Copy Cat: Cloning 101

So there's this cat that was cloned. Now if my calculation and understanding on DNA and cloning are correct (and I have no reason why they wouldn't be), we have a problem. If the owner that dished out 50 grand to pay for a cloned cat used the DNA from her old cat when it was mature and/or aging, the cloned cat is going to age really quickly.

Because DNA taken from young life has these long tail thingies on the end of the DNA strands. As the animal ages, the tail thingies get short and the DNA starts to get all fudged up and then you get old and stuff. So if you use this old DNA, you'd be starting off with fudged up DNA and pet would seem old before it actually was old. Get it? Supposedly that's what happened to Dolly. I haven't seen anyone address this. What's the deal?

Merry Christmas!

I've been saying that a lot lately, and whenever I do it makes me happy. Maybe it's because it's the most wonderful time of the year. Or maybe it's because anyone that does is labled a culturally insensitive yahoo by a handful of agenda-controlling journalists out there.

Whatever the reason, Christmas totally rocks and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it from rocking.

Players Unions in Pro Sports

This rant is in response to the NHL which is very likely to strike this year:

I have no doubt that the most egregious abuses caused by workers unions (and believe me, they're definitely out there) are professional athletes. Workers unions were a necessary counter to over-demanding, under-paying, and dangerous work environments imposed by "the man". There's a slough of incompetent and overly-selfserving "mans" out there and the ability to strike is just about the only way most blue collar workers can "stick it to him".

Enter professional sports. Home of the most cushy and high paying jobs on the planet. The revenues professional sports generate are enormous so obviously the players have salaries to match. But that's not enough, and as Dr. Evil once said, why make billions when you can make millions (er, or something to that effect). Professional athletes got together and figured let's "stick it to the FAN" and demand more money by threatening to strike for a season or two.

It makes me sick to think that professional athletes can threaten to strike if "management" does not raise the league "minimum wage" of a six-digit salary the exact same way that a blue collar worker would threaten to strike if he wanted to raise his pay by a few cents per hour. The power that worker's unions give pro-athletes is the most abusive and insulting implementation of union laws in the country (and that's saying a lot). When will fans wake up and demand that this blatant loophole be closed?!

There is absolutely no valid reason that professional athletes, namely in the NHL, NFL, MLB, and the NBA should be given the right to strike. PERIOD

Kyoto Protocol

Stuff that divides the world is often dumb, real dumb. Take the Kyoto Protocol for example. Even advocates for it agree that it will prevent global warming by .15 degrees Celsius over the next 96 years! That's .0015625 degrees per year!

How many jobs is that worth sacrificing? How much hardship is that worth imposing on the economy? How much higher are we willing to see gas prices go?

Advocates for it say it's a good "first step." Er, not really. We barely have enough fossil fuels to make it thru the first half of this century. Sounds an awful lot like a "last step" if you ask me.

Meanwhile this is a real hot button issue in the world. The biggest impact it will ever have is in making the United States look bad just because they won't bow to a completely worthless agreement.

And how does that make you feel, Mr Saddam?

"As a result, I have asked the International Red Cross to send urgently Western medical experts to file an independent report on the current situation and to see if Mr. Saddam is on a hunger strike or not — and what the motives are," Ludot said.

here

Since when did a rational person give a care what Saddam's motives were? Who cares?! And why am I not surprised this Ludot guy is French?

Hey Ludot, no one cares. If Saddam wants to die in his cell by his own hand, I don't care. I'd prefer that over another B.S. Milosevic trial.

Putin weighs in on the Ukraine

A few days ago I said that Powell's excessive support for Viktor Yushchenko would invite ire from the international community. Thanks to Putin, we can now put a face on that angst. According to him, the United States is a dictatorship.

"Even if dictatorship is packaged in beautiful pseudo-democratic phraseology, it will not be able to solve systemic problems," Putin said. "It may even make them worse."

I guess there's several points I'd like to make. 1) See, I told you so. 2) Putin, don't be lecturing the U.S. on making the world safe. Last time I checked, it was your country that was having serious problems with preventing terrorism in the past 3 years -NOT OURS. 3) I can't even remember the last time Bush took a cheap shot at Schroeder or Chirac who perpetually spew anti-American garbage from all their bodily orifices. How is it that Putin can get away with such strong words directed at the United States? Conclusion: Many of the anti-American sentiment going around isn't fair, but still, it has to be considered in U.S. foreign poilicy.

