Tuesday, June 29, 2004

Moore

It would appear that Google Fight has declared 9/11 the victor. Tis surprising since the movie has doubled its count in the past week (from 24,000 to 50+,000+). However, the fact remains that when Moore made that statement, it wasn't more controversial according to googlefight.

Two quick comments:

1. Dictionary.com defines a documentary as 2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film. Now even Moore himself says he doesn't want to see Bush re-elected, so he makes a two hour flick with the pervading theme: Anybody But Bush. To label this film a documentary is a pretty loose label indeed.

2. It's making lots of money. So in typical Hollywood fashion, there will probably be more propaganda/documtary hybrids to come. And if you feel the need to watch Moore's movie, what would prevent you from seeing this? Interesting how he assails Moore because he doesn't offer the "little guy" an interview. What goes around comes around.

Wednesday, June 23, 2004

More on Moore

So I watched the trailer for Fahrenheit 9/11 and it claimed it was the most controversial film of the year.

Google Fight says Moore's a liar: link

Saturday, June 19, 2004

Oil and the Unites States’ Love-Hate Relationship with it

Right before I started writing this blog, I thought that one in three gallons of gas in the US came from Saudi Arabia. I was going to write this blog and basically show how we don’t need to buy a drop of oil from them. Instead I'll take a different approach.

As I did some research, I found that only about 11% of the oil used in the United States comes from Arab countries! I was probably even more surprised to find that the so-called “oil reserves” in the United States (22,000 million barrels) pale in comparison to Saudi Arabia’s 260,000 million barrels. The United States ranks 12th worldwide for the largest oil reserves, and the top 11 countries have 40 times more oil stashed up than we do. Pathetic.

Link

I mean really, the United States has only 4 times more reserves than Kazakhstan. Does that sound right?

I’m no global oil economist, but these numbers are alarming, even shocking. This reminds me of the massive blackouts the country experienced last year. Just a tiny kink in the electrical network was all it took to cause massive shockwaves that put millions of people back into the Stone Age (or pre-electricity age anyway).

Sure, the system works alright for the time being, and so did our power grid. However, hat’s only when everything is running smoothly. It seems to me that if a tiny wrench was thrown into the oil network the United States would be brought to its knees (if it’s not there already).

According to this article on Time, the United States is at the mercy of every oil producing country because they need every drop of it they can get. Why do I feel the country isn’t doing a thing to rid itself of this awful dependence?

Link

I do realize that like 99% of the energy conservation efforts out there are complete BS. I can usually see right thru them. However, I think there's a lot that can be done even if you've gotta weed out the BS. It seems like virtually everyone in the federal government is fine that the United States in pimped any country with oil. The President and VP are no doubt the worst offenders. But even more depressing is the lack of people in power than are willing to lead the country in a more independent direction.

Saturday, June 12, 2004

Iraqi War

There's an editorial posted in January 2003 by a certain fellow named Thomas L. Friedman. He presents two potential scenarios for the aftermath of the war in Iraq –one of which is turning out to be prophetic.

Link

Hopefully things will change for the better, but it’s looking more and more like the Unites States has inherited what Friedman has called the “Arab Yugoslavia.”


An artificial country congenitally divided among Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, Nasserites, leftists and a host of tribes and clans that can only be held together with a Saddam-like iron fist.


Yep, that sounds about right. But is the United States really to blame?

Or perhaps I should put it another way: Is the Unites States justified in paving the way for a better life for the freedom-loving citizens of a country by removing a mass-murdering dictatorship?

Of course there’s no one-size-fits-all answer to the question, but if your answer was “no” in 1941, you’d be a pretty lonely protester in WW2. If your answer was “no” in 2001, there’d be thousands of Al-Qaida members in Afghanistan learning the most creative ways to mass murder thousands of innocent civilians.

Well, the United States felt justified in going to war with Iraq in 2003, and in turn eliminated one of the most brutal dictators ever. The collective response in Iraq was to hate the new freedom-loving government just as much as the old one. Some even see the newly-found freedom as an opportunity to blow up scores of fellow countrymen and women that they disagreed with. Maybe we just need to flood them with Arab books on anger management. Perhaps they need something a little more remedial. A title like the following should suffice: 'Suicide Bombing: It's not the answer you're looking for.'

Just right next door, Afghanistan –one of the most resource deprived countries on earth– had to deal with the whole “invasion thing” and they seem to be doing fine. Iraq is just turning into a giant metaphor of the “uncle no one likes to talk about.”

Iraq –not the Unites States– is an embarrassment to humanity. Heck if I’m going to lose any sleep over an Arab Yugoslavia, and I don’t think many other Americans should either. Imagine if every Iraqi was in the streets holding hands and singing 'Kum Ba Yah'. The Bush Administration would have been hailed as one of the most brilliant peace-keeping political figures in modern history.

This hypothetical situation has nothing to do with the action of the United States and everything to do with the reaction of the Iraqi people. The United States is not the proper scapegoat.

