beyond their “use by” date, and were probably set off by vibrations ships generate during training exercises.

This is a common problem in countries that have long used ammunition bought from Russia. During the communist period, as per the Soviet custom, old ammunition was not destroyed, but kept around. Communist countries were poor. It made sense to keep those old mortar and artillery shells (plus bombs and military explosives) for the inevitable war with the enemies of socialism. But the chemical reactions taking place in propellants and explosives, once these items are manufactured, eventually cause dangerous side effects. Over time, the compounds, that make the propellants and explosives work, deteriorate. This renders the propellants and explosives useless or, in many cases, unstable and very dangerous. Expose even new munitions to the hot sun for two three Mediterranean Summers, and the stuff becomes more, well, spontaneously explosive.

This has resulted in many spontaneous explosions on Russian ships and in ammunition depots. These accidents also happen outside Russia. Three years ago, an Albanian ammunition processing facility north of the capital exploded. There were over 200 casualties, including at least nine dead (largely among the 4,000 civilians living nearby). Over 300 buildings were destroyed, and over 2,000 damaged. The facility was used to destroy old ammo, which is a condition for Albania to be allowed to join NATO. There were about 100,000 tons of old ammunition in Albania, and the destroyed facility dismantled 500-600 tons of the stuff each month. The explosion in Albania probably occurred during the process of extracting explosives from the old ammo. This can be tricky, as the least little spark, can set this stuff off. Worse, older ammo in an unstable state can go off without a spark.

This disaster was part of a trend. Four years ago, there was a large explosion in an ammo depot in the African nation of Mozambique. About a hundred died. Seven years ago, an even greater disaster occurred in Nigeria, when a munitions depot near the capital cooked off, killing over 200 people.

Russia has also had problems with elderly, and cranky, munitions. In the 1990s, there were several munitions depot explosions, some of them quite spectacular. Russia, however, tended to put these depots in isolated areas, so the casualties were low. However, the Russians took the hint, and disposed of huge quantities of Cold War surplus munitions.

How did all that stuff get to Cyprus in the first place? In January, 2009, a U.S. warship in the Gulf of Aden spotted a former Russian merchant ship, the Monchegorsk, that was then flying a Cypriot flag. The Monchegorsk had originally been spotted leaving an Iranian port, and heading for the Suez canal. Egyptian authorities were alerted and the Monchegorsk was forced into an Egyptian port to be searched. Munitions, believed headed for Gaza, were found hidden in the cargo. But the Monchegorsk was released because Department of Defense lawyers were uncertain if the weapons found are sufficient evidence that Iran was in violation of UN resolution 1747, and, even so, did anyone have the authority to seize anything. But once the ship exited the Suez canal, the U.S. persuaded Cyprus (which, technically, has control over the ship) to seize it when it passed Cyprus, and do a thorough search. Some 2,ooo tons of munitions were found, taken off the ship, and stored in Cyprus until the UN bureaucrats could decide what to do.

UN resolution (1747) prohibits Iran from exporting weapons. The exact wording of the resolution is; " Decides that Iran shall not supply, sell or transfer directly or indirectly from its territory or by its nationals or using its flag vessels or aircraft any arms or related materiel, and that all States shall prohibit the procurement of such items from Iran by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in the territory of Iran. " The U.S. used 1747 as a license to mess with Iranian efforts to export weapons to its terrorist customers.

U.S. warships in Task Force 151 (the anti-piracy patrol in the Gulf of Aden) have been ordered to watch for ships that have taken on cargo in Iran, and then head through the Gulf of Aden for the Suez canal. Iran is believed to be increasing its efforts to smuggle weapons into Gaza for Hamas, a terrorist organization that has been supported by Iran since the 1990s. Such Iranian cargo ships have been caught carrying weapons to Gaza before. The Iranians try to either land the weapons on the Gaza coast, or smuggle them into Egypt and then through the smuggling tunnels under the Gaza/Egyptian border. But this time the weapons ended up in Cyprus, until they exploded.

Tuesday, July 05, 2011

Chosen by the ring, chosen by God
Exclusive: Drew Zahn says 'Green Lantern' glows with biblical themes

Posted: June 19, 2011
3:24 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn's column

Now in theaters, "Green Lantern" doesn't have the brilliant writing of fellow superhero film "The Dark Knight," the sharp dialogue displayed in "Ironman" or the acting chops of Marvel's "X-Men" – but that doesn't mean this newest comic book movie isn't a whole lot of fun.

