In a case of extreme irony the Bush Administration has decided that they’ve either never said “Stay the Course”, or that the American public is just too dumb to understand the complexities of the brilliant, yet articulate jingle.
The irony comes into effect when you take this recent flip-flop along with the report that was released about the same time last week by the pentagon. The report explained how the insurgents have been slowing increasing their effect by simply doing exactly the same thing that they’ve done for the last couple of years.
So as our Commander-In-Chief has abandoned this “Stay the Course” idea because of its complete failure in Iraq, our enemy has ironically always “Stayed the Course” and used it successfully.
Sometimes irony is funny, but this time it’s just sad.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Monday, October 30, 2006
Test your vocal chops
This is supposedly the hardest English sentence to say repeatedly out loud:
The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep's sick
I made it through three times at normal speed before I sprained my tongue and had to seek a specialist.
The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep's sick
I made it through three times at normal speed before I sprained my tongue and had to seek a specialist.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Entry for October 28, 2006
For the last couple of years I've watched The Daily Show, and more recently, The Colbert Report to keep myself sane. But recently I find myself feeling empty after what I use to call the only real news on TV. This, of course, was in response to the others news channels filtering out any important news, failing to ask decent questions of politicians, and chasing stories that any sane people shouldn’t care about.
Instead, what I need now is serious news. I long for real hard-hitting journalism from a company who isn’t interviewing Natalee Holloway’s pediatric orthodontist and isn’t anchored by a bubbly blonde woman who couldn’t locate herself on a mall map.
So as much as I still enjoy Jon and Stephen, I need something substantial. And as soon as I track down that source, I’ll let you know.
Instead, what I need now is serious news. I long for real hard-hitting journalism from a company who isn’t interviewing Natalee Holloway’s pediatric orthodontist and isn’t anchored by a bubbly blonde woman who couldn’t locate herself on a mall map.
So as much as I still enjoy Jon and Stephen, I need something substantial. And as soon as I track down that source, I’ll let you know.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Entry for October 27, 2006
One of my heroes was, and always will be, Carl Sagan. This morning I reread a quote of his from years ago that struck me as a bit wittier then I believe it was originally intended - and I now feel I should share it:
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. The bamboozle has captured us. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." - Carl Sagan
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. The bamboozle has captured us. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." - Carl Sagan
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Entry for October 26, 2006
No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to teach any dog decent manners.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Bush Bans Menstruation as Last Minute Election Surprise
In a stunning move today, President Bush signed into law a bill that was quickly rushed through the still controlled Republican Congress, that bans all women from menstruating. This law, signed close to election time, is meant to galvanize the Republican base and get them to the polls. The bill defines each and every egg a woman has as a human life, and that women who murder their children with the “wickedness of menstruation” will be punished to the full extent of the law. He then used the occasion to reach out to other countries that still allow women to menstruate by labeling those countries as an “Axis of Bitchy” and threatened an end to both economic support and possible preemptive military action if they fail to comply. When questioned as to how this law could be realistically imposed on other countries Bush replied, “Our brave men and women of the armed forces stand ready to defend freedom and the lives of unborn children everywhere in the name of democracy”.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Entry for October 23, 2006
A liberal is an ideologist and a conservative is not.
A conservative with an ideology is either on the way to being a liberal or a neoconservative, depending on whether that ideology favors isolationism or greater inclusion.
The neoconservative who is successful in pushing their ideology will eventually become an authoritarian. They will then immediately feel the recoil from a public who is, by nature, ideological.
That time of recoil has come - enjoy the snap.
A conservative with an ideology is either on the way to being a liberal or a neoconservative, depending on whether that ideology favors isolationism or greater inclusion.
The neoconservative who is successful in pushing their ideology will eventually become an authoritarian. They will then immediately feel the recoil from a public who is, by nature, ideological.
That time of recoil has come - enjoy the snap.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Entry for October 21, 2006
Is it just me or is TV mostly just a medium for watching other people have a life?
By what criteria would you measure whether or not we've lost the War in Iraq?
James Baker, the consult hired by the Bush Administration to come up with a plan to leave Iraq, had his report leaked to the Phoenix Sun claiming that there are only two strategies to leave Iraq and that they essentially "rule out any prospect of making Iraq a stable Democracy in the near term".
