Sabotaging the Surge

I'm not the biggest fan of the war in Iraq. We went to Iraq for reasons largely based on faulty intelligence, and the aftermath of Sadaam's fall was terribly mismanaged. But the bill that House Democrats passed yesterday amounted to nothing less than treason. Here's the rundown:

The troop surge in Iraq is getting results. Several top generals, from both the UK and the US, have admitted that our biggest mistake in the early stages of the war was that we didn't put enough soldiers on the ground to secure Iraq. Years later, the military is trying to remedy this security problem by flooding key areas (Baghdad in particular) with thousands of extra troops. And Americans in Iraq, from generals to journalists, have noted a significant improvement in the level of safety in Iraq since the surge began. But in order to keep the pressure on the insurgency in Iraq, the military needs money.

Yesterday, the Democrat controlled House of Representatives voted "yea" on an emergency spending bill that would give that much needed money ($124 billion) to our armed forces. With a catch. Before the bill was passed, Democrats added a clause to the bill that would force US troops to pull out of Iraq by September 2008. Setting a date for a troop withdrawal which would occur whether or not peace has been restored to Iraq is, stated as simply as possible, a terrible idea. What kind of message does that send to the people of Iraq? We came in, dismantled their government, and now we're supposed to leave, whether or not the country is rebuilt? Talk about responsibility. And to add insult to injury, the Democrats couldn't be satisfied with merely inserting a declaration of surrender into a war-funding bill. They also stuffed billions of dollars worth of pork spending into the bill, a move that even CBS news called an attempt to "pay off" House Democrats in return for their votes.

But the goal of the Democrats in hijacking this bill isn't to set a withdrawal date for US troops, or to give billions of dollars to pet causes. Instead, the Democrats are forcing George Bush to cut off funding for his own war. By tacking on a clause that Bush simply cannot agree with, the President will be compelled to veto the bill, essentially halting the flow of money to our military at the very time when they need it the most.

The shameless and deceitful way that the Democrats are trying to undermine our last great hope of ending this war in victory is unbelievable. By mouthing phrases like "we support our troops" while ignoring the advice of our top generals and stabbing the military in the back with treacherous bills like this one, the Democrats are proving to the American people that they are precisely the duplicitous, terrorist-supporting snakes the Republican party accused them of being in the last election. The Democrats say that the American people want a new direction in Iraq. I agree. But we want a new direction that leads to victory, not unconditional defeat.

Hopefully, the bill will be defeated in the Senate and sent back to a vote in the House without the Democrat's precious little add-ons. But I doubt this will the last attempt to sabotage the war effort.

Mitt Romney is basically the devil.

As a people-group, politicians have a pretty dubious reputation. The very mention of the word "politician" conjures up the image of a dishonest, soulless, pandering, womanizing, middle-aged white man with greasy hair who will do anything and everything to get elected. Like death and taxes, politicians are considered to be an unwanted yet inevitable part of life. But do they really deserve this tainted image? Are they really that bad? Most of the time, probably not. As a rule, most politicians aren't any worse than the average Joe. But every once in a while, there comes a politician that lives up to the reputation, greasy hair and all. Mitt Romney is one such politician.

Okay, so maybe he's not that bad. For example, to my knowledge he's never been caught in any personal ethical scandals (dishonesty, infidelity, etc.). But the hallmark of the stereotypical, sleazy politician is a willingness to change political views in order to win points with a given audience. In front of a conservative audience, the politician adopts conservative rhetoric, and when in front of a liberal audience, the politician adopts liberal rhetoric. In the last presidential election, everyone heard a word for this kind of person in countless political ads and op-ed pieces: flip-flopper.

Forget Kerry. Mitt Romney is not just A flip-flopper, he is THE flip-flopper. If he was Catholic, he might be considered as a candidate for the patron saint of flip-flopping, because if Mitt Romney succeeds in his goal of gaining the support of the evangelical voting bloc, he'll be able to take credit for a miracle that would make Saint Peter jealous. Think about it: a man who for years ran as a pro-gay, pro-abortion candidate, the governor of the most liberal state in the USA, reinventing himself as a conservative, pro-life, pro-marriage, evangelical-friendly candidate and succeeding.