Oil for food program

So I decided to try to educate myself over what happened with the oil for food scandal by reading wikipedia's account of it. That's here. It's long and somewhat boring, but I have kind of changed my feelings of the program. I used to think the problem with it was unaccountable elites that ran the U.N. I think the core problem with the oil for food program is that after the first Golf War, unrealistic sanctions were placed on Iraq. The amount of oil the country is sitting on is second only to Saudi Arabia I believe and oil for food program was more like a breeding ground for kickbacks, bribes, and corruption. I hate to say it, but it actually reminds me of post WWI Germany and the unrealistic sanctions that were put on the country led to a revolt by Hitler which climaxed with WW2. Or it's kind of like the "proverb" in Baseketball, "What a terrible thing to happen on dozen egg night."

Oil for food was doomed from it's conception. If I had a lot of time on my hands, I'm confident I could come up with a very strong argument that the "rebuilding" process after the first Golf War was actually more damaging than the one we've got going on now. If the sanctions we imposed after the first war didn't fester so much corruption, I find it very likely that Saddam's perceived threat to the United States would not have provoked us to go to war.

Colin Powell vs. Ukraine

If there's one dove in the Bush administration, it's Colin Powell. His quote regarding Iraq has become quite famous: You break it you own it.

That's why I was really surprised to hear Powell give a speech directed at the Ukraine and say stuff like:
"[The Ukraine needs] to decide whether they are on the side of democracy or not."

-How patronizing...

"If the Ukrainian government does not act immediately and responsibly there will be consequences for our relationship, for Ukraine's hopes for a Euro-Atlantic integration and for individuals responsible for perpetrating fraud,"

-Wait! Weren't criticisms of voters being threatened directed at people within the Ukrainian government?

"We cannot accept this result as legitimate, because it does not meet international standards and because there has not been an investigation of the numerous and credible reports of fraud and abuse"

-Powell knows darn well he, along with the entire country, would give the rest of the world the finger if they tried to impose "international standards" on our elections. Nothing says "we defy another country's sovereignty" more than not accepting election results.

Sure the United States would be better off if the Ukrainians opted for Viktor Yushchenko over Viktor Yanukovych.

Questioning your own country's election results are bad enough. What Powel is doing here is giving validity to the argument that United States is this big Evil Empire. It's this type of foreitn policy that, in some areas, gives bin Laden a higher approval rating than Bush.

Please people! LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY!

George W. Bush - The Tyrant

Who are these idiots kidding?

link
.

Behold. The tyrant!

One such idiot who published a story about the *shocking* billboard claims that it is "raising eyebrows among progressives". Right.... This is a site that has banners comparing Arnold Schwarzenegger to Hitler and I'm supposed to believe they know what a "progressive" is? This is just too funny.

Here's what these same idiots were saying in 2000.
-Bush stole the election (ala the Grinch that stole Christmas)
-Bush lost the popular vote
-Bush is a minority president
-Bush will never be re elected
-Gore had more votes than any candidate in US history

These same idiots can't make those claims anymore since
-Bush flat out won this election
-Bush is the first majority president in 16 years
-Bush was re elected
-Bush got more votes than any US candidate

Now that they can't say anything about Bush, they are saying Americans are idiots because they voted for Bush.

Can anyone imagine the gloating these irrational idiots would be doing if Kerry won? It's absolutely terrifying to think about.

Peter Jennings, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and the international community

The Peter Jennings' interview with Bill Clinton seems to be generating a lot of buzz. While I did find the "you don't want to go there Peter" amusing, there's something else that Clinton said in the same breath that caught my attention.

Jennings was challenging Clinton on his moral authority, saying he ranked second to last behind Nixon. Here in part is what Clinton said.

"...And, yes, I failed once. And I sure paid for it. And I'm sorry. I'm sorry for the American people, and I'm sorry for the embarrassment they performed. But they ought to think about the way the rest of the world reacted to it. When I, when I got a standing ovation at the United Nations from the whole world, the American networks were showing my grand jury testimony. Those were decisions you made, not me. I personally believe that the standing ovation I got from the whole world at the United Nations, which was unprecedented for an American President, showed not only support for me, but opposition to the madness that had taken hold of American politics."

The rest of the transcript.

