If anything, these new uncovered terrorist plans in London, where a terrorist cell was to explode bombs in several US bound British aircraft, reveal the need to remain vigilant in the war on terrorism. But saying so and doing so are entirely different matters, and the United States must remember to continue doing so, AND saying so, and not just choosing the latter.

First, it should be remembered that our airlines are not immune. In the years after 9/11, people have begun to feel like US airways are no longer vulnerable to attack, either because of the new tougher security measures, or because Al Qaeda is simply working on a different plan, having used airlines successfully. In short, some people think Al Qaeda has moved on.

This is not true. Al Qaeda will stick with what they know, and what they have proven works. Airlines are incredibly vulnerable, especially from Al Qaeda, who have proven time and again their ability to destroy airlines of western nations.

• The most prime example, is obviously 9/11. But in the past 20 years, there have been countless Al Qaeda sponsored, or Al Qaeda related terrorist attacks or attempted attacks involving airplanes.
• In 1995, Ramzi Yousef, responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and Khalid Shiekh Mohammed concocted a plot to destroy 11-12 American bound jets over the Pacific ocean. This plot was only thwarted after an accidental fire burned down their explosives cache.
• In December 2001, Richard Reid was arrested for trying to ignite a bomb in his shoe.
• In November 2003, Sajid Badat, a co-conspirator of Richard Reid was arrested in Great Britain for a similar shoe bomb.
• In September 2004, US Officials uncovered another shoe bomb in a California Postal facility.

These are several examples of attacks on US airplanes in just the past 10 years. Before 1995 there were many other attempts to destroy US aircraft. It proves that airplanes are, and continue to be reliable, and especially vulnerable targets for terrorist strikes, and shows that the United States must do more to protect our aircraft and our passengers from terrorists.

But some other questions arise as well about this terrorist plot. For starters, have the Jihadists already analyzed the security in place on these aircraft? Did they ride around for months discovering weaknesses? If so, why weren't they discovered? Do we need to update our counterterrorism efforts to catch them?

Also, we should step up our counterterrorism efforts in general. The Jihadists may have someone on the inside, either in Britain, the United States, or both. This cannot be allowed. But it does seem odd that the Jihadists repeatedly attack our biggest vulnerabilities. How do they know where we are vulnerable?

And if there isn't someone on the inside, the question still stands. How do they know where to hit us? And most of all, what can we do about it?

These questions are important, because the answers will determine the future of the war on terrorism. The US, and the world at large must remember the scope of the struggle we are in. It is a world wide war against the evil of Jihadism, a modern day equivalent to Nazism. We cannot give up now. It would be similar to Eisenhower suddenly calling it quits two days before Normandy.

We didn't quit in World War II, when we fought the evils of fascism. Why should we quit now when we fight the evil of religious fascism?

Early this morning, London time, British authorities working off information received from an undercover MI5 operative deep within terrorist organizations possibly linked to Al Qaeda, arrested 24 people in connection with a plot to hijack and explode several US bound British airplanes. Intelligence officials report that the money trail lead directly to Pakistan's largest city, Karachi, where money for the operation was wired directly to London.

24 Britons of Pakistani descent were reportedly only "days away" from a test run of their plan, using Peroxide based liquid explosives to do massive damage to several US bound jets. The group, numbering at least 30 terrorists, planned to use liquid explosives concealed in sports drink containers, and detonate the mixture by flashes from disposable cameras.

The targeted airlines were United, American, and Continental, as well as several British airlines. The plane destinations included New York, Washington and Los Angeles, all major population centers in the US mainland.

Experts speculate that there may be a link to Al Qaeda, because of many key points similar to past Al Qaeda plots. The plan is large in scale - exploding bombs on 6 to 10 different airplanes - and designed to target both civilians, and the general economy of the country upon which the attacks took place.

Osama Bin Laden promised in October 2002 to wage war against the economies of the western nations. It is reasonable then to assume that the airline industry would be at or near the top of the list of targets for Al Qaeda for several reasons, most of which is, perhaps, their obvious vulnerability.

Unfortunately, the five key members of the terror cell responsible for this plot are still at large, and an extensive manhunt is underway in both the UK and the world at large. The ringleader of this operation is believed to be one Matiur Rehman, a 29 year old Al Qaeda commander known to be planning a massive terror demonstration to mark the 5th anniversary of 9/11, which could very well have been this operation.