But why should I waste words attacking Romney? I'll let the man incriminate himself. Romney's first attempt at running for political office was in the Massachusetts senate race of 1994. His opponent was Ted Kennedy, that venerable statesman whose inspiring presence brings to mind a certain literary creation of Herman Melville... the white whale. Romney lost the election, but left behind a few eloquent quotes from a televised debate with Mr. Kennedy. In the course of the debate, Kennedy accused Romney of being wishy washy on the abortion issue. Romney countered with a firm statement of his views:

"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US senate candidate. I believe that since Roe V. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law, and the right of the woman to make that choice"

Romney had previously stated that he personally believed abortion was morally wrong. Using a classic relativistic line of thinking, he harmonized these contradictory viewpoints:

"I have my own beliefs and those beliefs are very dear to me. One of them is that I do not impose my beliefs on other people. Many, many years ago, I had a dear close family relative, that was very close to me, that passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time that my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that."

So not only does Mitt Romney state that he is pro-choice, he gives a personal anecdote which shows how personal the issue is to him, and how deeply he cherishes his pro-choice views. Later in the debate, he was asked to reconcile his liberal views towards gay-rights and his status as a board member of the Boy Scouts of America. He responded thusly:

"I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the boy scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.

So far, Romney clearly isn't winning any points with the evangelical establishment. But it must be acknowledged that over time, views can change. So let's fast-forward 8 years to the 2002 gubernatorial elections in Massachusetts, where the issue of Abortion was brought up once again in a televised debate. This time his statement is even stronger:

"With regards to my views on protecting a woman's right to choose, and I've been very clear on that: I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose. And I'm devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. I will not change ANY provisions of Massachusetts' pro-choice laws ... I want the voters to know exactly where I'm going to stand as governor and that is I'm not going to change our pro-choice laws in Massachusetts in any way. I will preserve them. I will protect them. I will enforce them. And therefore, I'm not going to make any changes which would make it more difficult for a woman to make that choice herself"

You don't get much more clarity than that. Mitt Romney is pro-choice. End of story.

But wait! In a quote from 2005, taken from the Mitt Romney for president website, we find this quote:

"I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."

Suddenly Mitt Romney:

(1) Is Pro life.
(2) Believes that Roe V Wade is wrong.
(3) And believes that states can vote for their own abortion laws.

What happened to "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose"? A little something called Presidential ambition. Since as early as 2004, insiders knew Romney had his eyes on a certain house lacking in pigment. As an MSNBC article stated during the last Republican convention:

"It has been talked about for some time now within tight political circles that Romney has his own sights set on the White House. Romney dismisses the speculation and says he is staying put at the State House, even beyond 2006."


Now we know how sincere his dismissal of speculation was. And we also know that when you're running for office in Massachusetts, the bastion of American liberalism, it pays to be pro-choice, and when you're trying to get the presidential nomination from the country's conservative party, it pays to be pro-life. All he had to do was switch positions. Of course, that in itself presented a challenge. He had to find a way to make it sincere. So Mitt Romney and his family came up with a story that would explain how he became pro-life:

"Romney says he changed his mind in November 2004, when he met with a scientist from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. Romney claimed in a June 2006 interview that the researcher had told him: "'Look, you don't have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue, because we kill the embryos after 14 days.'" Romney went on to say that both he and his chief of staff had an epiphany, recognizing that embryonic stem cell research cheapened respect for human life."
(Weekly Standard, Jennifer Rubin 2/5/07)

So, due to his encounter with a Harvard scientist, he realized that human embryos were human beings, and deserved protection. It all makes sense. Of course, the scientist denies ever saying the magic words that converted Romney:

"Governor Romney has mischaracterized my position; we didn't discuss killing or anything related to it, I explained my work to him, told him about my deeply held respect for life, and explained that my work focuses on improving the lives of those suffering from debilitating diseases."

