Analysis: Does this mean it's too late? Answer: Yes.

Journalist are not known for their technical and scientific brilliance. The article linked below clearly states that Iran now has enough raw material for a nuclear bomb. It goes on to mention that as of now, they only have enough for one.

Analysis: Does this mean it's too late? Iran news Jerusalem Post

Firstly, the fact that they have enough for one is quite disturbing by itself. Would anyone be less concerned if they had ten? No.

Second, what the reporter doesn't realize it that enrichment is an accelerating process. That is, it takes a long time to get enough material for the first bomb. But after that, you get a lot of material very quickly.

It took the US several years of planning, construction, and work to get our first bomb. Shortly thereafter, we dropped the second and third on Japan. What most people don't realize it that because we had the infrastructure and technology to produce bombs, we were capable of producing two bombs every month at the end of the war. This is the same situation in which Iran is now. Again, this is not comforting.

"But isn't Iran just enriching uranium for peaceful, electricity-generating purposes?"

Well, no. Electricity generation doesn't require highly enriched material. Several types of nuclear power generators actually do quite well with unenriched fuel. Yet, the centrifuges continue to spin.

So, for what should we look in the coming months? Iran will continue to enrich fuel for additional bombs under the guise of electrical needs. The IAEA inspectors will get thrown out of Iran. In 12 months, they will perform the first test of an atomic bomb.

Of course, Israel is very concerned about this. Iran has repeatedly stated that they wish to wipe Israel off the map. Given their advanced missile program, Iran will shortly have the capability to level entire Israeli cities. Israel, of course, will not wait for this to happen. Once the IAEA inspectors leave Iran because they cannot do their job, Israel will strike the nuclear facilities in Iran. This strike doesn't have to be on all of the facilities at the same time; a few key facilities will suffice to slow weapons production.

22 November 2008 is Victory in Iraq Day!

Bloggers! This Saturday is an Important Day. Please read about it.

Victory in Iraq Day, November 22, 2008

Hello! Pay attention!

One more time: CONGRESS sets the national budget. CONGRESS determines tax rates. NOT the President. Blaming the President for Congress' failures is like blaming a parent for a baby messing its own diaper. The President can only SUGGEST a budget. Congress doesn't have to listen to the President nor does it usually. Congress' budgets usually look NOTHING like would the President would like. If you don't like how our country has spent YOUR money the last few years, look at the DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS.

I ended a RSS feed over someone missing this simple fact.

UPDATE 20 November 2008: I watched a video yesterday in which most people, who had just voted, didn't realize that Congress is controlled by the Democratic party and has been since 3 January 2007.

9%

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

Congress is doing such a poor job, only 9% of voters think they're doing a good job. If I understand it, this is an all-time low.

HT: Mad Ogre

Update (17 Sept): By the way, President Bush constantly receives criticism regarding how low his poll numbers are. With a quick check, his lowest approval rating, ever, was 25%.

Nuclear Power Solutions

This article talks about several of the things I have been saying for years.

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Nuclear Fuel: Waste Not, Want Not

If we want to change the energy picture in our country, we need to change our priorities. Oil is a limit resource. Yes, we can get a lot of it, but the supplies will eventually diminish and a lot of our oil comes from unstable regions. Green energy sounds nice but isn't scalable to a national or global portion. Therefore, we need nuclear. And we need it more than before.

Some priorities we need to change are:

1. Build more nuclear plants. They're safe. They're clean. They're cheap.
2. Reprocess waste. Not only does this produce more fuel, but it reduces that amount of waste we have to dispose.
3. Open Yucca Mountain for storage. We need a long term solution for nuclear waste. This is the best, safest option. We cannot continue the short term solution of storing waste on the site of nuclear plants. It's dangerous, and it is only viable in the short term.

Let's wake up and do the right thing.

"Gunmen" take "refuge"

I just read this story from the Wall Street Journal. I was particularly interested in the language.

Gunmen Take Students Hostage At High School in Pakistan - WSJ.com

In a nutshell, "gunmen" abducted a public official and then took "refuge" in a school. Oh, and dozens of students and teachers are still in the school. The school is in a "volatile" region which in a stronghold for the Taliban.

Not until the fifth paragraph is the word "terrorists" mentioned and even then it is a "quote" of a government official. Not until the sixth paragraph is the word "hostage" mentioned.

Let's just called them what they are: lowlife, pathetic, and cowardly terrorists.

Fred Thompson's View of Campaigning

Two things interested me about this article:

1. ABC is taking issue with how other media has mis-characterized statements made by Fred Thompson. Yes, media do run corrections. But this sort of up-front correction is rare. Usually, corrections are in 10-point font in a little 1.5" by 3" box at the bottom of page A8.

2. The process of campaigning for office has indeed gotten over-valued. Yes, we need to know who we are electing and why. We need to know their positions, the strengths, and the weaknesses. But, money, time, and media perception have become more important than the candidate's philosophy and approach to governing.

Political Punch

Wow! This person needs a fact-checker!

I won't even comment. Just go look at the link and read the comments.

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=7164

A HMMWV, a tank, or what?

Bored, I was looking through the August 20, 2007 edition of TIME magazine. When I opened to page 29, I found this picture and this caption:

“Urban combat
A Mexican army tank patrols near a church in San Pedro, an affluent suburb of Monterrey. Once considered one of Mexico’s safest cities, Monterrey has witnessed more than 100 drug-related murders in the past year [sic]”

Again, I wonder what editors get paid to do at magazines. They obviously don't hire fact-checkers or even proof-readers for that matter. There are two mistakes in the caption:

1. There's a period missing from the second sentence.

2. That isn't a tank that we see in the picture, that's a HMMWV, the military version of the Hummer H1. And, though I am no expect, it doesn't even look like an armored HMMWV (the printed picture is a little clearly and more detail is visible) which means its skin is just a thin as any other automobile as certainly is NOT a tank.

Also interesting was the caption found online for the photograph:

“Armed
The Mexican military patrols San Pedro, a rich neighborhood in Monterrey. This unit is stationed not far from a church where a wedding ceremony for members of a wealthy family was taking place.”

Notice that the new caption has only a little resemblance for the original.

Again, I think I could be a good fact-checker. Anyone hiring?

Cool but Scary

This, I think, is a fantastic tool that can really help with publishing, say, newsletters with graphics and that sort of thing. But, at the same time, can you imagine the fraud that can be committed with this. We're already having trouble assuring acurate media coming out of Lebanon and Iraq. Let's not even begin to mention magazine covers.

What if someone wanted to use this for political or propaganda purposes. How would we know. How could we tell? HAT TIP: LGF.