Russia's overreaction to the Georgian attack on  South Ossetia  demonstrates Russia is a potential aggressor and  NATO  is needed to  prevent  it from attempting to expand by force.

In my previous post I indicated that Georgia's attack was ill advised and unjustified.  Georgia's argument that it has an historical claim on    Abkhazia  and South Ossetia ignores the fact that Russia can make the same type claim about Georgia.   Russia's claim on Georgia might be even stronger because Georgian Joseph Stalin  ruled the Soviet Union for many years.

Russia could have justified intervening to force Georgian troops out of  South Ossetia by citing the U.S. action against Iraq after Iraq invaded Kuwait.  However, Russia went beyond that and invaded Georgia like it planned to stay.  Russia also made the mistake of allowing some armed thugs to use violence against Georgians and their property.

Russia's invasion of Georgia indicates it may be planning to invade  Ukraine.  NATO should grant membership to Ukraine now to prevent such an invasion.  Ukraine has a strong army that wouldn't need much back up from NATO.  European nations should take initial steps to expand their military forces with indications that they will not follow through if Russia withdraws from Georgia. 

European leaders should consider the success of President John F. Kennedy's strong  response to the Soviet Union's efforts  to place missiles in Cuba.  The U.S. should do what President Ronald Reagan did in the early 80's and increase spending on missile defense technology.   A potential danger with a strong response is that it could bring down the current Russia government.

European nations need to do whatever they can to prevent having to obtain fuel from Russia.  Such actions should include expanding solar and wind energy along with nuclear and clean coal technology.  Coal plants should include algae reactors to produce oil for fuel use.  European nations should work to develop the technology to convert plastic, paper, etc. wastes into fuel.     

Many people don't understand the issue dealing with  Barack Obama's birth certificate.  If Barack Obama doesn't  meet the limited constitutional qualifications for president he cannot legally exercise the powers of the office.  The fact that his claim about being born in Hawaii have been accepted in the past  doesn't mean the claim is valid. 

If Obama was actually born in Hawaii all he has to do is authorize  Hawaiian officials to show his original birth certificate to the media, possibly with the restriction that journalists not make a copy of it or show the document on television.  The computer generated  document Obama  has on his website   to prove he qualifies as a "natural born citizen"  isn't adequate because it would be too easy to forge as  Israel Insider has suggested in a series of articles.   

I had to obtain a copy of my birth certificate last year when I retired to apply for my state pension.  It's an actual copy of the original which was handwritten on a printed form and included the doctor's signature.  I don't know if the state stores the original documents or maintains copies on microfilm.

The document Obama is using includes only a limited amount of information that could easily have been placed on the computer by a hacker.   If Hawaii actually provides such documents, I suspect that those wishing to establish fake citizenship  choose Hawaii as the state they were supposedly born in.

If  Obama is running for president even though he knows he isn't qualified, he probably wouldn't feel bound by constitutional limits on the president's powers.  We've had enough problems with presidents wanting to expand their powers in recent decades.  We don't need a president who runs for office in violation of the Constitution.

Failure to present evidence that he is qualified to be president could create a constitutional crisis.

Republicans could challenge his election in Congress when the electoral colleges ballots are counted.  If anyone on the Republican side has information that Obama isn't qualified to be president, they would likely not release that information until after he is nominated to discredit the Democratic Party.  

Any government agency that can prove Obama isn't a citizen might use that information to blackmail him rather than make the information public as J Edgar Hoover is believed to have done.

An unqualified president cannot sign legislation into law.  Someone charged with violating new laws could challenge the constitutionality of the laws and request the government to prove that Obama is a "natural born" citizen of the United States. 
  
After 9/11 we learned that many government officials had been lax about issuing government documents.  Obama may not have had to have a birth certificate when he moved in with his grandparents in 1971.  He would have obtained a passport when he was very young because his mother moved across national boundaries.  In the 1960's he probably would not have needed a birth certificate if his mother provided a statement about his birth.