Maybe I'm just being mean. Maybe I'm unreasonable. Maybe it's not just political maneuvering on his part. Maybe Mitt Romney is a sincere man, who truly believes in the unalienable right to life. But maybe I'm right. Maybe Mitt Romney is a political opportunist, pure and simple, willing to shift his views to any side of the political spectrum if it means votes on election day. Maybe his neatly packaged conversion story is a little too reminiscent of another neatly packaged conversion story:

"Many, many years ago, I had a dear close family relative, that was very close to me, that passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time that my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter."

He told that story in '94 to convince the voters of Massachusetts that he was pro-choice. Now he's telling another story to convince Republicans of his commitment to the pro-life cause. Where does Mitt Romney really stand? His opponent in the 2002 gubernatorial race summed it up this way:

"When Mitt Romney ran against Ted Kennedy in 1994, he accepted the endorsement of Mass. citizens for life. When he went to Utah and was thinking about running for governor of the state of Utah, he made a point of writing a letter to the editor, to the Utah paper out there, specifically stating he was not pro-choice. And then when he came back to Massachusetts, he's become a passionate supporter of a woman's right to choose. Ted Kennedy said it best: Mitt Romney isn't pro-choice, he's not anti-choice, he's multiple choice."

And for once, I agree with Ted Kennedy.

News: what is, what isn't, and whether it needs to be so depressing. (Part Deux)

Having established that news needs to be something truly new (a change in the status quo), several things still need to established.

First of all, the general populace doesn't need to be informed of every little tragedy or abnormal event that occurs in the world around them. Back home in Hawaii, the local news couldn't go a week without presenting at least one sob story about an alcoholic high-school jock who died in a car crash while partying with his friends late at night. The stories always followed the same basic formula: An interview with the sobbing mother ("He was such a good boy!"), followed by an interview with the sobbing girlfriend ("He was my entire world!"), the not sobbing, but more-introspective than usual guy-friend ("He wasn't -like- just another guy... he was... like... the man"), and the indifferent, divorced father ("He was... a good kid. Probably."). Afterwards, the anchor-person would solemnly intone the moral of the story, usually something along the lines of "talk to your kids about the dangers of drinking and driving", and then some fat guy would give everyone a sports update. That kind of story is nothing more than shameless emotional exploitation. Everyone that had a legitimate reason to be informed of the boy's death had already been informed. Who exactly are news reporters helping when they shove their microphones into the faces of mourning friends and family members? In order for a story to be valid news, it has to be something that affects the audience, not just something that pulls their heartstrings.

If, for instance, the mayor of San Francisco died in a car crash after a night of heavy drinking, it would be the local news station's responsibility to report the event. Millions of people have the right to be informed when the man they elected into office has his life unexpectedly snuffed out. It's an event that affects the audience. We can go even further and create an example of a slightly less significant tragedy that still warrants local media attention. Let's say that Bill Smithson, a philanthropist in the town of Smithville passed away early this morning. Mr. Smithson was a prominent member of the town, and contributed substantial amounts of money to local institutions. Buildings all over town bear his name: The Bill Smithson Public Library, The Smithson Concert Hall, The Smithson Center For The Criminally Insane, etc. The people of the town, even though they may not know him personally, are all very familiar with Mr. Smithson. Due to the fact that most of the local audience has been touched by this man's life, I have no objection to the local news doing a story on this man's death.

Generally, the question journalists should ask before reporting an event can be stated thusly: "Why does my audience need to know about this?". If the journalist honestly has a good reason to tell thousands of people about an event, he or she should do so. But If a satisfying answer to that simple question can't be found, it's best for the story to go untold.

To be continued even further...

News: what is, what isn't, and whether it needs to be so depressing. (Part 1)

In this great nation, just about everyone has something to say about what's wrong with the news. Some people believe that the news is too negative. They're nauseated when they see images of war, crime, and destruction constantly being pushed onto our national psyche via the nightly news. What about all the good news? To others, the news is a bunch of frivolous, irrelevant fluff. They're disgusted by what they perceive to be a never-ending stream of celebrity drama and scandal. Is it really in the nation's best interest to inform everyone that celebrity A is cheating on his wife, celebrity B, and having a baby with celebrity C? And a small, devoted minority thinks it's all being staged by an evil alliance of evil jews in an evil lair in the evil town of Hollywood California. But since I don't have time to fly to the west coast and investigate the aforementioned claims of an evil lair, I'll try to address the first two criticisms, and talk a little bit about what (in my opinion) real news is.