Indeed, the predictable plot and storyline seem to be taken into account by lead actor Ryan Reynolds, who plays reluctant hero Hal Jordan (a.k.a. Green Lantern) with just a touch of heart and the subdued devil-may-care attitude that has made him a romantic comedy heartthrob, without the over-the-top schlock that fellow comedian Seth Rogen used to destroy another emerald superhero flick, "The Green Hornet."

Reynolds' resulting character is a just slightly rogue, but believably honorable superhero who is simply, inherently likable.

Furthermore, "Green Lantern" packs gorgeous 3-D technology (do not see this movie in 2-D, you'll be sorely disappointed) and fun computer effects to make this comic book adaptation leap off the screen.

Yes, I reluctantly admit the script and generally bland acting deserve criticism. But this isn't a movie out to win Oscars. Like an '80s television show (think "The Dukes of Hazzard" or "MacGyver"), the goal is pit the good guys against the bad guys, flirt with a pretty lady, blow some stuff up along the way and have a good time. To these less-than-lofty goals, "The Green Lantern" rises to the occasion.

"Green Lantern" also plays upon a pair of crystal clear themes, morals to the story that give the movie an inspiring, even biblical message.

In the mythos of the Lanterns, green is the color of "will," while yellow is the color of fear. The good guys, thus, wear green, while the bad guys wear … you guessed it, yellow.

Most of the film's messages, therefore, take aim at the destructive power of fear:

  • "Will is what makes you take action," a leader of the universe's many Green Lanterns explains. "Fear is what stops you, makes you feel weak. … Ignore your fear."

  • "You don't think your dad felt afraid," the film's female lead tells Jordan. "He found a way to defeat it. It's called courage."

  • "The ring didn't see you were fearless," she further tells him. "It saw you had the ability to overcome fear. It saw that you're courageous."

  • "Once you give in to fear, you never go back," Hal challenges his allies. "Don't give in to fear. Fight it. Fight it with me."

My only criticism of this theme is that movie claims courage in the form of strengthened will overcomes fear, while the Bible explains our will is insufficient to overcome fear. It is God who wills in us to act and to do (Philippians 2:13), the Bible says, and "perfect love" – not perfected willpower – drives out the yellow scourge (1 John 4:18; 2 Timothy 1:7).

But yet another theme of the film brings even more biblical truth to bear.

The ring that turns Hal Jordan into Green Lantern formerly belonged to an alien. When that alien died, the ring picked Jordan as the next to bear its power and responsibility.

But Jordan, who admits he's an irresponsible "screw up," is afraid he's isn't worthy of the honor and afraid he'll make a mess of things yet again.

The theme is strikingly similar to God's election of the saints (Ephesians 1:11-12), choosing the weak to shame the strong (1 Corinthians 1:26-27), gifting his elect to do abundantly more than they ever asked or imagined (Romans 11:6; Ephesians 3:16-21).

Are we worthy of being chosen? No (Ephesians 2:8). Can we ever live up to the choosing? Not by ourselves, not based on our track record; but our Redeemer sees something in us that He can craft for His purposes (Ephesians 2:10).

"The ring chose you," the other Lanterns try to assure Jordan. "The ring sees something in you that you do not yet see. … The ring never makes a mistake."

More than just a passing metaphor, Hal Jordan's transformation by a higher power that foresaw the hero he could become is grand finale of the film. It gives "Green Lantern" the glow of a redemptive message that helps it overcome its moviemaking faults.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

China Uses Slave Labor in WOW, other virtual games

China used prisoners in lucrative internet gaming work
Labour camp detainees endure hard labour by day, online 'gold farming' by night
World of Warcraft
Chinese prisoners were forced into 'gold farming' – building up credits on online games such as World of Warcraft.
Danny Vincent in Beijing, Wed 25 May 2011 19.49 BST

As a prisoner at the Jixi labour camp, Liu Dali would slog through tough days breaking rocks and digging trenches in the open cast coalmines of north-east China. By night, he would slay demons, battle goblins and cast spells.

Liu says he was one of scores of prisoners forced to play online games to build up credits that prison guards would then trade for real money. The 54-year-old, a former prison guard who was jailed for three years in 2004 for "illegally petitioning" the central government about corruption in his hometown, reckons the operation was even more lucrative than the physical labour that prisoners were also forced to do.