What was Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili  thinking when he attacked the former Georgian provinces of  Abkhazia and South Ossetia?  Did he really think he could conquer those areas without a Russian response?

As the oldest of three boys he should have been aware of what can happen when big brother decides to get even with little brother for some provocative action. As the oldest of four kids I learned that  parents don't take kindly to an older child taking advantage of size when dealing with younger siblings.  Those who don't have siblings  probably have seen the following scenario on  a tv show or movie.  Little brother teases big brother until big brother responds by hitting little brother.  Little brother then complains to dad  who, depending upon when the program or movie was made, takes off his belt to punish big brother or sternly lectures big brother.

Saakashvili thinks Georgia should be able to control the provinces because they were historically part of Georgia.  However,  Russia can make the same claim about Georgia being historically a part of Russia long before Russia started calling itself the Soviet Union.   In fact, native Georgian Joseph Dzhugashvili (aka Joseph Stalin) helped turn Russia into the Soviet Union
 
The provinces left Georgia during the same period when Georgia left the Soviet Union / Russia.  If Georgia can justify retaking the provinces by force, then Russia can justify retaking Georgia by force.

Georgia needs to abandon all claims to its former provinces and try to find a way to peacefully coexist with the Russian bear.  That is if it isn't already too late.
  

Continued questions about Barack Obama's birth certificate demonstrate that the major parties  need  to  institute a requirement  that  those who want  a party's nomination should first have to undergo a full scale FBI background check before seeking the nomination.  Such a requirement would insure party members had all necessary information before choosing candidates. 

Israel Insider, a major online newspaper in Israel, is claiming that the birth certificate Barack Obama is using to claim  to have been born in Hawaii is a forgery.   Analysis indicates   it might be  a modified version of his half-sister Maya Kassandra Soetoro's birth certificate.  You may recall that online experts exposed a forged document Dan Rather attempted to use to discredit George W. Bush four years ago.

If the claim is correct, it would not necessarily mean Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.  He could have simply have used her birth certificate instead of obtaining a copy of his own.  I don't know why he would do so, but it is a possibility.  Perhaps there is some type of adverse information on his birth certificate.

Obama's citizenship is potentially questionable because his parents were not both U.S. citizens as was the case with John McCain's parents.  Being born to a mother who was a U.S. citizenship would not automatically have conferred  U.S. citizenship because his father was not  a U.S. citizen.  Being born  in  the United States or  their possessions would have eliminated  any question.  The laws in effect at the time were complex and his mother's extended residence outside the U.S. would have worked against him.  

The citizenship question is important because the Constitution requires presidents to be a "natural born citizen"  but does not define the qualification.

The Democratic Party should request  Hawaiian authorities and/or the FBI to investigate to determine if there is a valid birth certificate on file for him.    Past elections indicate that the truth will eventually come out.  Democrats need to find out the truth before they nominate someone who might be using an invalid document to claim eligibility to run for president.  Nominating an ineligible presidential candidate would  probably  give the election to Sen. John McCain, regardless of whom Democrats chose to replace Obama.
 
Democrats had to replace vice presidential candidate Thomas Eagleton in 1972 after it was belatedly discovered he had been treated for depression.

Presidential and vice presidential candidates have no secrets.  Anything questionable in the their past will likely come out  like  George W,. Bush's DUI arrest when he was young.   A background check would insure that party members would know about such problems before choosing a nominee.
 
The issue in this case can be resolved easily if Obama will authorize Hawaii to show a copy of his birth certificate to the media.   For the future, the parties need to have background checks.

Those of us who were around in the 50's and 60's remember the way  teenage school girls  swooned over rock stars like Elvis Presley and the Beatles.  The articulate versions of Ted Baxter who masquerade as journalists are behaving like school girls around Barack Obama.

These phony journalists  think that the only requirement for  presidents is the ability to mouth the proper political cliches.  Obama is saying what the school girls want to hear so they blindly  endorse him as the next Wonderful Wizard of Oz, I mean President of the United States.    

