Sunday, September 09, 2007
Saturday, September 08, 2007
China Plans Cyberwarfare Against US
As I mentioned in an earlier post, our various military systems could be vulnerable to attack, and that would spell disaster against a serious foe. A recent Pentagon report outlines how China is preparing for cyberwarfare against the United States.
Some quotes:
Chinese military hackers have prepared a detailed plan to disable America’s aircraft battle carrier fleet with a devastating cyber attack, according to a Pentagon report obtained by The Times.
The blueprint for such an assault, drawn up by two hackers working for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), is part of an aggressive push by Beijing to achieve “electronic dominance” over each of its global rivals by 2050, particularly the US, Britain, Russia and South Korea.
Yes, that's what it says: a "detailed plan to disable America's aircraft battle carrier fleet." Again, that would be devastating if successful. Given our recent reliance on networked system for command and control, particularly in the Navy, any successful effort to interfere with those systems could significantly reduce the effectiveness of such a fleet.
Even more unnerving:
Larry M. Wortzel, the author of the US Army War College report, said: “The thing that should give us pause is that in many Chinese military manuals they identify the US as the country they are most likely to go to war with. They are moving very rapidly to master this new form of warfare.” The two PLA hackers produced a “virtual guidebook for electronic warfare and jamming” after studying dozens of US and Nato manuals on military tactics, according to the document.
Read the entire story. It's a bit frightening. Of course, I don't doubt for a moment that the NSA has similar programs underway, but no country's military is as reliant upon networked systems as is the US's. If we don't fix vulnerabilities, it could be our downfall.
Some quotes:
Chinese military hackers have prepared a detailed plan to disable America’s aircraft battle carrier fleet with a devastating cyber attack, according to a Pentagon report obtained by The Times.
The blueprint for such an assault, drawn up by two hackers working for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), is part of an aggressive push by Beijing to achieve “electronic dominance” over each of its global rivals by 2050, particularly the US, Britain, Russia and South Korea.
Yes, that's what it says: a "detailed plan to disable America's aircraft battle carrier fleet." Again, that would be devastating if successful. Given our recent reliance on networked system for command and control, particularly in the Navy, any successful effort to interfere with those systems could significantly reduce the effectiveness of such a fleet.
Even more unnerving:
Larry M. Wortzel, the author of the US Army War College report, said: “The thing that should give us pause is that in many Chinese military manuals they identify the US as the country they are most likely to go to war with. They are moving very rapidly to master this new form of warfare.” The two PLA hackers produced a “virtual guidebook for electronic warfare and jamming” after studying dozens of US and Nato manuals on military tactics, according to the document.
Read the entire story. It's a bit frightening. Of course, I don't doubt for a moment that the NSA has similar programs underway, but no country's military is as reliant upon networked systems as is the US's. If we don't fix vulnerabilities, it could be our downfall.
Ahmadinejad Wants Iran To Create World Government
More from Iranian President Imajihadi (or whatever his name is), this time on his political aspirations:
"They know quite well that the Islamic Revolution wants to prepare the ground for materialization of the promised `big event' (reappearance of the Imam of Age); that's why they try to take precedence in campaign against us. We are against rule of the non-righteous individuals. Clashes today are only a pretext and they confront us because the revolutionary Iran aims a global government and a genuine Islamic culture so as to gain a loftier position worldwide..."
Thanks for stating things so clearly, Mr. Imajihadi.
"They know quite well that the Islamic Revolution wants to prepare the ground for materialization of the promised `big event' (reappearance of the Imam of Age); that's why they try to take precedence in campaign against us. We are against rule of the non-righteous individuals. Clashes today are only a pretext and they confront us because the revolutionary Iran aims a global government and a genuine Islamic culture so as to gain a loftier position worldwide..."
Thanks for stating things so clearly, Mr. Imajihadi.
Ahmadinejad Calls for Interest-Free Banking
Iranian President Imajihadi (or whatever his name is) keeps astounding with his wackiness. This time, he's calling for reforming the Iranian banking system to the Islamic principle of interest-free banking. I hope he succeeds; that alone could bring his country to the point of begging the West to remove him from power.
I mean, it's funny, actually:
“No economic activity is possible without assistance from banks,” he said and “any problem in the banking system will have a negative impact on all economic sectors and the people's lifestyle."
However, if the banking system adopts a proper monetary policy, all other sectors of the economy will grow, he observed.
I could go into the function of interest in an economy, but I won't. Hopefully everyone who reads this will understand the utter insanity of his plan.