"Prison bosses made more money forcing inmates to play games than they do forcing people to do manual labour," Liu told the Guardian. "There were 300 prisoners forced to play games. We worked 12-hour shifts in the camp. I heard them say they could earn 5,000-6,000rmb [£470-570] a day. We didn't see any of the money. The computers were never turned off."
Memories from his detention at Jixi re-education-through-labour camp in Heilongjiang province from 2004 still haunt Liu. As well as backbreaking mining toil, he carved chopsticks and toothpicks out of planks of wood until his hands were raw and assembled car seat covers that the prison exported to South Korea and Japan. He was also made to memorise communist literature to pay off his debt to society.

But it was the forced online gaming that was the most surreal part of his imprisonment. The hard slog may have been virtual, but the punishment for falling behind was real.

"If I couldn't complete my work quota, they would punish me physically. They would make me stand with my hands raised in the air and after I returned to my dormitory they would beat me with plastic pipes. We kept playing until we could barely see things," he said.

It is known as "gold farming", the practice of building up credits and online value through the monotonous repetition of basic tasks in online games such as World of Warcraft. The trade in virtual assets is very real, and outside the control of the games' makers. Millions of gamers around the world are prepared to pay real money for such online credits, which they can use to progress in the online games.

The trading of virtual currencies in multiplayer games has become so rampant in China that it is increasingly difficult to regulate. In April, the Sichuan provincial government in central China launched a court case against a gamer who stole credits online worth about 3000rmb.

The lack of regulations has meant that even prisoners can be exploited in this virtual world for profit.

According to figures from the China Internet Centre, nearly £1.2bn of make- believe currencies were traded in China in 2008 and the number of gamers who play to earn and trade credits are on the rise.

It is estimated that 80% of all gold farmers are in China and with the largest internet population in the world there are thought to be 100,000 full-time gold farmers in the country.

In 2009 the central government issued a directive defining how fictional currencies could be traded, making it illegal for businesses without licences to trade. But Liu, who was released from prison before 2009 believes that the practice of prisoners being forced to earn online currency in multiplayer games is still widespread.

"Many prisons across the north-east of China also forced inmates to play games. It must still be happening," he said.

"China is the factory of virtual goods," said Jin Ge, a researcher from the University of California San Diego who has been documenting the gold farming phenomenon in China. "You would see some exploitation where employers would make workers play 12 hours a day. They would have no rest through the year. These are not just problems for this industry but they are general social problems. The pay is better than what they would get for working in a factory. It's very different," said Jin.

"The buyers of virtual goods have mixed feelings … it saves them time buying online credits from China," said Jin.

The emergence of gold farming as a business in China – whether in prisons or sweatshops could raise new questions over the exporting of goods real or virtual from the country.

"Prison labour is still very widespread – it's just that goods travel a much more complex route to come to the US these days. And it is not illegal to export prison goods to Europe, said Nicole Kempton from the Laogai foundation, a Washington-based group which opposes the forced labour camp system in China.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Why I Support Infosocialism
Infosocialism is a political philosophy developed (under the name "information socialism") by the American "Socrates III" in 2010. Originally from the left-anarchist tradition, Socrates felt that the vision of a pure anarchosocialist society was unrealistic (and in some cases criminal). Nevertheless, he observed that although modern civilization was utterly dependent on information technologies, the central notion of "intellectual property" often gave rise to significant injustice. He believes that the state should not criminalize owning life-saving information and popular digital information (like CD and DVD media) for the sake of the corporation. Distributing the benefits of such innovation fairly to society is the mainstream media's job, not the governments. Infosocialism thus begins with the premise that "information needs to be free," but redefined freedom as the nationalization of intellectual property and its free distribution by all citizens of the World Wide Web. Thus, the government does protect patents, but continues in its basic duties of protecting society and individuals. This is less absurd when one imagines a "university" rather than "corporate" model of research and development.

Infosocialist doctrine will surely fail to take hold in the hyper-developed nations like America and Japan and will instead take root in less-developed nations, many of whom feel that they were are being exploited by wealthier corporations' locks on major genetic patents, nanotechnology designs, and digital media, and information software.