The school girls believe that Obama will move into the White House and make all the problems go away like the Wonderful Wizard of Oz supposedly could do. They don't think it matters  that Obama has never actually held a position  in which he solved major problems.  But then school girls readily accept the claims of adolescent males who say they can do anything.

Babies shouldn't be used as props on any kind of  television show.  Babies are human beings, not objects to be used for a television network's profit.  If the purpose of the NBC series  "The Baby Borrowers," was to give young teen couples  an idea of what  dealing with a baby would be like, the network didn't need to use real babies.

Professional educators have been teaching teens about being a parent without using real babies.  North Carolina Cooperative Extension centers in Cumberland, Richmond and Scotland counties won an award for its “Baby, Think It Over” program in which over 500 high school  students experienced parenting using dolls programmed to function like a baby on a normal 24 hour schedule.

The Mexican state of Chihuahua as well as various areas in the U.S. and Britain have used more advanced dolls made by RealCare for similar programs. 

Hollywood has some very  capable technical people who could have worked with RealCare to make the dolls even more effective.  However, that wouldn't have had the entertainment value of showing real babies and might  have cost more.    NBC obviously didn't produce this program to help teenagers.  It produced the program to make money.

If NBC wants a program to educate teen viewers about the realities of taking care of babies, it can do so using professional actors with  child psychologists helping to write the scripts  and show the actors  how to deal with different situations.  Programs could have the characters make mistakes and show the consequences of those mistakes.

NBC could accomplish a similar goal in a reality show context by using real young couples who are first time parents.  Child psychologists could monitor their activities and help them correct mistakes.  These psychologists could explain to viewers what the couples were doing right or wrong.      

In  previous posts I discussed the abuse of babies for profit by NBC  on its reality show  "The Baby Borrowers,"

If  you  agree that  this series should be ended you can protest in various ways.  You can tell NBC what you think on the NBC FORUM

You can protest  to your local NBC affiliate about the program.  You  could also file a protest with the FCC, although the situation would not seem to fit into a specific category of protest topics on their website.

You can link to  Dr. Jan Hunt's letter criticizing the show on your blog,  post it on sites that reprint  articles from other sites or write a letter to your local newspaper.

You can contact your Senators and Representative in Congress to request a congressional investigation of  the program with the possibility of prohibiting  television from using children, especially babies, in reality shows.  Congress should at the very least require NBC and its advertisers for the program to establish a trust fund to cover any subsequent mental health problems the children might experience because of the program.   Currently only California has legislation protecting child actors from exploitation by the entertainment industry and "stage mothers".

Many child actors have experienced serious  psychological problems as adults.      Paul Peterson  who played  Jeff Stone, the son on  "The Donna Reed" show, has spoken out for years on the problems of child actors.

 You can contact the companies that advertised on the program and request that they not advertise on any future programs in the series.  A partial list of advertisers includes:  Verizon Wireless, Tylenol, Subway,     Mentos gum,  Hot Pockets, Klondike Bar, All Bran, Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep,   T_Mobile, Wanted,  (Pizza Hut) CoffeeMate, Samsung,   Listerine, Vagisil, All State.

Director of the Natural Child Project child psychologist Dr. Jan Hunt, who is the director of the is very concerned about the potential negative impact of the treatment of the babies on the NBC reality series "Baby Borrowers".  

Hunt is concerned that the separation from parents could increase production of the stress hormone cortisol in the babies:    "When cortisol is produced due to emotional stress, the next stressful experience creates an even larger surge of cortisol. By the time a stressed child reaches adulthood, he is likely to overreact to all stressful situations, making it harder to cope with life's challenges. For all these reasons, babies and young children should be kept as stress-free as possible, to protect their future psychological and physical health."

I have a long standing interest in how the brain develops and functions.  At one time I was considering  going into the field of  what is called "artificial intelligence" which involves  simulating  human intelligence on a computer, but decided I was more interested in dealing with the actual ideas rather than the detailed process  the brain uses to form them.