Maybe I wouldn't have thought too much of it if Clinton didn't remind me of something Kerry said earlier this year:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me see if I can clean up a comment that you made in March that created an awful lot of controversy and stir. "I have met more leaders who can't go out and say it publicly but, boy, they look at you and say, `You gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy'--things like that. So there is enormous energy out there. Tell them, wherever they can find an American abroad, they can contribute."
The Washington Times added this: "Although Mr. Kerry indicated that he had met in person with foreign leaders who privately endorsed him, he has made no official trips abroad in the past two years. Within the United States, he has had the chance to meet with only one foreign leader since the beginning of last year, according to a review of his travel schedule."
Specifically, which foreign leaders have you met with who told you that you should beat George Bush?

SEN. KERRY: Tim, first of all, that is an inaccurate assessment of how I might or where I might be able to meet or talk to a foreign leader, number one.

MR. RUSSERT: But you have talked to foreign leaders who told you...

SEN. KERRY: Number--Tim, what I said is true. I mean, you can go to New York City and you can be in a restaurant and you can meet a foreign leader. There are plenty of places to meet people without traveling abroad. Number two, I'm under no obligation--I would be stupid if I were to sit here and start saying, "Well, so-and-so told me this," because they have dealings with this administration. This administration doesn't talk about its private conversations, and nor will I. I invite you, I invite The Washington Times editorial, go to European, go to foreign capitals, travel in the world. Talk to any American businessman who has been abroad, talk to any of our colleagues who've traveled abroad, and the conversations they've had. Never has the United States of America been held in as low a regard internationally--and polls have shown this--as we are today. We're not trusted and this administration is not liked.

MR. RUSSERT: So you stand by your statement, you met with foreign leaders who told you...

SEN. KERRY: I stand by my statement.

The rest of the transcript.

Gosh. Where to begin. I think I can speak for most of America when I say I'm concerned about the amount of "closed door meetings" that Bush is involved with and the lack of time Bush has been available to the folks.

Obviously, Kerry is not one of those people.

I think the privacy Bush has had while in office are not preferable, but certainly understandable. Kerry, on the other hand, basically told Russert, "Bush can have secret meetings involving the security of the United States. So in return, it's only fair that I can meet with anonymous foreign leaders in private who are cheering for me to beat Bush."

Maybe I'm taking his words out of context, but in light of what Kerry said here, how could anyone think they'd be getting a more open and accountable administration under Kerry? It's completely absurd!

In regard to Clinton, I'll say this: As President, your obligation was to the American people. To invoke support by referring people to the UN's ovation is flat out wrong. American demands a level of accountability in its leaders that foreign leaders don't even begin to understand. I think you gravely mistook international support with international defiance to a much higher code of ethics that has been ingrained in American politics.

To both Kerry and Clinton, I'll say this: Congratulations, you just won a foreign popularity contest because foreign leaders who possess a tacit defiance to the United States feel more comfortable in confiding in you.

MPAA hops on the sue-em-all bandwagon

For about a year now the RIAA, which represents recording artists, has launched a sue-em-all campaign against 1 in 5 Americans (that based on the fact that there are an estimated 60 million file swappers and roughly 5 times that many Americans). So the RIAA feels completely justified in seeking a few thousand dollars from each of these awful file swappers. The status quo says that the RIAA can seek up to $150,000 for each copyrighted song a P2Per has on their computer.

Some math: 60 million p2pers X 150,000 per copyrighted song X 500 songs (rough estimate of the number of songs a p2per has) = $4,500,000,000,000,000. Dude! I don't even know how to read that number.

Something like forty-five hundred trillion dollars.

Yes, that's the "damages" the RIAA is justified in seeking in the eyes of the law, and I'm sure they deserve every penny of it.

But in the RIAA's infinite grace and wisdom, they usually offer each individual they sue a merciful out-of-court settlement of a few thousand dollars. Thank goodness for checks and balances! (Hope you caught the sarcasm there).

So far they've managed to shake down 5,000 people.

So anyhoo, the MPAA has hopped on this bandwagon. I guess they have found the wonderful PR benefits of suing your customers. But here's the twist: In a thinking-outside-the-box move which seems woefully rare by industries that are covered by the colossal umbrella of protection that copyright holders are granted, the MPAA has decided to tell our mummies and daddies. How mature.

link

Somehow, the RIAA is planning on installing software on people's computer and that will hunt for copyright software and encourage the user to delete it.

Supposedly Section 512(f) of the DMCA of 1998 forbids intimidating people if the accuser knows the person is not guilty and it also forbids anyone from deleting files in which copyrights have not been infringed. If these rules are violated, the accused person can seek damages.

Lets hope we can sick section 512(f) on the derrieres of the MPAA.

Attack on Fallujah

A few people are questioning the timing of the 2004 elections and the can of whoop A we opened up on Fallujah.