Like many legal concepts, intellectual property is a fiction, viable only as long as everyone agrees to be bound by it. At the beginning of the 21st century, fierce controversies are beginning to break out over the ownership of computer software, digital recordings of music, genetically engineered seeds, and other forms of intellectual property. Whenever the public sees too great a discrepancy between the value of information and the price being charged for it, piracy becomes widespread. Entire nations like China and most of Africa, falling behind in the race for technical innovation, choose not to enforce the international agreements protecting intellectual property. The goal of Infosocialism is to make sure the artificial scarcity of information (and the high prices charged by people to make lots of profit) are negated as much as possible so that people can have the cures for diseases that can kill them, access to gene-modded crops to prevent widespread starvation in whole countries, and forcing the governments of the world to get back to the more important job of running their nations and their economies instead of punishing media pirates (usually kids) with criminal and financial penalties.

How to be a Good Liberal
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Iran or Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV'S.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
12. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
13. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or Abraham Lincoln.
14. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
15. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
16. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
17. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy.

Orbital Service Station
A new solution for the growing space junk (debris and non functioning satellites in orbit) problem is the use of robotic repair and resupply satellites. The second one (the Space Infrastructure Servicing, or SIS satellite) is going up in four years, to refuel communications satellites. Many satellites cost a billion dollars to build and put into orbit. But their lifespan is often limited by the amount of fuel they can carry (to make minor, but essential, adjustments in their orbit). While many satellite experts believe the technology is not yet there to do this sort of thing, a successful test was carried out four years ago.

This experiment was called Orbital Express, which consisted of two satellites. One of the satellites tested robotic hardware and software, to do maintenance work on the other bird, as well as transferring fuel. With satellites costing so much, it's become cost effective to develop and build satellites that can do repairs, upgrades and refueling while these expensive birds are still up there. Unlike in the past, satellites can be built to last for a decade or more, especially if they can be serviced. Previously, the only option was to get the Space Shuttle to do it, but that cost over a hundred million dollars per repair mission (because each Shuttle mission was so expensive, and overbooked). Robotic repair satellites are a lot cheaper. Orbital Express was test of the concept, which many satellite engineers had been demanding for decades. The test was a success, and that led to the SIS bird, which will do it for real, and get paid for it.

Most of these service missions will be for refueling satellites, which often have small jets, used to reposition themselves. But other can replace worn or damaged components, install upgraded equipment (like a more powerful onboard computer). Future satellites can be designed to accommodate SIS tools and capabilities, further reducing the cost of these services, and expanding the number of satellites that can be tended to per SIS mission. The plan is to have a supply satellite come up regularly to replenish the SIS fuel and spares, and then return to earth for reuse. But the larger, and more expensive, SIS satellite will stay in orbit for as long as it is able, because it will probably not be built for re-entry and reuse.

Once robots are doing the satellite servicing, the cost of building and operating satellites will come down 50 percent or more in a decade or so, and even more after that. Plus, there will be fewer retired (to being a traffic hazard) satellites in orbit.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Trash the Size of Texas

A close friend of mine told me a whopper of a story about the enormous amount of trash in the oceans of the world, enough that it would cover the size of Texas twice over! Shocked, I had to discover if this was the truth for surely such a enormous amount of trash would be devastating to the native life in the oceans. However I have run into a huge amount of ecological propaganda in the last fifteen years, mainly spouted by ecological evangelicals like Al Gore (who has earned more than $100 million lying about this issue). I have wisely learned from former author Michael Crichton on discerning real information from group-think info-lies and independent research is always best in situations like these so I hit the books and Web. What I found was unexpected and disappointing: again the eco-left is lying about the environment to destroy human growth and potential in the world. There is NOT a huge amount of trash and plastics in the Pacific Ocean twice the size of Texas: again the false preaching by the Eco Evangelists has been unraveled! The amount of garbage in the worlds oceans is nothing like what is being portrayed in the media.

In addition, a Oregon State University researcher has found that the media has been greatly exaggerating the size of the “Great Garbage Patch” found between California and Japan.

Angelicque White, an assistant professor of oceanography at Oregon State University, has studied the “Great Garbage Patch” and all of the media stories surrounding it, and concluded that most media reports have grossly overestimated the size of this garbage patch.