 Much of the baby's brain development involves  developing brain cells to control the muscles for movement of various parts of the body, eventually including the complex process of speaking.  The baby also develops neurons to store information about the baby's environment.  Baby's normally don't form specific memories about individual events in their lives, but they use those events to learn how to react to their environment in the  future.  
   
Babies don't remember  what actually happened on  early birthdays and Christmases,  but they may remember these events as happy events to look forward to.

Babies may remember what they consider traumatic events in a general fashion.  For example, adults' fear of receiving shots may result from a memory of vaccinations received as infants.   Claustrophobia and other fears sometimes are the result of very unpleasant childhood experiences.  The sexual abuse scandals of the Catholic  Church have publicized the fact that children may suppress memories of  sexual abuse for long periods of time, but suffer from psychological problems during that period.   For a baby a traumatic experience doesn't necessarily involve anything wrong or illegal.   For a baby a doctor's exam can be a very unpleasant experience.

Babies may not remember how they have been "mistreated", but they may associate similar situations or people with a similar appearance to that mistreatment.   A baby who was particularly upset by an exam by a doctor with a mustache might in the future have a negative reaction to men with mustaches. 

Babies respond differently to the same situations depending upon their genetics and experiences and possibly the way their brains have developed prior to the event.  Not all babies react the same way to being separated from the parents and put in the care of individuals with no child care experience.  The babies in this experiment may suffer  psychological  problems  sometime  in the future.  that may be triggered by persons or situations that remind the baby, child or even adult of something "bad" that happened during the experiment.

 

NBC is abusing small children by using them for a "social experiment"  and profit on a show airing on Wednesday's at 9 EDT/ 8 CDT beginning June 25  called "The Baby Borrowers"    .  On the program teenagers  pretend to be the parents of babies by substituting for the babies' real parents.

Dr. Jan Hunt director of the Natural Child Project   says:  "As a parent, child psychologist and family counselor, I am deeply concerned about the premise of your new show "The Baby Borrowers," and for the present and future emotional health of the babies and young children whose lives will be so strongly affected." 

Scientists have only limited knowledge of how the brain develops in young children.  Babies cannot say  how they feel.  The information the baby receives and its feelings about the information  influences how the neurons in the brain develop.   Scientists  know  that events in a baby's life can positively or negatively  affect brain development.     

According to the news story about the show on the network's Wichita, Ks., affiliate KSNW, the people appearing on the show are volunteers who are not compensated.   How does a baby volunteer to be on a television show?   Using children as performers on a commercial television show without payment should be illegal if it isn't already.   If adults are stupid enough to appear  on a commercial television show without compensation they should be allowed to do so.  But children should not be exploited for profit by heartless television networks.   How can the network know the reasons  why these parents allowed NBC to exploit their babies

Small children should not be used for experiments with the only possible exception being controlled experiments conducted by professional scientists that pose zero threat to the physical or mental health of the children. 

The program claims to show teens how to be parents by taking care of the children for an extended period. Does that mean the babies are working longer than babies would be allowed to work if they were paid television actors?  Hollywood typically has used twins for very small children on television shows to avoid overworking the children.

The program claims to be a "reality show", but the situation is not realistic.  The teen guinea pig parents cannot relate to their pretend babies in the same way a real parent would.   The babies will not relate to total strangers the way they would to their parents.

 I have heard enough about the psychological problems many  former child actors had to  believe that children should only be used in television programs if  absolutely necessary.   This program is not necessary.  

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign slogan "Change We Can Believe In" is a nonsense phrase.  It has no real meaning.

Am I the only one who thinks that it doesn't make any sense to believe in "change"?   I can see believing in religion or love or maybe even music, but believing in "change" makes no sense.  It might make sense to believe in Sen. John McCain's ability to handle the presidency, but believing in some vaguely defined  change is ridiculous.

