North Korea should be a game reserve...

Or at least that is what I think you call it when an entire area set aside for the hunting of game.  I am not typically up for war.  I think that war should only be used as an absolute last resort when nothing else works.  When it comes to N. Korea I believe we have done all we can, up to, and including offering them aid if the take down their nuclear weapons and prove it to us.

I really don't know how much more they want from us.  We have been patient and calm.  We have restarted talks with them several times even when they have shot at us or our allies, sank ships, and fired missiles off their coast like they own the world.

I say we just lock up their boarders and allow bounty hunters to go in there and take out key officials while helping civilians to safety.  For every civilian helped to safety the hunter gets X amount of dollars.  For every target killed the hunter gets Y amount of dollars, and for ever target captured the hunter gets Y*2 amount of dollars.  That way we can encourage capture instead of killing.

And as part of this effort we move in and set up a military based at where N. Korea and S. Korea meet and one where China and N. Korea meet (both with in the N. Korean borders) so that nobody can escape and to offer aid.  Shut down all food production and imports and only allow it to come through the UN and distributed by the UN.

I just don't think that waiting till they get enough aid from somebody else so they can bomb us is a good idea...

Where did the strong and respected USA go?  We never used to fight this much because most countries knew that if the US was crossed we would come down with our full weight and set them back a few hundred years and then help the country rebuild.  Again, war should only be used as a last resort but damn, what does it take?

(2)Why are books not rated?

I have been thinking about this quite a bit over the last couple of days and I thought it only fair to talk about why we may NOT want to rate a book.

Other than the typical freedom of speech whiners who would spout off something about it restricting their freedoms...

I really don't understand that at all anyway.  Rating is not a restriction in any way.  Most sane people would agree that there is some material that is not appropriate for people under a certain age.  And sure that is going to very person by person; also area by area but that does not mean all content should be readily available to all ages.

To me this is a simple case of parents cannot do everything and simply relying on society to police your children is not enough.

I also know that ratings are not perfect.  There are some things that are rated R that are not as bad as others.  Ratings simply give a base to start with and with that it gives people a place to start off with and make a life decision either for a child or for themselves.  I know a 50 year old who choses not to watch rated R movies... her choice.  I watch them but understand that its her life and rather than having to rely on what others tell her about a movie she can see a general rating and make the decision other wise that is a lot of movies to have to  filter through.

There are far more books published every year compared to movies and this is simply a way to give folks a high level filter to help them along their way.

(1)Why are books not rated?

With more books becoming movies it is easier to see what an author can put into a book targeted at a younger audience and get away with. 

Two good examples are Twilight: Breaking Dawn and Hunger Games.  Both of these books are popular with the eleven to twenty something crowd.  Acceptably both of them attract mostly girls with some boys mixed in although I would think that Hunger Games is going to pull in more boys than Twilight.  Also, I have read the entire Twilight series and the fist book of the Hunger Games Trilogy (waiting for the other two in the mail)