This terrorist attack is very important for the world. Not only does it illustrate the threat from global jihadism, but it cements the US position that the war on terror is both necessary and righteous, and that terrorists must be defeated so they cannot do us harm. It also demonstrates the ability of law enforcement to adapt to new situations, and work in coordination with each other, and in haste to stop plots before they become anything more then plots.

Finally and above all, it proves that the US is not free from the threat of terrorism. It proves that we must remain vigilant, and that we must work incessantly to defeat these terrorist, or be defeated ourselves.

3 of the 11 missing Egyptian students have been found, one in Minneapolis, near where I live. This illustrates the alarming need in the United States for better security measures. Not only are we floundering to find them once they are loose, but we shouldn't have allowed them here in the first place.

What if they were terrorists with bombs? They could have blown up several buildings by now all over the country. And we KNEW THEY WERE HERE. Imagine what the terrorists we don't know about could do. The sleeper cells of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, and other organizations.

We must have better measures at home for finding and rooting out terrorists. This example clearly illustrates that, though since 9/11 we have made remarkable progress, we still have an infinitely long way to go.

This is the best site for 24 gossip and information about the show.

Even more entertaining is the campaign to have Jack Bauer run for senate in Connecticut... And New York.

Jack Bauer For Senate!

France is going to become an Islamic republic, and sooner rather than later if they do not do something to protect themselves from the stupidity of their government.

After spending all last week in session with the United States, working diligently to craft a solution to the Israeli-Lebanese conflict, the French suddenly changed their minds and decided to support the Arab League in calling for an immediate withdrawl of Israel from Lebanon as a condition of any cease fire.

Jacques Chirac even went so far as to say anyone who did not do so was immoral. That urging Israel give in to bloodthirsty terrorists is somehow moral... that giving IN to the terrorists is somehow morally just.

I'm sorry, but the French have become a danger to the world. Their support of Islamic radicalism is frightening to say the least. Some try to blame only the French government, and indeed they are responsible for a good deal of the blame. But who elected them? The French People. Do the French really believe what their leaders say? That the US is bad, that Israel is bad, and that Hezbollah is good? That we should try and end the war on terror because some innocents might die?

There is more important news out of Israel today. By far the most important piece, and that with the greatest implications, is the discovery of Iranian soldiers, fighting alongside Hezbollah. This is after repeated attempts by Iran to claim it is not involved in the conflict. Though as yet the report is still wary, I will be keeping track of it and updating this blog when I get some new info.

The implications of this are huge. If Iran is involved, this should be a justification for US entry into the conflict, on Israel's side. Iran has been, and continues to be a force against democracy and freedom, a supporter of terrorism, and a fascist society, run by men who want nothing more than the destruction of the west, and in particular, Israel and the United States.

Furthermore, Iran is interested in developing nuclear weapons, and they are seeking to be a major player in the region. If they have their hand in the Lebanon conflict, it signals a desire for two things. The first, is war against Israel. The second, is war against the United States. Though I contend that they declared war against the US when they took our hostages in the 1970's.

The United States cannot stand by while radical governments like Iran attempt to take over the mideast. We made that mistake with Hitler in the 1930's. We should never make it again. Dictators are like mold. They spread with an increasing rate. We must not allow this dictator to get any larger than he already is, or the consequences for the world will be dire indeed.

Yet there is still more news coming from Israel. The cabinet approved a massive ground invasion today, one with over 30,000 Israeli troops. This is important, though again, Israel should have done this a month ago. They are working to establish a 20 mile buffer zone south of the Litani river, which should push Hezbollah rockets out of range, or nearly out of range of the Israeli border.

It is good that Israel is finally beginning to realize what is necessary to fight this war, but it is a little upsetting that it took them a month to do so. Still, they have a better record than the American government, who has not been able to fight a war properly since World War II. Yet I still believe more steps are needed.

The ground invasion will be helpful, but wouldn't it be more helpful if there weren't so many troublesome buildings in the way? Or so many places terrorists could hide in and take refuge? I think it's pretty clear that most Lebanese civilians have left south Lebanon (finally). Israel should use this to their advantage, and level the entire area while the danger is light.