Bill Clinton suggested "It's time to change America" when he ran in 1992.  I don't recall him changing much of anything, although two years later voters  changed Congress by replacing many Democrats with Republicans.

The slogan "Change We Can Believe In" sounds like something a child might consider impressive, but it has no real meaing.    Not surprisingly, Obama has more appeal to inexperienced  young  voters than to wiser older voters who have seen a lot of fast talking phony politicians.

Obama  a few months ago commented about the psychological state of small town people who believed  in  religion, etc.  What is the psychological  state of  people who believe in some vaguely defined "change"? 

Obama's supporters  must have very empty lives to believe that some vague "change" is going to make their lives better.   Do they expect the president  to provide them some type of psychological satisfaction?

The term sounds like it might be some type of code word that Obama and his supporters understand, but whose meaning is supposed to be unknown to others.

As an historian I am inherently suspicious of politicians who rely on oratorical ability to reach people on an emotional level.  Southern populists like Huey Long and George Wallace used such emotional oratory to succeed.  Adolph Hitler was a master of the technique. 

I am also suspicious of politicians who use vague code words.  Politicians sometimes use code words and phrases to cover up what they are doing.  For example, white southern politicians used the phrase "states' rights" to convince people outside the south that southern whites should be allowed to mistreat black American citizens.   Southerns whites argued they were attempting to "preserve their way of life" without mentioning that their way of life involved rape and murder of black residents.       

How can we be sure the that Barack Obama  is not talking about a "change"  designed to reduce the level of democracy in the United States?  What guarantee do his supporters have that "change" is just a con to get them to vote for a candidates who doesn't have the necessary management experience to run one of Donald Trump's small companies?

In Nazi Germany and the old Soviet Union a political party offiicial could be more powerful than government officials. In communist states the head of the communist party is often the most powerful person in the country because he determines who holds the government offices.  In the United States, government officials elected by the people are supposed to be more powerful  than  political party officers.  

At one time in the U.S. political party leaders chose political candidates in secret to insure the candidates would serve whatever special interests controlled the party.  State governments created the political primary system to eliminate this form of corruption and insure popular control over the candidate selection  process. 

The Democatic Party is attempting to circumvent the popular selection of candidates by claiming it can tell states when they can hold  presidential primaries.  Allowing political parties to order state to follow  party orders rather than the will of the people in the respective states is a direct assault on the idea of government by the people and a movement to the type of political system of Naxi Germany and the Soviet Union. 

The states of Michigan and Florida need to tell the Democratic Party to seat their delegates or face the prospect of not having a presidential candidate on the November ballot.  Allowing the a small group of  Democrats to deny voters in their states the right to participate in the candidate selection  process would  a violation of the oath state officials take to defend the Constitution.

You've seen the following plot dozens of times on television.  The police decide a death is an accident or suicide and someone like Jim Rockford, Harry Orwell or maybe Jessica Fletcher has to convince the police the death was a murder.

Today two real live Harry Orwells,  retired NYPD detectives  Kevin Gannon and Anthony Duarte, are attempting to convince law enforcement officers in  many jurisdictions that a series  of drownings  are murders rather than  accidents or suicides.  Like the cops on  PI shows the police in most of these cases have taken the easy way out and written the cases off  so they don't have  to  risk investigating  crimes that might be very difficult to solve.  The Federal Bureau Investigation  isn't interested  if local police don't think there is a problem.

The investigation began with the death of college student Patrick McNeill, who drowned in New York City in 1997. Gannon made a promise to McNeill's parents that he would never give up on his case. They have already convinced Minnesota authorities that the death of University of Missesota student Christopher Jenkins was a homicide instead of an accident. 

They believe 40 or more college men have been murdered many by drowning them in rivers, even in winter.  In the best  tradition of "CSI" they have examined  data on  river currents to determine where each body likely entered the water.  Subsequent examinations of the area around the points of entry has revealed various different smiley faced graffiti.   

