Monday, June 25, 2007

Kama Sutra II

I am sure you all read my political postings with rapt attention and just agree so much that no comment is necessary.

Really though...

I know everyone just wants more Kama Sutra!!... in their lives and on my blog, so here we go! This time I will try KSHk...Kama Sutra Haiku. The Haiku trend was brought on by the Degenerate Elite. You know who you are.

Of course I must tell you I simply found these photos online earlier this year. They are apparently photos from an ad campaign from Turkey. If you found these on your own, at least I know you have never seen them with Haiku's yet!

This should prove quite fun
Haiku for Kama Sutra
Poses in clothing!

That's how she likes it
We connect in a structure
Geometric love.

When you give your best
And keep your head in the game
You never lose face

If I concentrate
And really focus on things
I can see your junk

Did you know this babe?
I am one for fine dining
Why partake alone?

Just like all people
When I see these lovely shots
I want a love life

And why shouldn't I?
Fulfill this good desire
I am a cool guy!

I sincerely hope you enjoy them. Until next time!

Titular Testation

I added a new title bar, Red faced, high in the clouds, Stone faced, getting revelation and standing a-skance from the light.

I like the new templates, very nice. Huzzah blogger, ol chaps.

So the FBI is trying to issue guidelines about University Employees to help people spot "enemies of state". Per

"FBI is offering to brief faculty, students and staff on what it calls 'espionage indicators' aimed at identifying foreign agents. Unexplained affluence, failing to report overseas travel, showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope, keeping unusual work hours, unreported contacts with foreign nationals, unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials, attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know, and unexplained absences are all considered potential espionage indicators."

The trouble is, these guidelines need to be combined with some other common sense. I will take each of the identifiers they have used and comment on them:

Unexplained affluence
Just because someone in your employ at a school has some money, doesn't mean an explanation is even owed to anyone. Suppose he or she simply has a wealthy relative...even a wealthy foreign relative...and it just isn't anyone's business?

Failing to report overseas travel
I am not sure employees have to account to their workplace for where they go when they are not at work. Certainly one must possess the necessary documents to travel and this need not be dealt with at all by one's employer, it's an abuse of power and a violation of privacy I would think.

Showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope
Curiousity? Simple desire to learn new things? Are we all suddenly communist drones stuck in a fixed career for life? This is really a repressive notion.

Keeping unusual work hours
I work in IT and I know unusual hours can be common. If the hours comport with the job description this should not place anyone under suspicion, though as a management issue, some people need not be on site after hours.

Unreported contacts with foreign nationals
The implication that any social contact ought to be reported to an employer or school is really not sounding like my America. That is really disturbing. It is possible speak to foreign nationals regularly in this great land without it involving threatening national security or being anyone's business.

Unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials
Again the word "unreported". As if I should file a memo to my boss all about who I met at lunch. What is the imagined hypothetical situation here? An employer spots his copy clerk at wine bar on the weekend sitting with a uniformed general and confronts the employee for not "reporting" the meeting? I find this kind of suspicion frenzy dangerous to civil, free society.

Attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know
"Hey...can I have the password to the server with the grades on it"...I suppose it's common sense that some employees or students do not need access to sensitive private information. Though this could lead to a knee jerk reaction to interest in perfectly legitimate public information.

Unexplained Absences
This can happen to anyone. Really, you have a personal emergency and miss a school day. How many people skip their own classes for no good reason at all? I don't think this one alone really seals the deal for determining a spy.

I care about my country, I love it enough not to want it to spiral into the salem witch trials because most every key identifier for espionage is something that could be a simple matter of liberty and privacy and not necessarily indicate anything.

Besides, how clumsy and stupid do they think someone would be if they were really a spy? The safety of the nation is important, though so is the character of the life we are preserving. If most people fit into some of these identifiers at some time we may be just inciting panic for no good reason, causing a majority of false positives and unnecessary suspicion and mistrust.

Our society is free because of trust. If the FBI allows the threats from abroad to erode trust they may be doing far more damage to our own country than an enemy could inflict on us.


Monday, June 18, 2007

Kyoto Politics

It is starting to become clearer that carbon dioxide emissions are becoming a global problem. The top 20 emitters are listed by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The top one is the United States, though China is a close second, especially considering the growth rate of emissions from that country.

If the problem is urgent, if American scientists and, increasingly, politicians know the risks, why has the U.S. refused to ratify the Kyoto protocols?

It may be, that under the current agreement Large emitters such as China and India, which could potentially grow much larger, are not required to reduce their emissions under the protocol. Though the U.S. emissions are dramatically higher, this is effectively a call to negate America's historical competitive advantages.

The theory behind Kyoto is that if America reduces its emissions then that leaves room for growth or sustained levels of emissions from other countries. In reality, all nations need to reduce emissions and rationalizing that some nations should not have to do so amounts to a desire to transfer economic activity from the U.S. to other nations.