Saddam was a terrible dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. If you think the United States is just as bad, harken unto the immortal words of Eddie Izzard:

Other mass murderers have gotten away with it...Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, well done there. Pol Pot killed 1.7 million Cambodians, died under house arrest, age 72. Well done, indeed. And the reason we let them get away with it is because they killed their own people. And we're sort of fine with that. Oh, help yourself! You know? We've been trying to kill you for ages! So, if you kill your own people, right on, then. But Hitler killed people next door.... stupid man. After a couple of years, we won't stand for that, will we? Pol Pot killed 1.7 million people, and we can't even deal with that. We think that if someone kills someone, that's murder, you go to prison. You kill 10 people, you go to Texas, they hit you with a brick, that's what they do. 20 people, you go to a hospital and they look at you through a small window forever. And over that, we can't deal with it. You know? If somebody's killed 100 thousand people, we're almost going, "Well done! You killed 100 thousand people?! You must get up very early in the morning! I can't even get down the gym! Your diary must look odd: Get up in the morning, death, death, death, death, death, lunch, death, death, death, afternoon tea, death, death, death, quick shower.

Monday, June 07, 2004

Rush Linbaugh's Time Magazine Interview

from www.rushlimbaugh.com

Zoglin (from Time Magazine): Okay. Okay. What Democrat right now scares you the most?

Rush: They all do.

Zoglin: All of them?

Rush: They all scare -- Zell Miller I will exempt -- but they all scare me. If these people are being honest with us about what they really believe and what they really think, we all ought to be frightened, because they can't be trusted with the defense of this country during times of war.

Zoglin: The ACLU came out and supported you in keeping your medical records private. Do you welcome their support, or is this not a group you've been a fan of?

Rush: You know, it's like saying I'm opposed to women. Or people say I'm opposed to certain lifestyles or I'm opposed to the ACLU. That's not how I operate, and it's not how I am. I am an issue-by-issue person. If a group of people who happen to be women start espousing views that I disagree with, I'm going to disagree with them on the basis of their views, not the fact that they're women.


If Rush is such an "issue by issue" guy, how could he be scared of letting ANY democrat lead the country (except for the one that endorced Bush in 2004?).

War on Terror vs. Cold War

I suppose they have many similarities. One stark exception is this: While the Cold War was arguably won thru massive defense spending, employing the same strategy on the War on Terror would be disastrous. The federal government has spent over 200 Billion dollars on the Iraq war, and that doesn't bode well for the good guys. No country can spend that much money on the War on Terror, especially when it has no end in sight.

The only way in my mind that this problem can be solved is through increasing our intelligence. The current state of the CIA is an absolute embarrassment for the United States. Why do I have this lingering feeling that even Aljazeera has more information on terrorist kingpins than my own Central Intelligence Agency?

I guess a major problem with the CIA is that the security of the country takes a back seat to the job security of the handful of people that run the Agency. Not good.

Friday, June 04, 2004

Presidential IQ's

So these guys at the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania were somehow able to "administer" an IQ test to every President since FDR. Here are their findings:

147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald Ford (R)
175 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald Reagan (R)
099 George HW Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
091 George W. Bush (R)

I guess normally I wouldn't care. There's lots of left wing organizations out there trying to discredit Bush. What's odd here is that this "study" has been embraced by Doug Stephans, a moderate nationally-syndicated radio host. While he did qualify the results by saying he thought George W. should be a little higher on the list, he -and especially his cohost- really didn't see much of a problem with Clinton having an IQ of 182. Let's put the 182 IQ into perspective, shall we? According to this site that would put Clinton in the 99.9999977 to 99.999985 percentile. That means Clinton is between the 7th and 50th smartest person in the country. No doubt Clinton is extremely sharp, but this is just ridiculous. In addition, JFK who also has an outlandishly high IQ according to the site, actually had a very average IQ. At least that's what every site says.

I thought the Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania would at least try to project themselves as being non-partisan. Not so. Look at their site, it's blatantly left wing and makes no apologies.

Why on earth would a mainstream news outlet pick up something like this IQ list is beyond me.

Thursday, June 03, 2004

George Tenet

He's gone. I could care less if he was forced to resign or if he felt on his own free will. It's a non-issue. I'm just glad he won't be doing any "slam dunking" for the CIA anymore.

Wednesday, June 02, 2004

Monday Morning Quarterbacks

"This is the most arrogant, reckless, ideological foreign policy ever pursued in the modern times of our country," --John Kerry

"Staying the course is important ... But staying the wrong course is not a sign of strength -- it is a mark of stubbornness, and it ultimately weakens this nation and the world." --John Kerry

I don't recall Kerry offering many alternatives to the Bush Administration's decisions on foreign policy at a time when it could have made a difference. Furthermore, last time I checked, it was my government that was responsible for the whole "war on terror" thing --not just the commander in chief.

Forget the fact that Kerry will be the only alternative to Bush for the presidential race this year. The simple fact is that Kerry is one of the most powerful political figures in the country. What was he doing when these "arrogant" and "reckless" decisions were going on?

Oh ya! He was helping to run the country, that's what.

Can you say Monday morning quarterback?

And in the second quote, he hints that Bush has taken the wrong course in Iraq, yet he fails to pinpoint anything. What a nice way to pander to the anti-Bush people without actually having to identify any real problem.

A little advice to Kerry: Let your record speak for itself. Heck, even flaunt it if you've got to. Just don't criticize in hindsight and hedge your bets for the sole purpose of political gain. Does he not have a solid, post 9/11 history to fall back on, or does he just think a Monday morning quarterback campaign will pave the way to the Whitehouse?