As you are undoubtedly aware, yesterday the US Navy launched a missile from the Pacific Ocean in an effort to destroy a malfunctioning satellite. Whether or not this was a legitimate attempt at destroying a faulty satellite or an anti-satellite weapons test remains up for debate, but what seems to be pretty certain at this point is that it was destroyed.

Lucky for us we live in technological age where everything everywhere is recorded on video. So, without further adieu, here is some video footage released by the Defense Department of the missile taking off from the Navy ship and intercepting the satellite:

My apologies for the crickets around here lately, I’ve been adjusting to a new travel schedule at work and writing time hasn’t been much of a commodity. That said, as you are undoubtedly aware it is primary season for the 2008 presidential election, and anyone who has spoken with me recently knows that I am way caught up into the mix of things. What I want to address today is the issue of gun control and gun ownership; more specifically, some misconceptions associated with this contentious issue.

Straight out of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, the second amendment reads as follows:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

There can be no denying — and there really hasn’t been — the rights of Americans to own guns under the Constitution. Where the debate arises is whether having these guns in homes around the country provides for a more dangerous, crime-laden society. It is here where the partisan card comes into play.

Democrats would say yes, guns make society more dangerous for everyone, and they should be outlawed. Republicans would say it’s not the guns it’s the people using them, and we have a right to own them you can’t take them away. Now, I’m not here to try to convert anyone’s political views, but let’s at least consider why the founding fathers gave us the right to bare arms.

America was a dangerous time back in the late 1700s, with the revolutionary war and fighting the Indians, but that’s not why we were allowed to own guns. Americans were fighting a war for independence from a tyrannical British government, and when they got it they didn’t want to have to fight a future one against more tyranny.

So, the ability of Americans to own guns comes from the need to prevent a ruling, tyrannical class from emerging. The right to bare arms means that Americans always have the ability to take back their government from a ruling elite, by force if necessary. Citizen gun ownership protects civilians from malicious governments intent on eliminating freedom.

One of the first things Hitler did in Germany was take away the guns from citizens so that they couldn’t rise up against him. And the Soviets, one of the first acts they would do when spreading their communism was take away guns from the local population. And we know what happened to these societies once they lost their guns.

So, whether you think guns lead to a violent society or not, gun ownership is a vital part of American freedom because it gives people the capacity to take back their government when it has gone too far.

Also, of note to fervent anti-gun individuals, consider this case study, in which a town that banned guns saw an immediate crime increase of 15% and decreased population over 25 years, whereas a town that mandated guns for all households has not had a single fatal shooting in the 25 years since the law was passed and has seen a boom in population.

Denmark-based Saxo Bank is predicting nothing short of economic chaos spanning the entire globe in 2008. The bank claims that the price of oil will surge to $175 per barrel, leading to economic collapses of 25% and 40% by the United States and China, respectively. Furthermore, they anticipate grain prices to double and one-third of large U.S. building companies to go bankrupt. All of this traced to the mortgage crisis in the US that has already slowed down the economy significantly.

Not all is lost, however, as the bank predicts Texas Republican Ron Paul to take the White House in 2008. Also, if the US economy were to slow down as predicted, oil consumption would decrease thus driving down price as well. But, if the Neo-Cons were to launch an attack against Iran — God forbid — the price of oil could catapult up to $250 per barrel.

I know what you’re thinking, as it was probably the first thing I was thinking when I read this article. However, before you dismiss all of this as non-sensical rubbish, know that most of Saxo Bank’s predictions for 2007 came true, so clearly they know what they’re doing and this isn’t some hogwash list put together by some Europeans hungover from too much Christmas Eggnog.

Democrats have their reasons for wanting to bring the troops home. Republicans have their own reasons for wanting to keep the troops there. You may have your own reasons for why you want the troops to come home or stay put. The bottom line: nobody’s opinion matters. Democrats, Republicans, you, me, everyone else, all of our opinions mean absolutely nothing. There is one single reason to bring the troops home that supersedes all other arguments: simple human morals and decency.

Yesterday President Bush visited the Center for the Intrepid at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas, which yielded a number of photo ops with the president for injured Army soldiers. The photos are incredibly gut-wrenching and make you want to burst into tears.

It’s very easy to lose track of what is happening on the other side of the globe during the hustle and bustle of everyday life here in America, and I think every American needs to see these photos and be reminded of just what is happening over there.

To let me further drill home the point, these photos are just of American soldiers. Let us not forget the hundreds of thousands of civilians that have died and millions injured just like in these photographs. Every human life shares an equal value. American, Iraqi, Afghani, we are all equal.

I cannot comprehend how a president can continue to subject human beings to such brutal conditions, let alone go and visit some of the ones he is responsible for maiming. This war needs to end, and it doesn’t matter who stops it or who’s right or wrong we can figure that out later. Just stop the killing and injuring of human beings just like you and me. End the war, now!

Courtesy of Christopher Knight in Rockingham County, North Carolina. There truly are no words to convey just how amazing this campaign ad is, so I’ll let this this YouTube video speak for itself.

If only G-Dubya had this guy as a member of his cabinet…

I don’t know that many Americans truly thought FOX News was a fair and balanced news network to begin with, but now a video has emerged featuring former FOX News employees speaking out against some of the tactics used by the network.

The video is a bit long — nearly 10 minutes — but well worth every second of your time. Here it is:

The LA Times is reporting that security officials at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) missed 75% of fake explosives in a series of 70 tests. What makes it further embarrassing is that LAX screeners are given four hours of security training each week, with the final hour concentrating specifically on detecting explosive devices.