White came to this conclusion after taking part in an expedition where the objective was to understand how much plastic debris is out there and how it affects the surrounding environment, such as microbial communities. [...] With her research backing her up, White says that the media has exaggerated the size of the “Great Garbage Patch,” making claims like the oceans are filled with more plastic than plankton, or that the patch is twice the size of Texas and has been growing tenfold each decade since 1950.

“There is no doubt that the amount of plastic in the world’s oceans is troubling, but this kind of exaggeration undermines the credibility of scientists,” said White.

Someone relatively soon is going to discover all the OIL made in the plastics and come up with a simple bio-engineered plankton that will simply eat all the trash away, storing the plastic in tiny bladders to be recycled by the intelligent person who will modify an already well-known form of life that eats oil-based products: it has been used before to help clean up oil spills. More HERE.


Repeal of DADT: Disaster

Even though the ink hasn't been wet for a single month, the disastrous results of the repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) policy is already beginning. Such bizarre social policies have been enacted before on a large scale within the US armed forces; the integration of blacks and women into the military forces of the United States. One was fairly successful (blacks) while the other (women) has proven to be destructive for morale and unit cohesion, as well as for US global standing in the world. While adding blacks to the US military by law was fairly successful, unknown numbers of blacks have been harassed by fellow service members, especially in the early years of the 1960s. In addition, several high-level incidents involving black US soldiers raping young Korean girls and other such incidents has shown that even though US blacks can still damage US foreign policy and military cohesion by their ghetto behavior. At the time, these rapes badly damaged US-South Korean relations and other such incidents are well documented.

Adding Women: Disaster
With the integration of women into the US armed forces, a HUGE disaster was recognized, one that spills over today into the DADT debate. The destruction addition of women into front-line units and command slots and the resulting serious problems has made the US military more reactioanry to changes enforced by Congress. Adding women has ended the career of hundreds of sailors, soldiers, and officers (like Tailgate) as well as destroyed military readiness in combat troops (fighting for sexual partners-women-in the tents of the First Gulf War), to leaving your buddies in the lurch by getting pregnant on purpose just to get out of the battlezone. Several extremely damaging events have also taken place in the US military due to promotion of women to positions they should not have had (Janis Karpinski, Lynndie England, and Megan Ambuhl). Problems with dismissing such incompetents from the service (and gay men in the future as well) are similar to getting rid of another "protected group" like the Arab US Army Major Nidal Hasan; an impossibility. The deaths of 31 people by Hasan can be directly blamed on the fear of even trying to get rid of people who are dangerous to their own fellow servicemen. During the whole "debate" of repealing the Clinton-era DADT policy was the question of "will it hurt the troops" when the real question should have been "will this help the US military fight better". Anyone who can yes to that question with a straight face is a bald face liar. Serious incidents within the US military today have proven over and over again that gays in positions of authority have used and abused their underlings, that fellow gay servicemen have encouraged sex between straight military personnel and themselves, and gay porn is rife with military officers raping or having sex with their subordinates. All you have to do is go to websites like to see such disgusting gay rape fantasies put into print for all to see. Also, entire books have been written on the "softening" of the US armed services after women were allowed to serve greater and greater rolls in the service (see "The Kinder Gentler Military" by Stephanie Gutmann).

The Purges Begin
Already the purge of the US military is beginning, with people who disagree on a moral or spiritual level being removed from service, from command slots they deserve, and other such punishments. These despicable tactics again serve only to undermine and destroy the US military's cohesion and combat readiness. Numerous other servicemen and women will also be eliminated using the new pro-gay policy. A US Arny officer, who formerly commanded a battalion-sized unit, has strongly held religious beliefs that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, and he thinks the military will be damaged severely if it implements the Obama administration's plan to allow homosexuals to serve openly. He said many of the men under his command share his views. See here for more.

The British Military
Trying to find more details on gays serving in the military can be hard, but I have a direct source: my ex-lover,a former British commando. He openly bragged that people in his unit knew he was having sex with his Captain, but known could say a word about it. Surely these sorts of "arrangements" encourage preferential treatment as well as again being destructive to morale. My ex was proud of the fact he could screw his officers and underlings, in fact he had no qualms about it. When I challenged him on it, he didn't care (typical of homosexuals).

