A vote for Kerry is a vote for bin Laden

At least that's the claim of an anonymous intelligence official.

Link

Apparently, bin Laden wants to assassinate some high ranking politicians so people will be scared into voting for more passive Kerry. That most certainly doesn't bode well for the Senator. As I said earlier, pandering to the few disgruntled Americans that feel betrayed by Bush because he led the country to war is great if you want to pick up a Democratic nomination. But it won't do you much good if you're trying to appeal to the country as a whole.

Heck if the USA is going to be scared into voting for a soft leader. That's Spain's job.

Harsh words, but certainly not without warrant. Eventually we'll see in the coming election. But how many people out there 1) doubt bin Laden would be safer under Kerry's watch, and 2) think bin Laden would be willing to kill and terrorize people in order to influence an election. It's certainly not a stretch.

The country is in pretty bad times when we're divided against our leader in a time when unity is of utmost importance. Terrorist-enabling countries must relish the fact that American support for the war on terror is sinking every day. Instead of thinking, "American went after Afghanistan first, Iraq second, are we next?" The public resolve to go after these nations is no longer there. That's bad. VERY bad.

Did anyone try blaming Pearl Harbor on FDR like they did 9/11 on Bush? How on earth could the Unites States have gotten out of WW2 with such a fickle, polarized public?

To be fair, there's always the chance that this official's statement is politically motivated. We'll probably never know. Regardless, it will be interesting to see how this breaking story will pan out.

Stars and their left wing pull

I'm sure there's a prefectly good reason celebs feel the need to convince America that it's their duty to vote as far left as they possibly can. Behold, the Vote for Change Tour.

link

Yahn.

As if being a star you supposedly have authority to tell others how to vote.

It's kinda like the classic southpark line:

Sharon: Oh hi, Stanley. Look, I'm buying you some more all-natural toothpaste.

Stan: You mean the stuff that tastes like ass and doesn't fight cavities?

Sharon: That's right.

Stan: Look, um… I know that you all think the earth and its natural healing powers can cure Kyle, but… the doctor at the hospital told me it can't.

Miss Information: Well, of course the doctor told you that, because he wants to make money. Holistic modicine is about NATURE. [to Sheila] Two-hundered and thrity-three dollars. [Sheila pays, and Miss Information rings it up]

Sheila: Everything's going to be fine, Stan. We're bringing Kyle in tomorrow to see the Native Americans personally.

Stan: Isn't it possible that these Indians don't know what thry're talking about?

Sharon: You watch your mouth, Stanley! The Native Americans were raped of their land and resources by white people like us!

Stan: And that has something to do with their medicines because…?

Sharon: Enough, Stanley!


Or rather: And being a star means you know something about politics because...?

But perhaps even more confusing is the fact that right wing stars don't feel the need to form a special interest group to counter the lefties.

They're deffinitely out there.

link

Ridge and Ashcroft

Why do these guys never seem to agree on an elevated risk of terrorist attacks? Unfortunately, the real loser here is the American public.

Bill Clinton vs. Every other Democrat

I didn't see the Democratic National Convention, but I was not surprised to learn Clinton didn't fan the coals of negative campaigning.  In doing so, Clinton unequivocally went against the grain of the Democratic Party.

It's a smart move on the former President's part.

This country is becoming increasingly polarized by groups that promote and perpetuate hatred.  It seems that anyone that's politically active runs by the worlds "an enemy of my enemy is my friend."  As if to say, "hello stranger, you hate Bush! Great!  You're my new best friend."  Never mind the notion that the ignorant do-gooder may have just befriended a devout al-Qaeda member.

So here's the problem: a huge chunk of the American population is fed up this trend.  Don't believe me?  Then why is it that Kerry is having a heck of a time getting an edge in the polls even though Bush's approval ratings are so low?  The swing voters and independents are not going to be lured over the Democratic party if all they can do is bash Bush.

Clinton knows this and is acting accordingly.  Really, if anyone knows how to beat President Bush in the wake of an Iraqi war, it's him.  So why is it that so few Democrats want to take their queue from Clinton?
 Come on Democrats.  It was an effective way to make one's self look better by cutting others down.  The keyword here is WAS.  That was back in junior high.  True, cutting people down in campaigns in part of the game.  But if that's your core strategy, you've got some big problems.

