Ah, But the Libyan Civil War Continueth - Next Comes Syria?

Apparently, some folks are calling for a coalition and "no fly zone" in Syria to prevent the slaughter of civilians from the Assad government and military there. Yes, it has been nothing short of brutal and atrocious. There has been a case precedents here recently, namely Libya and thus, perhaps the cash-strapped nations of NATO in Europe might go for another foray. There is also a green-light coming from the Arab neighbors for intervention, aid to the people, or even weapons for the rebels there. The humanitarian crisis is big, and it's serious.
Syria isn't exactly the same situation as in Libya, but it might be at least similar enough to have such an option on the table, and still look the international community in the eyes if something doesn't work out as planned, as in a much larger scale war erupting involving Russia and Iran for instance. There was a rather unfortunate story in the world media recently; "Libya's oil-rich east declares autonomy," which was reported on March 8, 2012, one of the more popular stories running through the internet stated;
"The declaration of an autonomous region in Cyrenaica in eastern Libya, which contains most of the country's oil, is the most serious threat to central authority in post-revolutionary Libya and could disrupt oil flows already threatened by the Persian Gulf crisis. The congressional declaration of 2,000 eastern political and tribal leaders in Benghazi, is a potentially serious blow to the shaky and fractious National Transitional Council, Libya's interim government based in Tripoli in the west."
Ah, a declaration of independence do we have now, well as you know those are generally considered fighting words, but with a now weakened central government in Libya, I ask; will we see some more re-drawing of maps on the African Continent in short order. It wasn't that long ago when Sudan divided itself in half, after a civil war, and with huge implications to oil flows.
If we are looking at Libya for the model here, well, it isn't exactly going too well, or over yet. If we are looking for Tunisia for the model of an Arab Spring or even Egypt for that matter, well, nothing is settled there either, including the dust. Therefore, if we do decide it is prudent to move on Syria, then we have to treat it as a totally separate case, unlike the others in many regards, and with even more far reaching implications for the region, some outcomes could be extremely fruitful, others, well, not so much.
Indeed, we should approach any potential solution with skepticism based on what we've learned, and yet not assume too many congruent similarities or potential eventualities the results of any action taken. Please consider all this and think on it.

Draft Violent Young Offenders Into the Military

Like many other people, I'm sick of the culture of youth and gang brutality that is making life hell for people in many neighborhoods of America and any number of other countries. I would like to propose a solution to this problem - a solution that will not only go a long way to solving this problem but will also solve many others.
Many perpetrators of youth and gang violence aren't deterred by the threat of prison. Many of them know how to handle prison and do not care if they wind up in a cell. But there is something that the government can do that will effectively deter them from their brutality while also saving money and making them better citizens. And this is as follows:
Draft violent youth offenders into the military.
It takes $36,000 a year to keep an offender behind bars. While there, they learn from more experienced criminals and come out more effective at doing what they do. The prison system costs vastly to the taxpayer and, in this case, is counterproductive. The prison becomes a center for hardening criminals and making them more set in criminal ways, courtesy the taxpayer.
Whereas if these people go to the army, then they'll come out better citizens. A lot of them want to be strong and tough people; in military they'll find out what being strong and tough actually is. They will also find out the meaning of discipline, principle and honor. And when they come out, they will not be hardened criminals but rather productive and contributing citizens who are not just the strong and tough men that they want to be, but also principled and disciplined strong and tough men.
This will achieve several benefits all at once. For one thing, it will act as an effective deterrent against youth brutality. Military is tough enough that even the toughest among these people will find it a challenge - enough to give them a second thought before killing, raping or battering another person. Secondly, it will make people who otherwise would be lifelong criminals into productive citizens, and they will be adding to the country instead of costing to the country. Finally, the military will avail itself of a pool of suitable recruits - people who've already seen conditions of war and will find it easier to become functional soldiers than would many other potential recruits.
So my proposal is: If you've committed a violent crime, it's army for you young man.
With close to 2 million people in prison, America leads the world in incarceration rates. This has not solved the problem of youth and gang brutality that continues to plague many American communities. These people are doing nothing for America and are costing it vastly. If they instead are drafted into the military, they will be adding to America. And the threat of being drafted will give them something to ponder before they decide to shoot, rape or batter their neighbor.
Given continued threats to America's national security, America clearly needs a sizable military. There are some people who want to reinstall a universal draft; but that causes all sorts of problems. Namely, it fills the military with people who are not fit for military service, who either get shot or come back with PTSD. The people who are already violent and aggressive are much more naturally fit for military service; and instead of them shooting up the hood and winding up in prison they will do much better for their country, for themselves and for their neighborhoods if they instead go into the military.
Drafting young violent offenders into the military will deter youth brutality, save taxpayer money, and make people who otherwise would be criminals into productive citizens. Their neighborhoods will benefit, their country will benefit, and ultimately so will these people themselves. They'll learn discipline and functionality in the military and will become honest, productive citizens. And that will go a long way to improving the situation in these communities as much as it will go a long way to benefiting the country.