This way, massive amounts of Hezbollah will be killed, but it will increase the effectiveness of the ground search for the terrorists, because there will be fewer places to hide. Again, this seems like basic common sense from a war perspective - give the enemies less places to hide and they are easier to find.

Finding the enemy in this conflict is the toughest goal of all.

In a stroke of military brilliance, Israel is finally beginning to fight a war like they mean to win. Prior to now it has been one measured response after another, and the fighting was all for nothing. Neither side gained.

Now, Israel is finally beginning to use its military superiority to crush its enemies. Not only have they implemented a mandatory 10pm curfew, but they have claimed that any vehicle south of the Litani river would be a target.

These two measures are of dramatic military importance. First, most of the Hezbollah rocket attacks come from the back of launchers. These are on the backs of trucks that carry them around from place to place. If Israel vows to bomb all vehicles they can find, they will hit Hezbollah more often then not.

Furthermore, if they hit a civilian, the civilians have been warned. If you are south of the Litani river, GET OUT OF THERE. Also, this puts the terrorists in a pickle. Sure, they can leave the area and remain safe. However, then their Katushya rockets, their primary weapon used against Israel, will be out of range to hit Israel at all, so many of their rockets will be useless.

If however, they remain in the area to fight, they will be swiftly blown up by Israeli ordinance. This too will diminish the capacity of Hezbollah to carry out their attacks - which is just what this entire conflict is about.

The nationwide curfew is also important. It essentially states that anybody on the street after 10pm is also a target. And this is true. There is no reason to be out on the street, at night, in a war zone, ESPECIALLY after you have been warned. The only people who are going to be out on the streets are those that have to. And the only people that have to, are Hezbollah terrorists, engaging in their next attack on Israel.

If you feel these measures are harsh, remember two things. First, it is a war, and war is hell. Second, catching guerilla's and terrorists is notoriously hard. The US has had trouble with it in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, and other places like this. Harsher measures must be taken to root them out.

We could just kill everyone. That would kill terrorists. But I'm sure the world would have a fit if we did that (I remain opposed to this stance, though only slightly). So we can't kill them all, but we must do SOMETHING. That something is imposing curfews and no-drive zones.

This way, anyone in those areas is probably a terrorist anyway. They can be blown up. If they aren't, then it is just a civilian who died because of their refusal to leave a WAR ZONE.

I rest my case.

This is really no surprise, at least to me. According to a new study, teens whose IPOD's are crammed full of raunchy, sexually explicit lyrics are more likely to have sex earlier than teens who listen to other types of music. Though the type of music was irrelevant in the study, a majority of the sexually explicit lyrics comes from the hip-hop and rap genres of music.

The worst lyrics are those that portray men as sex-charged maniacs, and women as objects of sexual desire. Teens listening to lyrics that portary people as such were more then 51% more likely to start having sex within two years, compared to 29% of those who said they listen to no or little sexually degrading music.

Though this is not a surprise to me, it must be looked at carefully. There are some who call for censorship of all degrading material. In a perfect world, that would be nice, but we do not live in a perfect world. You cannot censor music any more than you can censor the internet. However, there is a responsibility involved with these lyrics, both by the parent and by the child.

Children must learn that even if a song is sexually explicit, that does not mean it is Ok. They must learn what the sexual norms of society are, and they must be taught that men are not all sex-charged maniacs, and to act like one puts you at odds with normal society. Male children must further understand that females are not there just to please them.

That said, the parents have a responsibility as well. And theirs is twofold. First, they must know what kind of music their kids listen to. They must set limits as to what kind of music is acceptable and what kind of music is unacceptable, depending on the maturity of their child, as well as the age. If a parent is kept out of the loop, they cannot expect to do any decent parenting.

Parents should also take the time to explain to their children why the material they are listening to is wrong, and exactly what is wrong with it. This is time consuming and uncomfortable to many parents, but it must be done. Children and Teens must understand that sex is normal, but the way sex is portrayed in these songs is not, and that it is often even criminal to act out sex in the ways these songs portray.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, more than 24,000 children are treated each year for "shopping-cart related injuries," prompting them to call for the carts to be changed. They say most injuries occur when children are not strapped in and fall over while standing, though some can occur even if the child is strapped in properly.