And to them I would say, "Only an ignorant person didn't see this coming. Go easy on the anti-Bush propaganda, and instead, focus more on finding out what's going on in the world."

The Democrats Strike Back

Who knows if the Clarence Thomas thing is legit, but today, the Democrats are tapping Howard Dean to be the chairman of the DNC!

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!

For your listening and viewing pleasure, I give you the Howard Dean Remix.

Is this guy Presidential material? Even the Democrats realized the answer to that was a resounding NO.

So why on earth would anyone in their right mind want Howard Dean to head the currently heavily bruised Democratic party?

It's moderation people want. M-O-D-E-R-A-T-I-O-N.

When Kerry was not bashing Bush (which seems like it took up 90% of his campaigning), he was spending virtually all the remaining time pleading with the folks trying to convince them he wasn't liberal. MODERATION!

The Democrats were supposed to the champions of the middle class. The fact that they're picking Dean means they're clueless when it comes to giving the folks what they want.

Clarence Thomas to become Chief Justice?

That according to the infamous drudge report.

Err. Wasn't Bush supposed to "reach out to Democrats" in his second term?

If true, this will get a lot of people fired up. Namely, the Democrats.

Exit polls show what I talked about in July

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."
-Me, July 04

The exit polls show that 36% of Kerry voters were more voting against Bush than voting for Kerry. Only 14% of Bush voters were voting against Kerry. The absolutely enormous spread more than makes up for the inaccuracy of exit polls.

Voting against someone by voting for the "other guy" is very dangerous. What happened to voting for someone because you like what they stand for? Should that not be a prerequisite for voting for the leader of the free world?

Kerry's campaign exposed

I think anyone who was down with Kerry should read this. I'd really like to hear from someone who actually thought Kerry has enough character to be the leader of the free world. Since basically no one reads this blog, I kinda think I'm wasting my time. But still. His first choice for running mate thought Kerry was "out of his mind". What more can you ask for?

Congrats Bush

Finally, it's over. Now Americans can try to get back the hundreds of millions of hours of sleep that they lost over this.

The "anybody but Bush" crowd never knew what hit them. Hint: Next time endorse a candidate that reflects the interests of America as opposed to the most liberal left wingers out there.

Now that the election is over, lets hurry up and flatten Fallujah.

Did Bin Laden Just endorse Kerry?

I'm not sure if Bin Laden endorced Kerry or not. I think a quick look at the buzz that's been created online says the answer is in fact yes. I guess my vote would be yes. Either way, the spawn of Hitler is obviously trying to influence the election.

I absolutely love the fact that up until now OBL has only resorted to pleading to the American people in trying to influence the election. That sure beats his voter-altering methods he successfully employed in Spain.

Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your hands. Each state that doesn't mess with our security has automatically secured their security.
--The spawn of Hitler

The world most wanted terrorist is pleading with his sworn enemy -the Americans people. How to respond to such a plea? I think John McCain can answer that one for us Americans:

God may show you mercy. We will not.

Clinton KO's Bush and Kerry

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/september96/clinton2_9-23.html

The link is to Clinton's interview with Jim Lehrer when he ran against Dole in '96.

Reading ease:
61.4

Grade level:
10.1

Clinton wins big. I guess you could make the case that Jim Lehrer gave him a different style interview, but I doubt that would make up for the difference.

I just have to say this, in the interview, Lehrer brought up a stat that said only 30 percent of America thought Clinton was "honest and truthful". I think Bush AND Kerry would beat him on that record, but back then, no one seemed to care.

Ah, such simpler times back in 96.

Bush vs. Kerry

Bad things happen when I have too much free time. When I finally was able to pry myself away from playing Snood, I got this weird idea. Compare the grade level Bush and Kerry's interviews and see if Bush speaks on a lower level. Tim Russert of meet the Press interviewed both guys for quite a while so I chose those two interviews. The Bush transcript, and the Kerry transcript. I tested them using Microsoft Word. It has an analyzer that checks readability and the grade level.

I took out what Russert said and took out the "President Bush:" and the "Sen Kerry:" at the beginning of each paragraph --gotta love the replace feature in Word. Here's what I found.


Readability level (the higher the easier it is to understand)
Bush: 66.1
Kerry: 64.8

Academic grade level
Bush: 7.9
Kerry:7.7

Conclusion: According to the test, Bush was easier to understand and spoke on a higher grade level than Kerry. The difference is ever so slight, but it's certainly measurable. Also, Russert didn't engage Bush on a higher level (grammatically at least) because the scores actually went down when Russert and Bush/Kerry were analyzed together.