Autonomous Unmanned Aerial System Delivering Newspapers to Doorsteps - I Want the Future Now

The other day, someone had contacted me from India about unmanned ground vehicles, an engineer who also had some interest in UAVs and UASs (unmanned aerial vehicles and unmanned aerial systems) mostly for military and defensive purposes. Apparently, India has removed Israel as a vendor for such, and they hope to build some of these units in-house in the future. But, it seemed to me that to have a legitimate conversation about unmanned autonomous or tele-robotically tethered unmanned technologies, one should be thinking a bit wider on the spectrum of applications, not just military. Okay so, let's talk shall we?
Far too often, I note that researchers and engineers are so busy discussing things in their own niche and for their own applications that they miss off the shelf products, and other ways of doing things in other industries. I find this to be a mistake because it is just this kind of linear thinking which reduces creativity, options, and makes problem-solving more difficult. Now then, the other day I was joking around with someone telling them that I was upset the newspaper delivery boy never got the newspaper exactly in the same place each day.
Further, sometimes it would land in the flower bed, or in the sprinklers, and even if the newspaper comes in a plastic wrap, it still has the opportunity to get soaked or ruined. It seems to me that a robotic system could deliver the newspaper quite a bit better. For instance and unmanned ground vehicle which knew the paper route, and since it was driving in the middle of the night, there would be less traffic on the roads for it to get into any kind of a problem. Further, because robots do not use eyesight, it hardly matters if it is during the night time or daytime, you can just adjust the optical flow sensors, lidar, stereo sonar, infrared system, or other sensors on the robotic unit for darkness.
And then it occurred to me; why use and unmanned ground vehicle, when you could use a small electric UAV? It wouldn't awaken anyone in the neighborhood, and since it would be flying around, a dog wouldn't be able to attack it. It could deliver the newspaper to the exact spot each and every day on your doorstep, and then fly away. Perhaps to a docking station on an unmanned ground vehicle which parks down the street in the neighborhood, and thus, could deliver 5 to 6 newspapers at a time.
Now then, if you wanted to develop this same system for military use, you would've solved almost every problem that the military has with the small unmanned vehicles, while you solved a real application in the real world. One which might even save the newspaper industry which is in a terrible world of hurt due to the rising costs, and trying to compete with online media. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

You Are a Terrible Person Because Someone Took Something You Said Out of Context - Huh?