I just found this story amusing. "Shopping cart related injuries." I think, what is this world coming to? All of the problems there are with children's health - kids dying of terminal cancer, AIDS, and other deadly diseases - and the American Academy of Pediatrics has time to deal with shopping carts? Most problems with shopping carts are not the kids - kids will be unruly. It's what young children do.

The problem is with the parents who do not keep close enough eye on their offspring, allowing them to do foolish and dangerous things, like standing in a shopping cart, or sitting improperly. I have never had an accident with a shopping cart, and neither has anybody I've ever known, because we all have the common sense God gave us, and to use seatbelts and keep an eye on our kids.

Google announced today that they will begin a program to warn users if they are about to enter a site with malicious spyware or adware, or other programs that might be undesireable to the user.

The warnings will be fairly generic to begin with, but as developers visit various sites and discover just what programs appear, and what their effect on users PC's are, the warnings will become more specific.

A search done in May 2006 revealed that during an average internet search, 4% - 6% of all results lead to sites with harmful content on them. Some searches, like "free screensavers," or "nude women" leap up to 64% or higher.

Though it will be an annoyance to the viewers of hardcore pornography, to the average joe, this should be a handy feature. Spyware and Adware is generally more dangerous than viruses, because most computers have some form of anti-virus protection. Many computers have no protection from spyware and adware, and many uninformed users do not know their PC's are infected at all.

I think the Google warnings will be a big help to stop developers of Adware and Spyware from releasing it into computers.

And if you haven't done so already, I would recommend you get some spyware protection for your computer. Spybot is an excellent free download, but there are also good programs you can buy from any local software store. Don't forget to run it, and don't forget to update it once a week or so, because new types of spyware and adware are always being developed.

Janet Jackson, the 40 year old singer is going to pose nude in the September Issue of Vibe Magazine, to hit newsstands August 15th. She says in an interview that she has put the Superbowl halftime incident - referred to as "nipple gate" or the "bra-ha-ha" behind her, and that she is ready to move on. "It's History," she says.

The pose is partly to promote her upcoming album, and partly to gain publicity.

As if she needs any more publicity... Is it just me or is the entire Jackson family completely insane? When one of them is molesting little boys and turning his face from human to alien, the other is posing topless to get publicity.

Why do celebrities (and others for that matter) believe they have to pose nude to gain publicity? Nudity was unheard of before the 1950's Playboy hit the shelves. How did famous people get publicity then? Film stars became famous for... being in movies. Rock stars became famous for... playing music.

What exactly does Janet Jackson contribute to society? When she's not flashing someone, she's putting out an album of obnoxious filth, though this is hardly a surprise coming from the Jackson clan. Janet Jackson, like Mel Gibson, is annoying.

I wish she would just go away.

U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney, from east Atlanta, is fighting to hold on to her congressional seat. In the Democratic primary, her challenger Hank Johnson came within 1,700 votes of defeating her, calling for the runoff.

These runoff elections begin tomorrow morning and end at the usual time, and will determine the democratic contender for the house seat in November. During the primary, Johnson emphasized much of McKinney's controversial behaviors - like her scuffle with U.S. Capitol policemen, and claimed she was ineffective in Washington.

Since the primary, McKinney has been working hard to keep her seat, including making radio and television appearances, and holding a press conference. She says that she is "not perfect, but I've worked hard, told you the truth and I'm not afraid to speak truth to power."

But she is not only facing challenges from Democrats. Some Republicans are choosing to vote in this runoff election as well, just so they can vote against Cynthia McKinney. Though these crossover voters are less likely to be an issue in this election, since only those who did not vote GOP in the primary are eligible to vote Democrat in this runoff.

Now, as much as I would like to leave Cynthia McKinney in office, just to make the fools in her district suffer from her embarassment and stupidity, I believe it is better for the country if she get summarily ousted from office. Though I do not want Hank Johnson to win, and I wish his Republican challenger luck in November, I do not want to see Cynthia McKinney on the ballot.

Our political system has become so corrupt that members of congress are able to assault police officers, accept bribes, and commit manslaughter and still be allowed to retain the seat in the House or Senate. The good voters of Georgia can take one small step to fix the problem, but ousting corrupt and even criminal officeholder, Cynthia McKinney.