First of all, for an event to be considered news, it has to be something NEW, something that represents a change in the status quo. For example, the following story is not news:

"Today in Washington, the government of the United States of America continued to operate."

That story isn't news, because it doesn't represent a change in the status quo. By default, citizens in the United States of America assume that their government is operating. The following story, however, would be considered news:

"Today in Washington, the government of the United States of America was overthrown by a group of communist revolutionaries from Georgia. Their leader, Steve Buttersworth, has set himself up as the leader of a provisional government which is currently working on a charter that will replace the old constitution."

That story IS news because it represents a change in the status quo. Normally, people don't assume that communists are establishing a new government in Washington DC. The people need to be informed when such an event occurs.

In order for us to go a little further into the subject of what makes news newsworthy, let's take a look at what most people in our society would consider to be the status quo for the average human:

(1) Person X is born.
(2) Person X gets proper education and nourishment, and grows up.
(3) Person X lives life as an adult. He/she has a roof over his/her head. He/she has enough food to eat.
(4) Person X grows old, and eventually dies of natural causes.

Additionally, you could summarize a little bit of what we believe the status quo of society to be:


-People are obeying the laws.
-Government is enforcing the laws.
-People are going to work.
-Buldings remain standing.
-Children are being educated
-Etc.

When you really think about it, it's only logical that much of the news is negative. People assume that the good things listed above are occurring in the world around them. They don't need to be told that "Thousands of children were born today", or that "Millions of people ate dinner tonight", or that "In the past week, a majority of citizens did not commit murder". In our subconscious, we assume that these things are happening. In a nutshell, no news is good news. But when someone breaks these normative patterns of society and life, news occurs. If you were a local news producer and you had to choose between the following stories, which would you pick?

(A) Bob Smith, an average, middle aged man, remains alive, after 38 years of average health.

(B) Jack Henderson, an average, middle aged man, was murdered in his home today. The killer remains at large in the greater metropolitan area.

What about these stories?

(A) The United Mutual building remains standing after 20 years of normal usage.

(B) The Northern FInancial building collapsed today in what officials are calling, "a terrorist action". Large portions of the downtown area will be blocked off indefinitely. The governor is urging citizens to give what they can to aid the families of those killed or injured in the attack.

In all of these cases the choice is clear. The Bad things are more newsworthy because they represent a change in the status quo that the public should be informed of.

But there's still a distinction that needs to be made between private tragedy and public tragedy. In other words, bad things that the public needs to know about, and bad things that the media has no legitimate reason to report. And there are still plenty of positive (or at least non-negative) events that can be considered truly newsworthy.

To be continued...

Why all the YouTube hype is just hype.

Google paid over a billion dollars for it. TIME adorned the cover of their "person of the year" issue with it's shiny video interface. And I think it's just another internet novelty that will seem like a big fat waste of money to certain corporate officers in about a year or so. If you've read the title of this article, you know that I'm talking about the ever-so-popular youtube.com site, a place where every cocob0y222 and katg3rl9 can post grainy videos of themselves talking about themselves, while thinking to themselves that other people actually care. And while countless commentators trip over each other to be the first to proclaim the advent of a glorious new age of media in which Mom, Dad, Dick, Jane, and Spot gather around their 15" LCD display to watch 320x240 flash videos created by the Hendersons down the street, I'd like to recognize YouTube for what it actually is: a poor quality (albeit free) distribution system for amateur videos that carries a high risk of copyright infringement lawsuits, and no risk of usurping the mainstream media.