Sad Quote
In preparing for this blog article I did some research on the web as well as my local library and found one of the saddest quotes I have ever read by a US psychiatric officer. He wrote:

I am a captain in the medical corps of the U.S. Navy, with 25 years active duty, and significant time assigned in Marine units. I have observed an interesting behavioral shift in communal showers that is very clearly generational. Older guys like myself, who grew up when homosexuals were firmly in the closet, tend to be very unself-conscious. When we finish our shower, we throw the curtain to one side, grab our towel, and begin to dry off. We step out buck naked into the center area to get our clothes off the bench, and begin dressing. If anyone is watching, we are generally unconscious of it and take no notice. Not so with the younger generation that is highly conscious of homosexuals because they have grown up being constantly confronted with the issue. When the younger generation finish a shower, the curtain is moved a few inches to the side, and an arm will snake out to grab the towel on the hook. The towel disappears back into the stall and the curtain closes. When toweling stops, the soldier/sailor/marine emerges with the towel wrapped around his waist. Invariably, the first article of clothing donned is the athletic shorts, which are pulled up under the towel, which is only removed when the shorts are in place. The younger guys are very conscious of the possibility that some queer is secretly checking them out and it makes them very nervous to potentially be the object of another guy’s sexual interest. Times have changed, and for the worse.

Destroying the Services
If the left-leaning liberals in Congress (the Democrats) wanted to damage the US armed forces, then allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military is a sure way of doing that, and here's why. Already, thousands of people in blogs and letters to Congress have stated they no longer consider it a privilege to serve in the US military now that gays have protected status in the services. Americans in the past have proudly joined an organization like the military for many reasons, pride in the nation and the branch of service being one of them. Such pride is now being destroyed by the repeal of DADT, for many reasons but the simple one is this: people do not believe in the policy of promoting homosexuality as a equal lifestyle. And they shouldn't have to. And they won't.

Other Testimonies About Gays in the Military
As a former military man, United States Navy, I can attest to the destruction of morale and unit stability of gays in the military. In late 1970s I was in boot camp in San Diego. One of the company commanders assigned to my drill company turned out to be a homosexual and was using his position of authority to commit sexual acts on the new recruits. Halfway through boot camp, this individual was relieved of duty, not only was this destructive to te company, multiple recruits were effected and even discharged over this. There is no telling how this incident continued to affect the Navy, the lives of the individuals involved, or the careers that were destroyed. The new recruits that were discharged were never able to fulfill their aspirations of service to their country.

During Infantry training one of the men in training with me was 17 years old and very small, about 5’2” tall. On a Sunday morning four recruits at the rifle range decided to rape this young Marine in a Quonset hut. There were four other Marines in the Quonset hut that witnessed the rape of this 17-year-old Marine and never stood up to protect him. The rapists were tried, convicted and sentenced to many years of hard labor in the Marine Corps brig, while the other four witnesses were discharged immediately for being “unfit for military duty.” All this is a matter of public record on file, it happened between Sept. and Oct. of 1970 at Camp Pendleton. The four rapist Marines were all homosexuals and that is exactly what is going to happen if “We the People” permit these lousy politicians to shove this crap down our throats. In the Democrats' malignant pursuit to acquire more votes to keep themselves in office they are throwing our armed services under the “lawn mower!”

I am a veteran of the U.S. Air Force of almost six years and I can tell you that I am definitely against allowing gays in the military. When I was in basic training at Lackland Air Force Base, our flight had a homosexual it that actually harassed us in the shower, gawking at us and saying "Oh yes." All of us guys hurried to get out of the shower to keep from being harassed by this pervert. What about our right to be safe from harassment? I have a son now and I cannot in good conscience recommend to him to join the military, nor could I encourage anyone else to do so as long as these perverts are being allowed in there, I would not want to be responsible for some poor kid being raped or molested after joining the military.

I am a retired USAF mustang major. The repeal of the DADT policy is not really about equality. There is NO right to serve in the U.S. military. This repeal is a diabolically calculated move. By inflicting homosexual policy and culture upon the conservative majority in the U.S. military, progressives hope to force those conservatives to either comply and accept the deviancy as normal behavior, or exit the military in droves. This forces the usually ultra-conservative culture of the military to radically change to a deviancy-sympathizing culture. It changes the entire demographics of the U.S. military from the inside out. By using the military as a test tube to incubate progressive worldview and Marxist philosophy within a previously conservative public body, the military not only is eliminated as an obstacle, but it becomes the ultimate poster child for promoting the end mission of the progressives: the complete social engineering of the U.S. population.