I mean, it's funny, actually:
“No economic activity is possible without assistance from banks,” he said and “any problem in the banking system will have a negative impact on all economic sectors and the people's lifestyle."
However, if the banking system adopts a proper monetary policy, all other sectors of the economy will grow, he observed.
I could go into the function of interest in an economy, but I won't. Hopefully everyone who reads this will understand the utter insanity of his plan.
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at a light 2870 Diggs, is a link to a picture of a little girl holding sign of all the things she's "learned from Bush."
It's been awhile since Digg showed its Leftist side, and this ranks right up there with the best of its many Leftist stories.
It's been awhile since Digg showed its Leftist side, and this ranks right up there with the best of its many Leftist stories.
Has This Blog Lost Value?
As I started the Daily Topic a few months ago, my readership was on a steady rise. Then, suddenly, about a month ago, the number of folks visiting the site plummeted.
I ask those of you who are still visiting: has the blog lost value? Are my posts less interesting? Am I too redundant, or to unfocused?
I would appreciate any comments, because of course I'd rather see my readership increase, not decrease.
I ask those of you who are still visiting: has the blog lost value? Are my posts less interesting? Am I too redundant, or to unfocused?
I would appreciate any comments, because of course I'd rather see my readership increase, not decrease.
National Healthcare Means Higher Rate of Cancer Deaths
Unfortunately, this Principles in Practice post doesn't link to it, but a recent study of cancer survival rates shows why socialized medicine (think "national healthcare" or whatever you want to call it) is deadly. The money quote:
The study finds that Britain (whose much-touted "universal health care" system is held up by the left as a model for America) has among the lowest cancer survival rates in the West—drastically lower than the United States, which has the world's highest survival rate.
It's simple, really:
Researchers attribute Britain's dismal numbers primarily to late diagnoses and lengthy waiting lists for treatment. But long lines and waiting lists are necessarily endemic under socialized medicine.
The solution is less government and more individual responsibility in healthcare. That is, unless we less of a chance to live.
The study finds that Britain (whose much-touted "universal health care" system is held up by the left as a model for America) has among the lowest cancer survival rates in the West—drastically lower than the United States, which has the world's highest survival rate.
It's simple, really:
Researchers attribute Britain's dismal numbers primarily to late diagnoses and lengthy waiting lists for treatment. But long lines and waiting lists are necessarily endemic under socialized medicine.
The solution is less government and more individual responsibility in healthcare. That is, unless we less of a chance to live.
National Service - Slippery Slope to Slavery
I wouldn't even know where to begin in extolling the vile nature of this article on "national service." It's a very thinly veiled call for altruistic self-sacrifice in the name of "society." The writer calls for "voluntary," not mandatory nor compulsory, service, but why do we need government programs for volunteers? And, how can a program be "voluntary" if $5000 in taxes per newborn is to be spent on a "National Service Baby Bond"? It certainly wouldn't be voluntary for today's taxpayers.
Again I have little time for blogging, and so rather than attacking this topic myself I refer you to the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), where the "national service" ideology is described as what it really is. Read the Times story, and then the ARI editorial, and see where you stand.
Again I have little time for blogging, and so rather than attacking this topic myself I refer you to the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), where the "national service" ideology is described as what it really is. Read the Times story, and then the ARI editorial, and see where you stand.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Only a Digg Report
Only a Digg Report for today. Hopefully, I'll finish this project and get back to normal blogging by the end of the weekend.
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 4550 Diggs, is a link to a rant about Internet Explorer's general lack of conformance to various Internet standards. Not much to say about that.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Light Blogging Next Few Days
Just to remind, light blogging today and probably through tomorrow, at least.
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 4891 Diggs, is a link to Steve Job's open letter to early iPhone adapters, wherein he explains the $200 price job after two months and offers a $100 credit at the Apple store or Web site.
It's good to see a highly Dugg story that has some relevance to it. Maybe to a select few, and the Apple faithful, but still relevant.
It's good to see a highly Dugg story that has some relevance to it. Maybe to a select few, and the Apple faithful, but still relevant.
Sudanese Islamists: Don't Come to the Sudan, US!
Another piece from MEMRI, this time on Sudanese Islamic leaders warning the US not to send forces to Darfur. The reason? It is "the most beautiful place in which our sheikh, Bin Laden, can operate."
Of course, it's written in that strange, off-kilter way that most of these Islamist proclamations seem to be written. I don't write it all off to translation, either; they think differently than we do in the West, not just about religion, but about what words mean and how to use them.