What does this mean? Probably nothing, other than I've got too much free time. I guess it could give a black eye to people who feel Bush is this big idiot that can't speak English.

I wonder if Russert interviewed Clinton and how those numbers would pan out....

Letter to Media Matters for America

So I write this letter to Media Matters for America. They seem to get really fired up when anyone in the media suggests terrorists would like to see Kerry get elected because there's no "evidence." I provided them with some evidence, but, to date, they have not provided me a response.


Oct, 22:
Media Matters for America
Your site declares there is “a conspicuous lack of evidence to support the claim” that terrorists prefer Kerry over Bush. However, more than a month before you said that, The Washington Times quoted an anonymous intelligence official that says terrorists do prefer Kerry over Bush. Here's the link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040811-123531-3824r.htm Have you not read it?

Granted, the claim could be politically motivated, so I think you’re justified in saying there’s a lack of obvious evidence. But then you provide, what you call, “evidence” of your own to the contrary.

The evidence you allude to is a video clip of an anonymous, self-proclaimed terrorist saying he’d prefer Bush over Kerry. If these claims are untrue, the evidence you present is hogwash. If they are true, you’d still have to take a terrorist’s political endorsement at face value. That’s unwise in my humble opinion.

Maybe both reports aren’t true, but how on earth could you justify rebutting the claim of an intelligence official with that of a political endorcement from a self-proclaimed terrorist?

Jon Stewart

So I'm surfing (what wannabe hipster coined that term anyway) over at the very impartial site *cough cough* Media Matters for America. The site is a joke, but they've got some video and sound clips of some heated discussions between the talking heads, which is usually coolio. All of media matter's take on things, however, is NOT coolio. Anyway, I see a clip of Jon Stewart on Crossfire. I think Jon is freggin hilarious so I click the link. Seeing the clip only reaffirmed my opinion on Jon.

STEWART: Now, this is theater. It’s obvious. How old are you?
CARLSON: Thirty-five.
STEWART: And you wear a bow tie?
CARLSON: Now, come on.
STEWART: Now, listen, I’m not suggesting that you’re not a smart guy, because those are not easy to tie.
CARLSON: They’re difficult.

I don't care where you're from, that's funny right there! I guess Jon got a little too steamed at the end and called Carlson a dick. I thought it was a little odd when I saw it but didn't think too much of it. Come to find out, that was no small meeting Jon and Carlson had. People can't stop talking about it. Apparently, it's controversial to ask the press to keep the President and Presidential candidate accountable. What's more, Jon even says he plans to vote for Kerry *gasp*!!! Oh my gosh! The humanity! Just like those other 45 million Americans!

Yeesh, people. Go back to sleep. The only thing shocking about Jon is that he wasn't able to come up with something more pithy than "dick" when addressing Carlson, otherwise, Jon was totally ripping into that guy and I think he probably deserved it. To be fair, I never watch Carlson or Crossfire, but Jon does have a point, no one in the press seems to think it's necessary to ask and force and answer to tough questions. Right now Kerry has the simple formula to the White House:

1. Identify the biggest problems in America
2. Blame it all on Bush
3. Say it will be all better when you're President because you have a "PLAN"
4. Sit back while the media reassures everyone of your great plan

An unchallenged plan is worthless. So is a press that propagates one.

Debate Round 3

Sadly, I was turned off by the first 5 minutes of this debate. Every response from the candidates' mouths was a cut-and-paste-responses from the first two. I couldn't put up with it. I did hear that bush finally put Kerry on the defensive by accusing him of being liberal. FINALLY. I don't think people realize how liberal Kerry's record is.

Rasmussen says 55% of the population says Kerry is politically liberal.

However, Americans for Democratic Diversity gives Kerry a liberal rating of 92% for his career. Hillary Clinton barely surpasses him with a 95% rating.

There's no doubt he's an extremely liberal guy, regardless of what he says. I mean, come on! This is the guy that goes in front of a bunch of hippies and says stuff like the Iraq war is the "wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time" or "no man and woman in uniform should ever be held hostage to America's dependence on oil" then he'll turn right around and speak in front of vets and pledge 40,000 troops to Iraq.

The pandering Kerry has displayed is over the line. The majority of people in California were relieved to recall Davis, but unfortunately, his spirit is now manifesting itself in the Democratic Presidential candidate.