Because this is an important global issue about which something must be done, it would seem that the U.S. would prefer to rely on its technical and innovative prowess to deal with the carbon dioxide issue rather than effectively hand its sovereign power over to other nations.

Should there be an accord that recognizes that every nation must work to reduce CO2 emissions and change its energy usage patterns, then that is an accord America could sign. The U.S. would also have an extra large responsibility to reduce emissions, under such an agreement.

What Kyoto represents is simply the transfer of economic and industrial activity from the United States to other countries like India and China. This is an obvious political and competitive coup through which American politicians can see directly.

If CO2 is a real problem, everyone must target downward, instead of trying to transfer American industrial and technological lead time to other nations in a kind of carbon welfare system.

The United States will, no doubt, need to seek solutions to the CO2 emission issue and the effects of global warming will impact every nation. Though, it is clear as day why the U.S. and nations like Australia do not ratify the Kyoto protocols. Both nations have signed the protocols, demonstrating the importance of the issue at hand. However, the solution must involve all nations seeking reductions, not some nations simply seeking a larger slice of American historical advantage, insisting on a school-yard catch-up game instead of seeking actual reductions of their own CO2 emissions.

The U.S. should keep its sovereignty and insist on accords that target reductions by all, and do not offer a kind of carbon amnesty for coming late to the industrialized technology game.


Friday, June 08, 2007

War Theory

Why is there war? Why are we at war?

I think, among some communities generally described as Arabs, like the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon or extremist insurgents in Iraq, religion is a ready shield. It is so plain for me to see that a religion of peace has nothing to do with terrorism and gangster-like activity these groups of people undertake. I almost feel the sense of hopelessness even some military members feel. The voice that says "these people are insane fanatics that will never come to their senses" or "we should write them off and bomb them all".

I may not have much in common with these people though I have humanity in common. Why am I not motivated to exploit the religious sentiments of people to whip them up into a warring, irrational, hateful frenzy as some videos seem to show groups like these do. What would make me feel as hopeless, frustrated and desperately angry as these fellow human beings do?

I suspect there is a war on with Iran already. Maybe it's even with parts of Pakistan and maybe North Korea is even involved, certainly in the area of disseminating information about nuclear weapons research.

The war with Iran is being fought in political stand-offs, kidnappings, brash statements and crass conferences like the one hosted by iran denying the Holocaust. The 80's war in Afghanistan was a proxy war between the U.S.S.R. (now mainly Russia) and the U.S.A. and the Vietnam war was fought against Chinese backing, as was the Korean War. The wars in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan (of today) are looking like Proxy wars.

On the surface, the difference in the predominant religion of the parties may serve as a motivator in oversimplified anger building exercizes. As an American, I know I am not at war with Mohammed, Islam or any religion.

I believe these wars are about economics.

Now the G8 conference is on, remember that about 65% of the worlds economy is represented by Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. This looks exactly like a post-world-war II bargaining table.

Excluded? Predominantly muslim countries. Not only them, but China, India, Australia, All of Africa and All of South America are, on the surface of it, excluded. I know other countries also hold meetings during the conferences, but really...

War is about wealth.

How do some more extremist muslim people feel? Slighted? Universally disadvantaged? Like other people, who do not share their religion, hold the billions to such a degree that they can win wars, assign territory and enforce it all?

I understand the deep seated need for a feeling of faith in justice. I can see why many people hope that Sharia Law (an example a system of laws that is consistent with muslim values) will afford some leverage, advantage or opportunity to over a billion muslims.

I have no sympathy for those who choose the path of terror, violence, war lordism, gang-like criminal behavior. And I, ofcourse, find the idea of religious law to be a contemptable concept that is not how I prefer to live, though I am trying to see what is the cause of war, of the warlike spirit.

I heard, last week, that the billionaires in Aspen, CO are trying to keep the pesky millionaires out. This trend is so unsettling. While the free market system is not without its benefits and advantages, and while I desire to be wealthy like many American Dreamers, I will always reject, out of hand, the notion that money elevates anyone to a higher worth as a human being. All the illusion, the trappings, exclusivity and ownership should never nudge a human being's inherent worth one 1000th of a nanometer abover another's.

I feel a duty to country to point out the risk of misdirection from important things speaking about Paris Hilton can cause. Don't let her distract you from important events like the "retirement" of General Pace, erstwhile chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. armed forces for 2 years now. Though Paris illustrates my point.

Paris Hilton's wealth and status may have led to the offer of special treatment for the "socialite" (oh geez, is this a career?) by the criminal justice system. This leaves other jailed women wondering if they couldn't just have a medical issue and be sent home as well. This manufactured class difference may be what leads to the anger that leads to the resolve to fight that leads to war. At least it seems to work that way for some apparently disadvantaged people in parts of the world.

Poor, angry with no prospects...many will fall victim to recruiting to these various factions. I believe that fighting poverty fights the ability of those wishing to exploit this anxious resource of idle stressed populations to prosecute a war.

So what is wealth really? I'll think about that one for a while and post later.