Anyways, here are some quotes:
Dr. Hassan Al-'Audha, Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood: "America believes that it is the master of the world, and that all other people are its slaves, who are subordinate to it and must obey it. America believes that it owns the oil discovered in Sudan. These are not my words. [Former U.S. president] Carter declared some two years ago: 'We wanted the oil of Sudan to be used for the pleasure of the American people after 2005.'
Hmm, hadn't heard that one. And it would shock me--absolutely shock me--if Jimmy Carter had written anything like that (unless, of course, it was meant as an attack on the Bush Administration). And look at the US... we're really going after that Sudanese oil, aren't we?
Of course, that's ridiculous. It's the Chinese that are going after that oil. But we wouldn't expect an Islamist to recognize that, now would we?
Muhammad Ahmad Hajj Ahmad, Commander of the Popular Defense Forces: "Whoever talks about genocide and about [ethnic] cleansing and all that should tell us what is going on in Palestine, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan. Throughout the history of this world, we have heard about women being raped by men. But throughout history, never have we heard about men being raped by women, except at Abu Ghureib prison."[...]
That just cracks me up. "But throughout history, never have we heard about men being raped by women..." There are so many off-color jokes there that I'll just leave it alone. However, this guy in one sentence manages to relegate Abu Ghureib (his spelling) to the annals of comic history.
"I don't want to go on, brothers. We have done talking. Let them do the talking - the Americans, the British, and NATO, who covet the Sudanese oil, and minerals of Darfur and Moya, and who look for uranium, and want to... By Allah, we don't care about any of this. All we want is to die for the sake of Allah. Just a bullet here - and you are gone. Let them come - by Allah, we will teach them a lesson."
I mean, this whole diatribe is remarkable for how out of touch with reality it really is. I mean, the US is not involved with Darfur in anything but a peripheral sense, and yet these yahoos talk as if we've already landed Marines there. And the funny thing is, here in the US, the Left would be quicker to attack us for not being involved.
Of course, it's written in that strange, off-kilter way that most of these Islamist proclamations seem to be written. I don't write it all off to translation, either; they think differently than we do in the West, not just about religion, but about what words mean and how to use them.
Anyways, here are some quotes:
Dr. Hassan Al-'Audha, Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood: "America believes that it is the master of the world, and that all other people are its slaves, who are subordinate to it and must obey it. America believes that it owns the oil discovered in Sudan. These are not my words. [Former U.S. president] Carter declared some two years ago: 'We wanted the oil of Sudan to be used for the pleasure of the American people after 2005.'
Hmm, hadn't heard that one. And it would shock me--absolutely shock me--if Jimmy Carter had written anything like that (unless, of course, it was meant as an attack on the Bush Administration). And look at the US... we're really going after that Sudanese oil, aren't we?
Of course, that's ridiculous. It's the Chinese that are going after that oil. But we wouldn't expect an Islamist to recognize that, now would we?
Muhammad Ahmad Hajj Ahmad, Commander of the Popular Defense Forces: "Whoever talks about genocide and about [ethnic] cleansing and all that should tell us what is going on in Palestine, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan. Throughout the history of this world, we have heard about women being raped by men. But throughout history, never have we heard about men being raped by women, except at Abu Ghureib prison."[...]
That just cracks me up. "But throughout history, never have we heard about men being raped by women..." There are so many off-color jokes there that I'll just leave it alone. However, this guy in one sentence manages to relegate Abu Ghureib (his spelling) to the annals of comic history.
"I don't want to go on, brothers. We have done talking. Let them do the talking - the Americans, the British, and NATO, who covet the Sudanese oil, and minerals of Darfur and Moya, and who look for uranium, and want to... By Allah, we don't care about any of this. All we want is to die for the sake of Allah. Just a bullet here - and you are gone. Let them come - by Allah, we will teach them a lesson."
I mean, this whole diatribe is remarkable for how out of touch with reality it really is. I mean, the US is not involved with Darfur in anything but a peripheral sense, and yet these yahoos talk as if we've already landed Marines there. And the funny thing is, here in the US, the Left would be quicker to attack us for not being involved.
Islamist Web Site in Minnesota Details Plans on Attacking US Bases
Deadlines still loom, but I thought I'd try to get in a few quick posts. Here's one from MEMRI, which discusses an Islamist Web site hosted in Minnesota containing a discussion on the best way to attack a US military installation.
Hopefully, this Web site has been shut down and the hosting site cautioned to keep their eye out for such stuff. Obviously, this goes beyond any rational notion of "freedom of speech" and is instead directly aimed at harming the security of the US.
We shouldn't expect such Web sites to be hosted in the US.