Double Standard

I always get a kick out of the double standard that's imposed on the United States.  We have this unshakable stereotype of being overly insensitive to the international community.  Then along comes Jacques Chirac who says Ariel Sharon is not welcome in France.  Chirac made the comment in retaliation for Sharon urging French Jews to leave the country because Sharon thought there was increasing anti-Semitism in the country (herein known as the "spread of the wildest anti-Semitism").

link

Now, there's no doubt that such a comment by Sharon would ruffle some feathers in the French government, but the President of France flat out says "you aren't welcome here"!  unbelievable!  The last time I was met with that level of maturity I was in grade school.  I believe the exact quote was, "shutup, or I'll take my ball and go home."

Does Chirac actually mirror the voice of France?  Are people "down" with this kind of behavior?  Far be it from me claim I have my finger on the pulse of the French community, but here's what I think.  With this calculated statement, the applause and support Chirac gets will offset the number of French citizens it disenfranchises.  Hopefully I'm wrong.

Back to the American double standard.  It's absolutely unthinkable that a President of the United States would say something like this to another president with which he had friendly diplomatic relations.  The backlash from the international community would be overwhelming.  And even more importantly, the American public -and MAYBE even the Reform party- would not stand for it either.  Every country is prone to a certain level of international insensitivity,  but the nonexistent backlash against Chirac (that I've seen so far) puts France on an entirely different level.   And for whatever reason, France is a country that's preceived as being the country that is sensitive to the worlds needs.
 
Maybe it's the halo effect that comes with United States bashing.  Just ask Schröder, that's how he got elected.

Propagandocumentaries and such

It would appear that I was right about Moore popularizing a new genre. MoveOn.org has embraced Moore's new "propagandocumentary" genre. Is there a soul on earth that is willing to say that they have the unbiased high ground in attacking the Fox News channel? That's what the comment box is for, I'd love to hear someone defend MoveOn by saying they're a credible source when it comes to uncovering another organization's bias. Any takers? Bring it on.

On a similar vote, it's good to see Michael Wilson getting some international coverage. (It feels good to recognize a newsworthy person before the media picks up on it.) If Wilson can play the media half as well as Moore can, Wilson should eventually become a household name. Fair or not, he's got more credibility on his side. Now, he's the underdog going after the "evil" establishments (as Moore WAS in Roger and Me and other his earlier and less flamingly left wing documentaries).

I used to think Wilson went overboard in his title, but no longer. Think about it:

America's economy is driven by capitalism, which Moore loathes.
America's leaders are held accountable by a democracy in which he has no faith.
America was founded on a libertarian implementation of Judeo Christian principles.
and while Moore obviously hates Bush, he also had zero positive things to say about Clinton in 'Bowling'. In fact, just about every time he mentioned Clinton, he took a cheap shot at him.

I mean really, if you can't respect Bush OR Clinton, what can you say? Oh ya! "Michael Moore Hates America!" that’s what. Right on Mike Wilson! Careful Democrats, by embracing Moore, you aren't actually embracing someone who loves your party. Moore just has less distain for you than he does Republicans. If you haven't already figured it out, Moore doesn't like Republicans OR Democrats.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Parties suck

So I'm trying to get psyched about the next election. After all, the world's most powerful position (elected or otherwise) is up for grabs in a matter of months. In addition, there’s far too much global unrest and uncertainty. One would think they'd have a pretty stringent set of standards for selecting such a person. You know, the old "may the best man win" philosophy. But alas, I think this is wishful thinking. Maybe I need to tone down the enthusiasm.

The behavior you reward is the behavior you get --and our system of electing the President of the United States rewards some pretty shoddy behavior. The reason is that the opposing party (be it Democratic or GOP) is the only group that chooses who is to run against the incumbent. Democratic voters or Republican voters only represent a fraction of the country, and I believe this is a formula for disaster.

Case in point: Howard Dean. By pandering to a fraction of Democrats, he was almost able to win the Democratic ticket. In his peak, Dean supporters represented a fraction of a fraction of the general population -probably less than 15%. Should this tiny group of people really be the ones to determine an opponent for Bush? No way!

Republicans were having a field day because they knew such a marginal candidate could never take office in 2004. It wasn't till the 11th hour that Democratic voters finally seemed to figure this out, so eventually they chose to go with Kerry --no Dean, but still a very liberal Democrat.

So now Bush has these terrible approval ratings --barely above 40%, but Kerry still is having a very difficult time moving up in the polls. I think it's because Kerry is only an attractive alternative to Bush if you're a hardcore left winger. Kerry just isn’t a big hit among moderates and independents.