The other day, I was looking at a media poll, it was on one of the left-leaning news stations, and I was alarmed at their reasoning. You see, they had taken something at of context that one of the GOP candidates had said on the road. Then they played it over and over again critiquing his words. Now mind you it was definitely out of context, nevertheless at the end of the programming they did a little survey and asked people to Twitter, or text message the answer to their survey.
Next, they put the survey on TV showing that 67% of the people disapproved of what was said, and thought that the politician in question should not be president. Okay so, let's talk about this for second shall we?
It seems to me this is mass mind manipulation and brainwashing. Basically the media company is leading the answer to the viewers, and then posting the results of how many people they were able to snooker who called in to participate in a survey. This shows me of their ability to brainwash, and has very little to do with the individual who said something, that perhaps they should've said, because they should've known that the leftist media would've taken it out of context, which they did.
Apparently, our media has the ability to slander and berate someone as a terrible person, after they take something they said out of context. That's interesting isn't it? But isn't that really just office gossip gone wild? Isn't the media in this case just pandering to the inherent behavioral challenges of humans in mass mobs? Is that really all the better we are, is that all the better we can do in America? Is that the level of intelligence that we've come to expect? How is it that America has been so dummied down that they fall for this garbage hook, line, and sinker like a school of fish?
You are not a terrible person because someone said you were, you can only be a terrible person if you are a terrible person. Slandering someone's good name just because they are a politician is exactly why we don't have very many good people running for office. Because as soon as someone who is decent runs for office, this is what the media does to them, and our society follows. They build them up just to burn down, and the reality is they just don't care. Of course, a politician can run for office without saying anything, but as soon as they say something, someone blows it out of proportion, takes it out of context, and sends it viral across the Internet.
It's time for America to grow up. It's time for the media to catch a clue. If they have to use these types of innuendos, and create this type of sound and fury just to get people to tune in, then there's no wonder why they are going out of business. And if that were not for election seasons, they'd already have gone bankrupt. Maybe they are no longer needed, maybe their future demise is their own fault? Please consider all this and think on it.

Remembering Ravana - The King of Lanka

Ravana was the king of Lanka. In Indian folklore he abducted Sita the wife of Lord Rama and took her to Lanka (Ceylon). Rama then mounted an invasion army that crossed to Sri Lanka. In an epic battle Ravana was defeated and killed and the Lord Rama brought Sita back. This is all related in the Ramayana. He is reported to have ruled during the period 2554-2517 BC. Ravana was supposed to have 10 heads, but Lankans feel that this represented the 10 kingdoms that he ruled. Ravana is very much a historical figure and historians generally credit him as the ruler of Lanka with his headquarters at Polonnaruwa which is located in North Central Sri Lanka.
There has been a revival of sorts in Lanka and it is pointed out that Ravana had made great advances and also invented the pushpaka vimana or the airplane. In addition he is held in high regard as a physician. 7 medical books are credited to Ravana which were originally written in Sinhala and later translated to Sanskrit. Ravana's medical books are NadiPariksha, Arka Prakashata, Uddisa Chiktsaya, Oddiya Chikitsa, Kumara Tantraya and Vatina Prakaranaya.
Hindu texts of that period also credit Ravana as a man who ruled the 3 worlds and was a follower of Shiva, the creator and destroyer. He is reported to have been administered the juice of immortality by Shiva. He had also mastered the Vedas and all the religious books of the Hindus.
Hindu texts also agree that Ravana was a virile king, who was fond of women, his favorite wife being Mandodri. Indian texts in particular the Ramayana mention that Ravana abducted the lovely Sita from the Jungles of central India and took her to Lanka.
Why did Ravana abduct Sita? The Ramayana mentions he did this as an act of revenge for his sister Supernlakha, whose nose had been chopped off by the brother of Rama, Laxman. When Ravana took Sita to Lanka he kept her with him in a separate palace in Central Lanka. He visited her everyday and lavished gifts and presents on Sita. The Ramayana mentions that during this entire period of captivity of Sita, she remained chaste. This does not gel with the actual facts as a beautiful woman in the custody of a powerful king cannot be left untouched.
Hindu texts do not discuss the relationship of Ravana and Sita in any detail. He did lavish gifts on her but the core issue is untouched. As Rama was the 9th avatar of Vishnu perhaps in deference to Rrama this issue is left untouched. But now people in the 21st century can draw their own conjectures.