President debate round 2

I don't get it. Most of the country, especially the independent and swing voters, is fed up with the National Guard memos and the Swift boat controversy. They want to have Bush and Kerry meet up so they can finally talk about the "issues." But then a funny thing happens; neither candidate, especially Kerry, seems to be able to directly address any questions. Instead directly answering a question, they simply recite a canned answer regarding the topic the question is addressing. I was pretty turned off by it. I mean, Bush and Kerry basically waste the time of tens of millions of people who tune into the debates by reciting propaganda they could have gotten from their websites. The moderator tried really hard to get them to answer questions they dodged, but that got annoying too because he started sounding like a broken record. How many times can two people dodge the question: "how can you cut the deficit in half by not raising taxes." Bush and Kerry just kept telling us how the other person couldn't do it.

More on CBS Memos

A bunch of execs over at CBS are saying they have no intention of telling the American people why they FUBARed the infamous 60 minutes story on Bush. Grow some stones people.

Quote the Les Moonves (co-president CBS parent company Viacom): Obviously, it should be done probably after the election is over so that it doesn't affect what's going on.

Gee Lester, if you could have only expected the same journalistic standards from 60 Minutes none of this would have happened. You, sir, are a hypocrite for even thinking of suggesting to wait until after the election.

Compound this mess by the fact that there is a lot of evidence suggesting the documents were planted at CBS by people very high up in the Kerry campaign. If these accusations are proven to be valid, and CBS refuses to release the information before the election, Les Moonves and all the yes-men he commands need to lose their jobs.

Link

Cheney won

Cheney won the debate on Monday. There's no question in my mind. He made Edwards look like he was running for vice mayor of Hicks-ville, North Carolina. Cheney was a heavy hitter and Edwards wasn't unable to stand up to him. Additionally, Edwards dodged some very direct questions asked by moderator Gwen Ifill. Of course Cheney did too, but not nearly to the same extent.

Cheney really did surprise me. I don't really care for the guy, but he really game thru Monday night. McCain said the first Kerry-Bush debate was perhaps the biggest highlight of Kerry's campaign. I think Cheney's performance in the debate was actually the highlight of his 4 year administration as VP.

Kerry already failed his own "Global Test"

So Kerry based most of the first debate on trying to convince America that he would form strong alliances with countries in the war on terror. Maybe if Kerry was a quarterback in the Superbowl, and someone asked him how he'd win, he'd say, "I'll just keep throwing touchdown passes."

He seemed to convince a lot of Americans as the polls say Kerry came out on top.

Here's the problem:

Kerrys leading candidate for secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, told Germany's Schroeder he'd be the first guest to the White House.

Schroeder's response?

"I was afraid of that."

Looks like Kerry got an "A" for style in the debate, but an "F" on his own "Global Test."

link

Rosie ODonnell

So I’m listening to this Rosie Odonnell chick because for some reason she got the fill-in gig for the Jim Bohannon show. I’ve got no idea how she ever got the gig, I think to myself, It’s not like she’s got an original opinion. And it’s not like she would even regurgitate Jimbo’s opinions.

Whatever, I gave her a listen.

I was sickened when she blathered about how she’s telling her son what’s going on in Iraq. Rosie is feeding her 9 year old kid the classic “Bush/Cheney intend to start wars so they can get rich” line. Right! Spend a few hundred billion dollars on a war so your private corporations can make a few million. What a joke. The only people who would possibly believe that nonsense are people that hate Bush and Cheney to begin with.

Then she talked about how war should never be an option. NEVER. I guess the logical conclusion here is that everyone that has served their country has wasted their time. Hey Rosie, tell everyone in the US Military they’re wasting their time. Gosh, I hope her ramblings cost her whatever may be left of her waning career. It probably won’t because just about every inflammatory comment imaginable is openly welcome on talk radio. Still, I’m holding out hope.

The "Memo's"

Max Cleland

Out of the hundreds of millions of people in the United States, It seems there are only two people that wholeheartedly believe the Nation Guard memos that criticize Bush some 30 years ago are authentic: Dan Rather and Max Cleland.

Quote the Cleland: It's just further evidence, really, that George Bush failed this country when it was his time to serve -- and he hid out.

With all due respect, Mr. Cleland, shut your trap. The only *evidence* I see here is that you'd embrace potentially fraudulent documents that condemn Bush long before you'd stop to consider if Dan Rather could play you like a cheap violin.

Zell Miller

It's nice to know I had blogged about an almost unheard of Senator three months before he got the nation's attention by his relentless bomb throwing in the RNC.

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.