So here's the answer: Political parties need to rally behind and endorse people that have the best chance to win an election. Popularity amongst one’s own party should be next to worthless. Yes, it's important to find a candidate that embraces their party’s ideals. However, political parties only need to ask themselves two things:

1) Can we rally behind this guy (or does he embrace our ideals well enough)? If no, the candidate is out. If yes, then that candidate is thrown in with a small pool of other candidates.

2) Of all these candidates, who is the one most likely to win the GENERAL election.

This method would be win win. Parties would rally behind their candidate most likely to win, and it would automatically force parties to produce a more moderate candidate. This would produce a candidate that takes the general population to heart.

There's no doubt in my mind that the Democrats could have picked a much stronger candidate to run against Bush. Too bad the status quo, won’t allow for it.

The Cannes Film Festival

Everyone at the Cannes film festival in France seems to be giddy over Michael Moore’s new movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. Everyone seems to have something to say about it. I thought I’d join in on the fun and throw out my two cents as well.

Before I go any further, I’d just like to preface this by saying that I have not seen the film. I have read so many “reviews” where people wait until the last paragraph to admit they have not seen the flick, and I don’t appreciate it.

So no one on earth seems more delighted at the warm welcome of Fahrenheit 9/11 than Michael Moore himself. Indeed, if you know two things about the 2004 Cannes Film Festival, they probably are the following:
1. Fahrenheit 9/11 got the longest standing ovation in the history of the Firm festival (20 minutes).
2. Fahrenheit 9/11 was awarded top honors.

So why shouldn’t Moore be happy? He even took the opportunity to stick it to his own Commander in Chief, President Bush: “I hope nobody tells him that I have won this award while he is eating a pretzel.” (BTW, Bush choked on a pretzel a couple years ago.)

Even people that agree with Moore were turned off by that comment. They argue that if you want to have a credible documentary, you can’t take pithy cheap shots at those you’re trying to defame. I would have to agree.

But that’s beside the point I’m trying to make. All the reviews say the movie primarily attempts to uncover a symbiotic relationship between Bin Laden and Bush. I’m pretty confident that if you go into the movie taking every bit of information Moore presents as a fair, and genuinely true, you too will see the supposed connection. I’d even go so far as to say you’ll see a stronger connection between Bush and Bin Laden as you would with the Taliban and Bin Laden.

If that’s the case, I’d love to ask Moore why, then, he would NOT want Bush to choke on a pretzel. How many people out there don’t want this to happen to Mullah Omar?

See, Moore? A little perspective goes a long way, doesn’t it?

I’d also like to put something else into perspective --the warm welcome Moore’s movie has received. Does success equate with credibility? Of course not. Check this out! It’s called 9/11: The Big Lie.

link

This Frenchman, Thierry Meyssan, suggests the United States government actually flew remote control planes into the Trade Centers. Oh yeah, and that “plane” that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon was actually a missile fired by the U.S. government.

Ok so the guy’s a nut, no question. However, according to the link, his book, “went on France’s bestseller list in its second week and became the highest-grossing book in a single week in Europe ever.”

Hmm, maybe European success isn’t the gold standard in credibility.

One more thing on Moore. As I’ve already said, I have not seen Moore’s new movie. But I did see Bowling For Columbine. Probably the biggest injustice I saw in the movie was the way he handled the Kmart fiasco. For those that have not seen it, Moore went to Columbine to find survivors who had actually been shot and had the scars to proove it. By weilding these kids, Moore goes on this emotional Crusade. First (and only) stop: Kmart. Moore went to the corporate office of Kmart demanding they stop selling bullets at their stores. Kmart gives in to Moore's demands.

Moore tried to make Kmart out to be this big evil corporation (something he does on a routine basis). But instead, they did exactly what he wanted. But does anyone feel safer today?

Moore was able to make a billion dollar corporation bend over backwards for him, but, in reality, there's nothing to show for it. Moore's battles only do one thing: Make his pre-determined "bad guys" look bad. Even with the potent power he possesses, he wasn't able to change a thing.

His publicity stunt didn't work and it made him look dumb. He's completely powerless to right wrongs. Either that or he'd just prefer to make some person or business or organization look like pure evil.

That’s a shame because I’m sure he’ll use the same formula for his future documentary Sicko. With his influence, I’m confident Moore can right some wrongs in the US healthcare industry (heaven knows it has its share).

Test

Testing testing 1, 2, 3.