Hopefully, this Web site has been shut down and the hosting site cautioned to keep their eye out for such stuff. Obviously, this goes beyond any rational notion of "freedom of speech" and is instead directly aimed at harming the security of the US.
We shouldn't expect such Web sites to be hosted in the US.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Might be Some Light Blogging Next Couple of Days
Might be some light blogging over the next few days, some deadlines are looming.
Jimmy Carter's Impact on the Evolution of Iran
Here's an interesting post on Jimmy Carter's impact on the Shah of Iran and his eventual downfall to the Islamic totalitarian, terrorist-supporting government that exists today. Probably, much of this information needs to be vetted, since this isn't exactly a known resource, but it paints an interesting picture.
The gist:
In accordance with the pleasant US-Iran relations then-existing, President Carter spent New Year's Eve in 1977 with the Shah and toasted Iran as "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world". Nonetheless, between 1975 and 1978, the Shah's popularity fell due to the Carter administration's misguided implementation of human rights policies. The election of Mr. Carter as president of the United States in 1976, with his vocal emphasis on the importance of human rights in international affairs, was a turning point in US-Iran relations. The Shah of Iran was accused of torturing over 3000 prisoners. Under the banner of promoting human rights, Carter made excessive demands of the Shah, threatening to withhold military and social aid. Carter pressured the Shah to release "political prisoners", whose ranks included radical fundamentalists, communists and terrorists. Many of these individuals are now among the opponents we face in our "war on terrorism".
The result:
When the Shah was unable to meet the Carter Administration and British demands, the Carter Administration ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to stop $4 million per year in funding to religious Mullahs who then became outspoken and vehement opponents of the Shah. Unfortunately, the Shah's efforts to defuse the volatile situation in Iran failed, despite the grant even of free and democratic elections. Confronted with lack of US support and unleashed Mullah fury, the Shah of Iran fled the country.
Subsequent to the Carter Administration's ill-conceived foreign policy initiative, Iran is now a dungeon. Ayatollah Khomeini's dictatorship executed the Shah's prisoners, predominantly communist militants, along with more than 20,000 pro-Western Iranians. Women were sent back into servitude. Citizens were arrested merely for owning satellite dishes that could tune to Western programs. American diplomats were taken hostage, and the Soviet Union invaded Iran's eastern neighbor Afghanistan as a result of this chaos, allowing it to secure greater influence in Iran and Pakistan. The struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and the defeat of this invading Superpower with help from the United States under President Reagan gave rise to the radicalization and emergence of Muslim zealots like Osama bin Laden. Moreover, within a year of the Shah's ouster, Iran on its western flank was locked into the Iran-Iraq War, in which the U.S. sided with secular Iraq and its military dictator Saddam Hussein.
Maybe a bit of a stretch, although it's compelling:
Thus Jimmy Carter's misguided implementation of human rights policies not only indirectly led to overthrow of the Shah of Iran, but also paved the way for loss of more than 600,000 lives, Iran's rule by Ayatollahs, the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the mass murder of Americans and destruction of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001.
The gist:
In accordance with the pleasant US-Iran relations then-existing, President Carter spent New Year's Eve in 1977 with the Shah and toasted Iran as "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world". Nonetheless, between 1975 and 1978, the Shah's popularity fell due to the Carter administration's misguided implementation of human rights policies. The election of Mr. Carter as president of the United States in 1976, with his vocal emphasis on the importance of human rights in international affairs, was a turning point in US-Iran relations. The Shah of Iran was accused of torturing over 3000 prisoners. Under the banner of promoting human rights, Carter made excessive demands of the Shah, threatening to withhold military and social aid. Carter pressured the Shah to release "political prisoners", whose ranks included radical fundamentalists, communists and terrorists. Many of these individuals are now among the opponents we face in our "war on terrorism".
The result:
When the Shah was unable to meet the Carter Administration and British demands, the Carter Administration ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to stop $4 million per year in funding to religious Mullahs who then became outspoken and vehement opponents of the Shah. Unfortunately, the Shah's efforts to defuse the volatile situation in Iran failed, despite the grant even of free and democratic elections. Confronted with lack of US support and unleashed Mullah fury, the Shah of Iran fled the country.