I saw an 60's or 70's era movie about urban terrorism years ago. The only thing I remember about the movie is the quote:  "Once is an accident.  Twice is a coincidence.  Three times is enemy action."  

The number of drowning deaths of men with similar characteristics with the associated smiley face indicates the work of a serial killer or killers.  The fact that nine were students at  the University of Wisconsin at La Crosse  is particularly suspicious.  

The idea of murdering  people by drowning them isn't new.  Characters in old gangster movies often talked about  this method of  eliminating someone, although the victim was often first fitted with "cement overshoes" so the body wouldn't be found.   In murder mysteries victims might be drowned in bathtubs, swimming pools, rivers or the ocean.

Drowning provides certain  advantages to murderers.  There is no murder weapon for the police to find  and link the murderer to the crime.  The water may wash off any DNA or fiber evidence.  

Getting the victim into the water can present a problem when the victim isn't cooperative, especially if the victim starts yelling.  The possibility of being seen also increases the risk of being caught.  The first problem can be reduced if the victim is drunk which is one of the similarities of the victims in the smiley face murders.  Putting the victim in the water at night, expecially during cold weather would also reduce risk.  Night fishing isn't as common in cold weather as it is in warm weather so there  would be less chance of someone seeing the crime. 

The fact that people sometimes drown accidentally or commit suicide by drowning benefits murderers, particularly if law enforcement officers don't want to bother with cases that are difficult to solve.  A drowning death might reasonably be classified as an accident if the person was known to be swimming at the time, was at a party along a river bank or perhaps drowned near his or her residence particularly if impaired by alcohol or medication. 

However,  a drowning should be considered suspicious if the police cannot place the person in the vicinity of the place where he or she entered the water or there is anything suspicious about the condition of the body, such as the placement of the arms in some cases studied by Gannon and Duarte.   If the person had been drinking before the death, the police need to determine if the person was physically able to get to the point where the body entered the water particularly if the drowning didn't occur near the route the person would take to get home.
 
If the victims were predominately black instead of predominately white, the Rev. Al  Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson would be screaming for an investigation.  If the victims were female, the news media would be speculating about another Ted Bundy. 

So, why is the FBI refusing to investigate the case? Don't the feds  think white males can be the victims of crimes?

What if the 40 deaths had involved some  symptoms  that might indicate a disease?  For example, what if all  of  those who had died had reported  muscle aches followed by a rash and then an extremely high fever.  The Center of Disease Control and the World Health Organization would both be investigating to determine if there was a common cause for the deaths.  The CDC  would want to know if those who died had had physical contact or perhaps contact with the same individual or individuals. Perhaps they  all could have consumed the same food product before becoming sick.  Health officials would rather investigate something that doesn't turn out to be a crisis than risk having an epidemic develop because they didn't take the situation seriously enough.  AIDS was discovered because  doctors  became  suspicious after noticing the increasing appearance of previously rare disorders.

Shouldn't the FBI be just as diligent in investigating a possible criminal epidemic?   The FBI is supposed to be the nation's premier law enforcement agency.   Local law enforcement  agencies are often underfunded and understaffed. They may not have the type of facilities and personnel seen on CSI.   They may be prone to concentrate on obvious crimes instead of attempting to deal with  situations that might  or might not involve crimes.  Local departments  are unlikely  to recognize  serial crimes  that occur in many different jurisdictions. 

Gannon and Duarte  believe more than one killer might be involved because  in some cases  deaths occurred in more than one state on the same day.    Who could be the killer or killers?  The fact the victims were men could indicate female killers, perhaps women wanting to emulate Aileen Wuornos who admitted to killing 7 men.  A woman could lure a man by promising sex or pretending to need help with her car.    A satanic cult is an obvious possibility.   The fact the victims tended to be successful in sports, academics and/or popular could indicate the killers are young males with similar attitudes  of the  Columbine  High School killers.   Members of an informal group  might  link to each other on the Internet and  help each other plan the attacks. 