First of all, I'm not completely "dissing" YouTube. YouTube is an absolutely wonderful place to find great videos like the "Numa Numa Dance", "The Evolution of Dance", and "KItty cat dancing!!!!!!!!!! yeeea". However, I think that only a true dullard would argue that YouTube is encroaching on the traditional media's turf. How many people skip American Idol to watch a 10 second clip of mnkyj4m111 from Wisconsin stuffing mentos into a bottle of diet coke? Many people may find the user-made videos on YouTube to be amusing, but in the end they're pretty much the same as the videos that your annoying friend (you know who he/she is) used to forward to you way back in '01.

Of course, I don't want to downplay the broad range of programming available on YouTube. What about the plethora of video blogs available for your viewing pleasure? Finally, the people who failed English 101 and can't find any real-life friends to talk to, can eloquently express their innermost thoughts via the magic of the Internet! Who doesn't want to watch some fat college student with his hat on backwards sitting in a dimly lit dorm, while offering gems of wisdom that go something like this:

"So... anyways... uh... I saw a movie today... and it had a black guy in it.... but anyways it was... like... pretty funny... but my girlfriend... was all like, no way!... but I still think it was a funny movie... also today... um... what? Shut up Chris! ... No! ... Shut up! ... You're so stupid! ......... that was Chris... he's like... my roomie.... "

And who could forget all the wonderful no budget sit-com wannabes that prove that no matter how bad the quality of mainstream comedy gets, there's always something worse just a few mouse-clicks away. Yes folks, with the advent of low-cost digital video, we're simply being deluged with high-quality content produced outside of the traditional studio system.

That isn't to say there's nothing good on YouTube. Far from it! There are millions of great videos on YouTube, namely the ones that people rip from proprietary sources such as DVD's and television. Remember that one great scene from that otherwise lousy movie you saw eight years ago? With thousands of users working around the clock ripping, encoding, and uploading copyrighted movie clips, there's a pretty good chance you can find it on YouTube. There's only one teensy-weensy problem with this: copyrighted material is, for the lack of a better word, COPYRIGHTED. And websites hosting copyrighted materials without a license to do so can get into a lot of trouble with the copyright holders. This is where YouTube ceases to be a good business and becomes a great big legal liability. Somewhere down the road, YouTube will be the target of a copyright infringement case that most experts are predicting to be "One Bad Mutha'". The question is really one of when rather than if.

But do I really hate YouTube? No. If you don't have server space of your own, YouTube offers a video hosting solution that may not deliver the best quality, but gets the job done. My point is that YouTube isn't the threat to the traditional media that (ironically enough) the traditional media is making it out to be. Maybe once everyone starts using the Internet2, massive computer monitors become inexpensive, and YouTube offers HD video hosting/streaming, the big broadcasting networks can raise their respective white flags. Until then, pixelated Flash-7 encoded videos aren't going to cut it as serious entertainment media.

Another set of unrelated topics.

1. The Taco Bell tolls for thee...

The Taco Bell E. Coli outbreak continues to rage on, and this time, the feds believe a different veggie is to blame. Apparently, the E. Coli which has now infected 71 people across the country, is being carried by lettuce, which, if I recall correctly, is found on just about everything served at Taco Bell.

And just to make things interesting, Taco Bell's lesser known rival, Taco John's, has an E. Coli outbreak of it's own. At this point, I think it's advisable to avoid Americanized Mexican fast food altogether. Stick to good, wholesome, old fashioned, patriotic food like McDonald's. There's absolutely no health risk there, right? As the brilliant marketers over at the golden arches put it: I'm lovin' it! (TM).

2. Government enforces law. Uproar ensues.

Why is the fact that federal agents arrested 1200+ illegal immigrants in a series of massive meat-packing plant raids causing such a hubub? Our law enforcement agents have one job: to enforce the law. Illegal immigration is (as the name implies) against the law. People that are upset by the raid have only one rational course of action: to attempt to repeal our countries immigration laws. Complaining that our law enforcers are enforcing our laws is ridiculous. The following is an excerpt from the linked article that you didn't (and in all likelihood, won't) read:

Immigration officials last month informed Swift (the company that hired the illegal workers) that it would remove unauthorized workers on Dec. 4, but Swift asked a federal judge to prevent agents from conducting the raid, arguing it would cause "substantial and irreparable injury" to its business.