So my question is: since there were no WMD, we aren't in the dictator removal business, and Iraq isn't actually going to get a Democracy, did we officially loose?
It's kinda hard for me to say that we did, because we never really had any goals or plans in the first place.
What are your thoughts? At what point do we realize that this failed and that constitutes a loss?
So my question is: since there were no WMD, we aren't in the dictator removal business, and Iraq isn't actually going to get a Democracy, did we officially loose?
It's kinda hard for me to say that we did, because we never really had any goals or plans in the first place.
What are your thoughts? At what point do we realize that this failed and that constitutes a loss?
Anyway, enjoy The Colbert Report's "WØRD": on the subect:
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Atheists have no belief in God or gods. Religious people reject the validity of the gods of other religions. So Atheists just believe in one less god than they do.
As hard as it is to stop using heroin is as hard as it is to start flossing.
What's the difference between Bush and Nixon? Nixon at least had a coherent foreign policy.
All that TV does it remind us of what we should already know; computers are there to remind us how little we have learned.
Below is Keith Olbermann's latest report. Please watch it and vote during the next election.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
How to get out of Iraq (Part 3 of 3)
Oil, of course, cannot be neglected. One of the Iraq war's many mysteries is the curious lack of discussion of oil production and distribution. A final piece in the plan to end United States occupation should be the creation of an Iraqi national oil company, composed of a consortium of the Iraqi Oil Ministry and major international producers, empowered by law to build modem petroleum production and distribution facilities with revenues fairly distributed by national law to all Iraqis. The charter of this national oil company, by establishing fair revenue-sharing allocations, will go very far in allaying the fears of Sunnis and other minorities that oil wealth will be divided between the Shiites and the Kurds, on those territories most of the oil resources are located.
These elements of an occupation-ending policy—know your enemy, divide and conquer, welcome help. Create economic unity, and share burdens and rewards—are complementary and self-reinforcing. By dividing national insurgents from jihadists, we have much greater hope of ending the insurgency and crushing the jihadists. By negotiating mutual disarmament between national insurgents and the U.S. military, we have much greater hope of sharply reducing violence and bringing the Sunnis into the political mainstream. By declaring that the United States plans no permanent military presence, we clarify American intentions to the Iraqi people, to the American people, and to the world. By making NATO the bridge between the U.S. occupiers and permanent Iraqi security capabilities, we defuse anger and violence against the United States. By engaging broad-based Western financing and construction capabilities, we sharply reduce the financial burdens on the U.S. Treasury and share both burdens and rewards of reconstruction. And by establishing an Iraqi national oil production and revenue sharing entity, we eliminate the accusation that the United States invaded Iraq for its oil, and we guarantee that all Iraqis will share in its benefits.
Obviously, many other pieces and nuances can be added to this policy outline. It is offered here not as a definitive solution but to demonstrate that alternatives exist to the destructive "stay the course" rhetoric. It is meant further to be proof to a strangely silent Democratic leadership that constructing an opposition party plan for Iraq is not, in the currency of the day, "rocket science."
As distracting as Iraq has become—unnecessarily, to my mind—it cannot be permitted to prevent our current administration from addressing a host of even greater challenges swiftly and often silently around us. Future generations of Americans must learn from both the Vietnam and Iraq experiences that the American superpower must not permit itself to become so obsessed with one crusade that it neglects its global responsibilities. While we slog through the problems of Iraq, large-scale events are transpiring across the planet that desperately call for our attention.
These elements of an occupation-ending policy—know your enemy, divide and conquer, welcome help. Create economic unity, and share burdens and rewards—are complementary and self-reinforcing. By dividing national insurgents from jihadists, we have much greater hope of ending the insurgency and crushing the jihadists. By negotiating mutual disarmament between national insurgents and the U.S. military, we have much greater hope of sharply reducing violence and bringing the Sunnis into the political mainstream. By declaring that the United States plans no permanent military presence, we clarify American intentions to the Iraqi people, to the American people, and to the world. By making NATO the bridge between the U.S. occupiers and permanent Iraqi security capabilities, we defuse anger and violence against the United States. By engaging broad-based Western financing and construction capabilities, we sharply reduce the financial burdens on the U.S. Treasury and share both burdens and rewards of reconstruction. And by establishing an Iraqi national oil production and revenue sharing entity, we eliminate the accusation that the United States invaded Iraq for its oil, and we guarantee that all Iraqis will share in its benefits.