Perhaps I'm expecting too much from the FBI.   After all  today's FBI isn't the FBI  of Ephrem Zimbalist's Inspector Lewis Erskine.

Today's FBI is the organization whose leaders didn't think  the number of Saudis  learning to fly airliners  in  2001 was worth investigating.  Today's FBI couldn't figure out that a man who wanted to learn how to fly airliners, but not land them,  might be planning to hijack an  airliner and crash it into something.  The FBI initially believed the DC sniper was a lone white male instead of the two black males they eventually caught.

If the FBI refuses to investigate and the Smiley Face deaths turn out to be murders rather than a bizarre coincidence, Congress needs to consider replacing the FBI with a real law enforcement agency that is capable of protecting us from criminals and terrorists.

Comedians regularly question the intelligence of President George W. Bush.  What many don't realize is that Bush  actually got better grades in college than either of the Democratic  candidates he ran against for president. 

Recent comments by Barack Obama indicate the Democrats are once again planning to nominate someone who is less intelligent than Bush. 

Obama is so ignorant he thinks Iran poses no threat to world peace because it is a "tiny nation".

Estimates of Iran's current population range from 65 to 70 million with 24 million males between the ages of 15 and 64 with the population concentrated at the younger end. With it's oil wealth, Iran could finance a very large army.   The total population is comparable to the populations of Germany and Japan when those nations began their attempts to conquer the world that produced World War II.

Japan temporarily conquered the more populous China as well as the South Pacific islands.  Germany temporarily conquered Europe from the French coast to well inside the much larger Soviet Union.  Adolph Hitler may not have established his 1,000 year Reich, but his actions resulted in millions of deaths and destruction of most of Europe, including England.

Iran wouldn't need to  attempt to build an empire to substantially  disrupt the world.  If Iran develops nuclear weapons it could start a nuclear war that would destroy the Middle East. 

Israel an even tinier nation, with a tenth of Iran's population,  already possesses  nuclear weapons.  Because of Israel's small size it would need to develop a first strike capability if Iran  acquired  nuclear weapons. 

It wouldn't take very many nukes to destroy Israel.  To avoid destruction, Israel would need to anticipate a potential Iranian attack and destroy Iran's missiles/planes before Iran could launch any attack.  And, if Israel  quessed wrong and Iran hadn't planned any attack...well they are only "tiny nations". 

Incidentally. I am working on a novel  dealing with  a nuclear war in the Middle East on  a parallel earth. 

Perhaps Obama is smarter than he appears.  Maybe he is just too immature to consider the long term consequences of actions.  In either case, his election could be a prelude to disaster.

The recent editorial assaults on Rev. Jeremiah Wright amount to a virtual "lynching" of him.

Fifty years ago the southern white Democratic elite would have used the word "uppity" to describe an outspoken preacher like Rev. Wright. Today the predominently white elite that controls the national Democratic Party probably doesn't use the word, but the recent attacks against Rev.Wright indicates the elite may have the same attitude toward black preachers who disagree with the views of the elite.

When politicians associate with white preachers who make comments editors disagree with, the editors criticize the politicians. So why when a black preacher makes comments the editors disagree with, do the editors criticize the preacher?

The New York Times editor criticized Rev. Wright because "Mr. Wright" has "said the government manufactured the AIDS virus to kill blacks" and "he suggested that America was guilty of 'terrorism' and so had brought the 9/11 attacks on itself."

The Hutchinson News has said: "The Rev. Jeremiah Wright needs to shut up."

Religious leaders often explain calamities as punishment for immoral actions by government or society. Some U.S. government actions such as the bombing of the Chinese embassy during the Kosovo incident or supporting tyrants could be considering support for terrorism. Why should Rev. Wright be prohibited from making such statements?

I doubt that the government deliberately manufactured the HIV/AIDS virus, but I recognize that such an action could have occurred. Among the possibilities is that employees within the biological weapons research program might have released such a virus without authorization or by accident.