What a stupid company. It hires a bunch of illegals (although they claim that they had no knowledge of illegal workers in the company), is found out and warned of the upcoming raid, and then tries to convince the government not to arrest a bunch of criminals because it would hurt it's business. That's not how it works. When someone breaks a federal law, they get punished. It doesn't matter who they are, or who they work for. Justice is supposed to be blind.

Again, although it's very understandable that some might feel empathy for the illegals in our country who are just trying to make a better life for their families, any quarrel people have with these raids should rest with the laws themselves, not the enforcement.

3. Excellent Comments on Iraq

Here's a very insightful quote concerning one of the major mistakes the US made in our "war on terror" in Iraq:

"Imagine one day waking up and finding out that your nation's leaders had completely dismantled all police and military. As a result, there is not one policeman, or state, or federal law enforcement agent, or even one national guard or any soldier to protect you from criminal elements, or terrorists. It will be total chaos.

"Then imagine that instead of calling back the army and security forces, the authorities in this imaginary scenario decided to form a new army and police from racist militias, some mercenaries and organised crime gangs.

"With the new government-issued budget and government-issued vehicles, these armed groups begin arresting, torturing, murdering innocent people either because of their faith, or creed, or purely for profit.

"This is exactly what has happened in Iraq."

That quote comes from none other than the vice president of Iraq, Tareq Al-Hashemi. And he's right on. The United States was quite naive to think that a peaceful country would emerge gently out of the state of anarchy it created. The fact is that Iraq is made up of several groups of people who want to kill each other. For years, Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, for all it's faults, did one thing well: it stabilized the country. The various radical factions co-existing in Iraq needed, as Hobbes (the philosopher, not the tiger) would say, "a common power to keep them all in awe" . Saddam delivered this in spades. When America dismantled the Iraqi Government and all it's institutions, they created a vacuum of power that the opposing religious and ethnic groups are still violently attempting to fill. The US-supported Iraqi military and police force is helpless in the face of the escalating violence because most of the people perpetrating the violence are in their ranks. Whole regions are under the control of radical militias. The leader of the most powerful Shiite death squads and militias, Muqtada Al-Sadr is a powerful member of Iraq's democratic government. Essentially, everything that could have gone wrong is going wrong. With conservative estimates of Iraqi deaths currently standing at over 55,000, and high estimates going over 100,000, the death toll in this period of anarchy is already exceeding that of Saddam's reign.

Of course, "cut and run" still isn't an option. America seriously screwed up Iraq, and if we pull out before the job of stabilizing the country is done, the Iraqis will suffer even more. It just makes you wish we had leaders that could think twice before doing something so stupid. The worst part of it all is that even if the country is successfully stabilized, it'll just be another islamic nation, which is something we could certainly do without. In the long run, I don't think that Iraq's Islamic democracy will be any improvement over Saddam's secular government. I guess only time will tell.

Radiation, food poisening, and the fat ban.

(1). Radiation: it's not just for frozen burritos anymore.

The United States military recently placed its stamp of approval on a rather unique crowd control device: the Active Denial System (ADS). Despite having the most politically correct name of any weapon in recent memory, the ADS is quite a piece of work. Here's a summary of its awe-inspiring, pain-inducing power from the worlds most complete and accurate source of information pertaining to cutting edge military technology, the wikipedia:

"The ADS works by directing electromagnetic radiation at a frequency of 95 GHz toward the subjects. When the waves contact skin, the energy in the waves is turned into heat which in turn heats the water molecules in the skin to around 55 C (130 degrees Fahrenheit), causing an intensely painful burning sensation. The focused beam can be directed at targets at a range of approximately one kilometer.

A higher radio frequency is chosen because, as a property of electromagnetic waves, they are unable to penetrate the body as deeply as lower frequency waves, thereby affecting external organs only, such as skin. The United States military states the effect "penetrates the skin to a depth of less than 1/64 of an inch."[1] A spokesman for the Air Force Research Laboratory described his experience as a test subject for the system: "For the first millisecond, it just felt like the skin was warming up. Then it got warmer and warmer and you felt like it was on fire.... As soon as you're away from that beam your skin returns to normal and there is no pain."