Subsequent to the Carter Administration's ill-conceived foreign policy initiative, Iran is now a dungeon. Ayatollah Khomeini's dictatorship executed the Shah's prisoners, predominantly communist militants, along with more than 20,000 pro-Western Iranians. Women were sent back into servitude. Citizens were arrested merely for owning satellite dishes that could tune to Western programs. American diplomats were taken hostage, and the Soviet Union invaded Iran's eastern neighbor Afghanistan as a result of this chaos, allowing it to secure greater influence in Iran and Pakistan. The struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and the defeat of this invading Superpower with help from the United States under President Reagan gave rise to the radicalization and emergence of Muslim zealots like Osama bin Laden. Moreover, within a year of the Shah's ouster, Iran on its western flank was locked into the Iran-Iraq War, in which the U.S. sided with secular Iraq and its military dictator Saddam Hussein.
Maybe a bit of a stretch, although it's compelling:
Thus Jimmy Carter's misguided implementation of human rights policies not only indirectly led to overthrow of the Shah of Iran, but also paved the way for loss of more than 600,000 lives, Iran's rule by Ayatollahs, the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the mass murder of Americans and destruction of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001.
Jimmy Carter Thinks Middle East Debate "Unbalanced" In Favor of Israel
It's remarkable that Jimmy Carter would call for "balanced" Middle East debate, when the mainstream media does everything it can to make the Palestinians look like victims and Israel look like a brutal oppressor. I meet very few people who have a clear understanding of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, with their opinions tracking pretty much along the lines of whatever they're fed by the MSM.
The very best place to go to get an idea of how biased is the coverage of Israel and the Palestinians is Little Green Footballs. That guy has a seemingly unlimited amount of time to amass amazing amounts of information showing just how bad the coverage really is.
The very best place to go to get an idea of how biased is the coverage of Israel and the Palestinians is Little Green Footballs. That guy has a seemingly unlimited amount of time to amass amazing amounts of information showing just how bad the coverage really is.
Russia Helps Iran out of a Tough Spot
Many thanks to Russia for minimizing the impact of American and European sanctions against Iran. This time, it's in the area of Iran's aviation industry that Russia is helping a known terrorist-supporting government maintain its viability.
Some quotes:
Aviation chief Saeed Hesami said Russian planes were Iran's best option, according to IRNA, despite a string of crashes in recent years involving Russian-made aircraft that have killed hundreds of people.
"We have no option but to buy Russian planes because we have to meet the air transportation needs of the nation," Hesami was quoted as saying by IRNA. "Iran won't allow ... U.S. sanctions to ground its aviation fleet."
Actually, it looks to me like Russia won't allow US sanctions to ground Iran's aviation fleet.
And perhaps the money quote:
In 2002, Iran's transportation minister at the time, Ahmad Khorram, told parliament that Iran's air industry had reached "a crisis point" and was suffering from U.S. sanctions.
Some quotes:
Aviation chief Saeed Hesami said Russian planes were Iran's best option, according to IRNA, despite a string of crashes in recent years involving Russian-made aircraft that have killed hundreds of people.
"We have no option but to buy Russian planes because we have to meet the air transportation needs of the nation," Hesami was quoted as saying by IRNA. "Iran won't allow ... U.S. sanctions to ground its aviation fleet."
Actually, it looks to me like Russia won't allow US sanctions to ground Iran's aviation fleet.
And perhaps the money quote:
In 2002, Iran's transportation minister at the time, Ahmad Khorram, told parliament that Iran's air industry had reached "a crisis point" and was suffering from U.S. sanctions.
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 3968 Diggs, is about Apple's announcement of new iPods. This is tech reporting, I suppose, so kudos to Digg for getting the word out. Not that a million other sites haven't already trumpeted the news, but you can't blame Digg for trying.
And I'm actually surprised that this wasn't Dugg more. Diggsters seem to like Apple products.
And I'm actually surprised that this wasn't Dugg more. Diggsters seem to like Apple products.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Cox and Forkum on Edward's Oppressive Healthcare Scheme
Cox and Forkum on Presidential Candidate John Edward's plan to make various preventive care activities (annual physicals, mammograms, etc.) mandatory. I haven't written on this because, basically, I'm still having a hard time believing it. I mean, literally: I'm struggling to digest the idea that an American Presidential candidate could be calling for government-mandated doctor visits, and how anybody--anybody--can evade the Orwellian nature of such an idea and support it.
It's not even a slippery slope. It's the end of the slide. One needn't even go into what else might be required. Just the simple annual physical is enough to render this plan dictatorial. If Edwards were elected and this plan implemented, I do believe the Constitution would spontaneously combust.
It's not even a slippery slope. It's the end of the slide. One needn't even go into what else might be required. Just the simple annual physical is enough to render this plan dictatorial. If Edwards were elected and this plan implemented, I do believe the Constitution would spontaneously combust.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