Those who attempt to censor someone for suggesting government might have done something wrong often do so to prevent discovery of the truth. If editors don't believe government created the HIV/AIDS virus, why are they afraid to have anyone mention the subject?

Former President Jimmy Carter was recently on the Tonight Show. Jay Leno mentioned that Carter's mother Lillian had occasionally made controversial statements. Would today's editors have told Lillian Carter to shut up or expected Jimmy Carter to rebuke his mother?

It's clear that the white elite that controls the Democratic Party believes that if Rev. Wright wants to ride on Barack Obama's bandwagon that Wright should stay in the background and keep quiet.

I'm not concerned about Barack Obama's pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright expressing views I disagree with. I am concerned about Obama's newspaper editors who feel it is part of their job to conduct character assassinations of people who might stand in the way in Obama's drive for power.

The idea that religious leaders should have to adjust their views to benefit politicians, especially someone wanting to be president, should scare anyone who believes that the state should not control the church.

don't believe either the myth that government might have created HIV or that there are greenhouse gases capable of controlling air temperatures. I find it interesting that some of those who are so gullible that they believe strongly in the greenhouse effect are highly critical of those who believe there is some type of HIV conspiracy. The HIV conspiracy is at least plausible. The greenhouse effect is impossible.

I think that those who believe in some type of HIV conspiracy have watched too many James Bond type movies. However, I recognize that one goal of biological weapons research, such as the United States once conducted, is to develop pathogens that could infect humans. Some scientists speculate that those of European ancestry are less susceptible to the HIV virus because they have the GC-2 gene variation instead of the GC-1 variation that is more common among those of African ancestry. Racists or those concerned about overpopulation might concievably be willing to release such a virus into the population. If Adolph Hitler had developed a virus that would have been more likely to target non-Aryans, he would have released it.

I'm only arguing that a conspiracy is possible not that it exists. I'm not sure that medical knowledge was sufficient prior to 1980 to allow development of a virus capable of targeting broad genetic groups. Viruses (such as various forms of the "flu") capable of killing thousands sometimes seem to appear suddenly. The similarity of HIV to a comparable chimpanze virus indicates that humans could have acquired the virus from a chimpanze by eating an infected one or possibly having sex with it. (Note: a resident of a nearby town is currently facing charges of having sex with a dog.)

The claim that carbon dioxide can increase atmospheric temperature isn't mathematically or scientifically possible. Even those who support the idea admit that the earth's temperature only changed by 1 F (0.17%) during the entire 20th Century. Such a difference is extremely small considering that temperatures in many areas can vary by 20-30 F in a single 24-hour period. Some areas can see a 100 F difference or more between high summer temperatures and low winter temperatures.

The idea of CO2 causing global warming is based in part on a theoritcal model called a black body model that doesn't apply to earth.

CO2 comprises less than 0.04% (400 parts per million) of the atmosphere. That means other molecules outnumber CO2 molecules by over 2,500 to 1 making it extremely difficult for CO2 to heat the rest of the atmosphere.

The sparse distribution of CO2 would leave huge gaps between CO2 molecules for the limited range of infrared radiation CO2 interacts with to pass through.

Physicist Niels Bohr received a Nobel Prize for his research indicating that gas atoms/molecules don't become hotter after absorbing radiation. The only affect was a change in the energy state of the electrons. In order to absorb additional radiation in a specific wavelength, a atom/molecule would first have to emit radiation in that wavelength.

Bohr's research indicated that molecules absorbed and reemitted radiation in quantum amounts. Thus, absorption of IR radiation by CO2 molecules would break up IR radiation into quantum sized units instead of trapping it.

Physicist R.W. Wood demonstrated in 1909 that greenhouses didn't become warmer by trapping IR radiation.
Natural sources of radiation convert only a small portion of the heat energy they possess to radiation at any one time. The ground and water don't emit enough radiation to heat air that is the same temperature.