Our political system is not invulnerable. If too much corruption and waste take hold, it will fail like all systems before it. We must be careful and ensure that this does not happen. And the only way to do that is with our voices and our votes.

Like the energizer bunny, this woman keeps going and going. Cindy Sheehan, the venerable anti-war protestor whose son died fighting in Iraq has purchased a small parcel of vacant land in Crawford Texas, about seven miles from President Bush's Crawford ranch. She says that she plans to register to vote in Texas, and to get a Texas driver's license. The land was purchased with insurance money she got from her sons death.

Together with 50 protesters, she has set up shop again in Crawford, no doubt annoying the poor residents of the town. She expects the protest to grow, and be as large again as the protest last year.

"Last summer we made a commitment to be here every time George Bush was supposed to be on vacation because he never met with me last summer. The troops are still in Iraq," she says, her justification for visiting the ranch on a yearly basis.

So let me get this straight. Because the President of the United States met with you, but wouldn't meet with you again (he does after all have a country to run), he does not deserve a vacation? This is childish logic. I'll just annoy them until I get my way.

Well I hate to break it to you sister, but that kind of thinking doesn't work once you get past the fourth grade. I'm certain Bush pays no heed to this woman or her rantings outside his home. If I were Bush, I'd just close the blinds and enjoy my vacation.

If anybody needs to take a vacation it is Cindy Sheehan. She has been annoying for far too long. She needs to build herself a home in some turd world country like Venezuala, and be as far removed from America as possible.

Tony Snow, White house press secretary took the words right out of my mouth.

"I would advise her to bring water, Gatorade or both. Honestly, when you're talking about the kind of issues that we're talking about, Cindy Sheehan hasn't risen to the level of staff meetings at this point.''

This is a good idea. Have a gatorade, and be quiet.

Chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said today that Iran would continue its nuclear program regardless of a UN resolution asking Iran to suspend uranium enrichment activities by August 31.

"They must understand the resolution can not affect our decision, we reject it and will pursue the nuclear rights of Iranian people," he told reporters during his press conference Sunday. He also offered to expand their nuclear program, explaining their desire to build more centrifuges (which are used to enrich uranium).

Larijani expresses his desire to negotiate with the proposed aid package from the six-party talks earlier this year, but explains that Iran will not abide by the UN resolution after the deadline has passed at the end of the month. He also continues to claim that Iranian nuclear research is not for nuclear weapons, but for civilian purposes.

In a further bit of anti-american rhetoric, he asked the world to boycott the United States and its allies, because of the US efforts to halt Iranian enrichment activities, and threatening to withdraw from the NPT and remove IAEA inspectors from its soil.

This happened precisely as I predicted it would. The UN is a worthless organization, and it is powerless to stop Iran (or anybody else for that matter). Iran will do what it wants until they get a nuclear weapon, or until they are stopped by somebody with real power.

The government of Ahmadinejad claims they wish to talk and negotiate with the US and other members of the six-party talks. He says this even as he calls for the annihilation of the United States, and our close ally Israel.

How can we negotiate with somebody like that?

Two men were arrested on Friday, Dale S. Hausner, 33, and Samuel J. Dieteman, 30 on suspicion of two counts of First Degree murder, and 14 attempted accounts of first degree murder. Their shootings involved late night drive-by's, seemingly chosen at random, and their spree lasted over a year.

According to a resident who's probable-cause statement led police to hold the two men, the two men would engage in what Dale called 'RV' or "random recreational violence"

What is our society coming to when knuckleheads engage in "random recreational violence?" Is it the cause of the media? Bad parenting? The world in which we live? What act or acts have caused this behavior?

I have to say it is a combination of things. First, our culture glorifies violence. It is rampant in TV shows, and movie productions. Now, before you start accusing me of being an angry mother, let me explain what I mean. I enjoy a good bit of violence here - a fight scene in a movie perhaps, or the entire 5 seasons of Fox's '24'. I do not think this glorifies violence, because it is usually done in the context of some larger plot.

But some horror movies, and some television shows have gotten to the point where it is just violence for the sake of seeing blood. Now I ask, is this really of entertainment value? Random senseless gore?

I do not think so. Now perhaps our media and our culture isn't the cause of the problem - what is I cannot say. However, they are certainly not helping the matter with the junk they put on our televisions and into our theatres.