To their credit, Nico Melendez, spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), says that the tests were conducted in 2006 and that the data should be considered old. However I can’t imagine that the situation has improved much over the past year. As a frequent business traveler who flies through airports around the country, I must say that LAX does have one of the most expedient security lines, especially given the size of the airport.

If you really think about it, we are lucky that there haven’t been any additional incidents since the horrific attacks on 9/11. I don’t think any American will concede that we’re doing all we can in terms of airport security. That being said, it’s a fine-line between strong security and excessive police-state like security.

In any event, let’s hope the TSA can improve on this figure, for yours, mine and everybody else’s sake. Our lives just might depend on it.

A confidential transcript of a meeting between President Bush and then-Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar has been published in the El Pais Daily, a left wing newspaper. In the transcript, dated February 22, 2003, Bush tells Aznar that nations like Mexico, Angola, Chile and Cameroon have to understand that the security of the United State is at stake. Specifically, Bush said that Angola would lose financial aid and Chile’s free-trade agreement with the U.S. would never make it out of the Senate.

Further, in the wake of an unsuccessful UN Security Council lobby by Bush to bolster support for a war with Iraq, coupled with millions of Spanish protesting in the streets of Madrid, Aznar called on Bush to help him boost Spanish public opinion of the war and said he was worried by Bush’s optimism. Bush’s response — and this is what most disturbs me — was:

“I am optimistic because I believe I am right. I am at peace with myself.”

How can any leader, including Bush, be at peace with themselves during the build-up to a war? War is one of the most horrifying atrocities human beings engage in, as the end result is always the same thing: death. It takes a truly evil and soulless man to be at peace with himself before and during wartime. Even if Bush didn’t care about all of the Iraqi lives (which he most certainly did not), how could he be at peace with sending thousands of Americans to die overseas?

This article should be a wake up call to U.S. citizens. If our President doesn’t have the moral capacity to cherish and value the lives of Americans and humans in general, then how will he know when the war and death and killing has gone too far and it’s time to end it and bring the troops home? He won’t.

This story represents a perfect example of why the government needs to be limited in its power and why our privacy as citizens needs to be protected. Benjamin Robinson, a 40-year old government agent from Oakland, CA within the Department of Commerce, has been charged with illegally accessing a Homeland Security Database in order to stalk his ex-girlfriend and her family. His indictment by a federal grand jury in San Jose this week was in connection with allegations that he accessed the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS) over 163 times to track the woman’s movements.

Robinson is being charged with making false claims to a government agency and unlawfully accessing data from a protected computer (seems the computer wasn’t very secure at all). If found guilty, Robinson could face a $500,000 fine and a maximum of up to 10 years in prison.

The scariest thing about all of this is that if this individual got caught, imagine all of those who haven’t gotten caught and are spying on us. Everyone kind of expected in the back of their minds that this could happen, and it’s sobering to see it actually happening as perhaps this can actually incite some people to act. The only way to stop government spying on citizens is to limit the power of the government.

On “The Word” segment of his September 19, 2007 “The Colbert Report,” host Stephen Colbert criticized the youth generation of today for doing nothing about the problems in society. It all started with the University of Florida student who was tasered during a John Kerry speech. The inaction of the student’s peers caused Colbert to make the following remarks:

“Look at these guys in the back,” Colbert said, pointing out one frame from the video of the event. “You don’t need a Fox body language expert to tell you that kid in orange is bored. He’s probably thinking something like, ‘I wish they’d stop tasering this guy so I could go home and watch this guy getting tasered on YouTube.’”

“One thing you can’t argue is that his cause was joined by hordes of no one. … Students used to be a rebellious bunch. … Today’s kids are so different.”

“The kids in that auditorium who sat idly by as their fellow student was seized, thrown to the ground, and tasered didn’t lack the courage to help,” Colbert added. “They’re just so used to watching videos like ‘Crazy guys thrown out of lecture hall’ that they didn’t know how to help other than to link to it. I’m sure that guy in the orange is going to spring into action as soon as he gets home and fires up his blog.”

“And that’s what’s so great about this new kind of activism,” Colbert remarked. “It’s convenient. Just like masturbation. It’s better than sex because it’s on your own time. So … make me proud, young people. Continue waging your protests from the polite distance of your home computers. Make ‘the Man’ wish he’d never visited your site. And if a fellow-student is denied the right to speak, remember, the best way to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with him is by sitting alone in your seat.”

Here is the video in its entirety:

It’s sad to say but Colbert is absolutely 100% on point with these statements. Sure it’s an entirely different generation with an entirely different lifestyle, but the fact remains that the general public does not gather collectively to demand a particular action of the government. How many people complain online about the expanding of Bush’s spy program, or about the unending Iraq war? Thousands if not millions. But how many of them march on Washington to show their opposition? None. If millions of people were to converge on Washington demanding an end to the Iraq war and would not leave you can bet the troops would start coming home by Christmas.

While it is good that at least people are speaking out in some sort of fashion, writing about problems doesn’t go far enough. Your support and time needs to be given to those causes that you hold dear to your heart. So if you haven’t done anything to support something you believe in lately, I encourage you to go out and make a small gesture. Acting alone behind our computers won’t do anything except consume bandwidth, but acting together we have the ability to change the world.

Remember, as Abraham Lincoln pointed out, that our government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”