The ADS is currently only a vehicle mounted weapon, however, U.S. Marines and police are both working on portable versions."

Essentially, the ADS is a device that sticks an out of control crowd in the microwave for a couple seconds on high power, creating what the military calls the "Goodbye effect". Technically, the waves of radiation emitted by the ADS have a shorter wavelength than the microwaves emitted by a microwave oven, so the comparison isn't perfect, but you get the point. The device is currently awaiting deployment in Iraq, and in the near future could be coming to a reckless crowd of flag-burning hippies near you. While Uncle Sam maintains that exposing large amounts of people to painful waves of radiation will have no unforeseen side effects, and presents no ethical problems, I'll probably remain skeptical. The concept of the government being able to disperse any crowd almost instantly, is just a little bit eerie. Not to mention the fact that any innocent bystanders among the targets will also be exposed to the device's considerable radioactive bite. This creepy increase of government power calls to mind George Orwell's "1984". While I've never actually read the book myself, I'm told by many reliable sources that it deals with a government run by the main character's older brother who does a lot of creepy stuff to the populace of England, and in all likelihood, other populaces (or populi as some are apt to say) as well. On further inspection, the similarities are startling. Is our president an older brother? Is the ADS creepy? Si to all of the above.

People, we are living in 1984.

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

(2). Jamba Juice and Taco Bell will probably kill you.

There seems to be an epidemic of food related disease going around:

- Jamba juice has apparently served 1,800 pounds of strawberries possibly contaminated with listeria, a disease with a 20% mortality rate. Ouch. Luckily, the aforementioned strawberries were only located in Arizona, California, and Nevada Jamba Juice locations. I believe this is what they call "Lucky you live Hawaii". But just to be safe, it's probably best to order the secret, legendary, and strawberry-free "White Gummi Bear" for the time being.

- Taco Bell is now dealing with a rash of E. coli contamination amongst it's green onions, forcing it to recall the tainted produce from 5,800 taco bell locations. According to the AP, the Taco Bell E. coli has already infected 36 people across the country. Since I haven't eaten at Taco Bell for several months, I proclaim myself "relatively safe". But what Taco Bell dishes use green onions anyway? Is it just the nachos? Or are trace amounts embedded in most of their dishes? We'll probably never know... until it's too late.

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

(3) New York City Bans Trans Fats

New York City is known for a lot of things, mainly: The mafia, gross corruption, and Hillary Clinton. Soon, however, the city will make history as the first city to ban the use of trans fats in its restaurants. For those who don't know what trans fats are, the worlds most complete and accurate source of all information pertaining to nutrition, the wikipedia, has you covered:

"Unlike other fats, trans fats are neither required nor beneficial for health.^[1] Eating trans fat increases the risk of coronary heart disease.^[2] For these reasons, health authorities worldwide recommend that consumption of trans fat be reduced to trace amounts. Trans fats from partially hydrogenated oils are generally considered to be more of a health risk than those occurring naturally.^[3]

Trans fats are increasingly being linked to chronic health conditions (see below), are tightly regulated in a few countries, are mandatory on product labels in many others, and are the central issue in several ongoing lawsuits (particularly against fast food outlets). Many companies are voluntarily removing trans fats from their products, or establishing trans-free product lines."

So, trans fats (A) have no legitimate nutritional purpose, and (B) do a lot of really bad things to the human body. Some experts compare banning trans fats in restaurants to banning lead and arsenic in foodstuffs. But still, does the government have the right to tell private institutions what they can or can't put in their food? Heck yes. If a substance is essentially a poison, it shouldn't be served to the public via delicious, inexpensive fried foods, period. If banning is considered a bit extreme, every purveyor of food should at the very least be required to declare what menu items contain trans fats, as well as the health risks of consuming the said fats, similar to the warning labels placed on boxes of cigarettes. Hopefully, New York City's ban will give chain restaurants a little push towards business practices that are slightly less evil.

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

And that's about it.