Obviously, many other pieces and nuances can be added to this policy outline. It is offered here not as a definitive solution but to demonstrate that alternatives exist to the destructive "stay the course" rhetoric. It is meant further to be proof to a strangely silent Democratic leadership that constructing an opposition party plan for Iraq is not, in the currency of the day, "rocket science."
As distracting as Iraq has become—unnecessarily, to my mind—it cannot be permitted to prevent our current administration from addressing a host of even greater challenges swiftly and often silently around us. Future generations of Americans must learn from both the Vietnam and Iraq experiences that the American superpower must not permit itself to become so obsessed with one crusade that it neglects its global responsibilities. While we slog through the problems of Iraq, large-scale events are transpiring across the planet that desperately call for our attention.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
How to get out of Iraq (Part 2 of 3)
Thought the American press corps has seemed strangely uninterested in this question – one that goes to the very heart of our intentions in starting the war in the first place – now is the time to find out. The latest evidence was that at least four, and possibly as many as a dozen, permanent military bases are being built throughout the country.
Our predictable scenario for the neoconservatives is to arrange for the new government of Baghdad to invite American forces to stay in Iraq as a semipermanent, Korea-like stabilizing force and thus legitimize construction of several garrisons for the stay-behind forces. These may amount to troop levels of as many as fifty thousand on a rotating basis and would provide legitimacy for a permanent U.S. military presence in the Middle East. Once again, the French and other colonial powers will testify to the vulnerability of static garrisons to a continuing anti-occupation insurgency.
A serious disengagement plan, however, must be based on a central reality: We cannon insist on a pro-American, client-state Iraqi government of the sort long envisioned by the neoconservatives. This may have been their dream, but Iraq’s long, complex history and complicated mixture of cultures should have shown it years ago to have been a pipe dream.
In any case, we will never end our self-defeating occupation and assure the Iraqis and others in the volatile region of the Middle East that we have no imperial intentions, as they now widely suppose, until this issue is settled. It is one thing to continue intensive diplomatic and even commercial attention to the area; it is quite another to leave behind several brigades (or perhaps a full division or more), helicopter wings, and weapons depots. This issue will be the clearest indicator of our policy and intentions. Either we came to bring democracy to the Iraqis, or we came to use Iraq as the base from which we would wield our influence through military force in the future.
Few would dispute now that the restoration of order, security, and stability in Iraq is going to take far longer than we were led to believe when the preemptive war was undertaken in 2003. “We can’t simply walk away now” is the way this is usually put. Therefore, any serious disengagement plan must provide for replacement capabilities in training and equipping Iraqi security forces.
This is a role that NATO can fill, but our allies must be asked, because NATO nations are already providing more than sixteen thousand troops for stabilization and nation building in Afghanistan. NATO peacekeepers units can oversee the training of Iraqi police and military forces and move those units into the principal security roles, especially border control missions to seal Iraq off from foreign jihadists. Those jihadists in any case will have much less interest in Iraq once the United States has departed, and will be much less welcome by Iraqi citizens.
Persuading NATO nations to assume this role will require diplomacy, especially since many of its member nations were peremptorily and arrogantly dismissed as “old Europe” (in the words of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld) when they refused to suppose the Bush administration’s preemptive invasion. Nevertheless, skilled diplomats have overcome greater hurdles when they have a will to do so and when they can offer incentives. Further, NATO troops are filling important security and combat support roles in Afghanistan and are perfectly capable of training Iraqi security units.
The incentive for NATO and other democratic nations to participate in Iraq should be provided by internationalizing the country’s reconstruction program. Construction and engineering companies from Europe and some Asian nations should be both permitted and encouraged to participate in competitive bidding for major infrastructure project contracts. Energy and electrical systems, water and waste treatment plants, transportation facilities, and communication projects should not be handed out to a few politically favored American companies.
Further, the burden of financing Iraq’s reconstruction should not be borne solely by United States taxpayers. We should quickly establish a Bank of Iraqi Reconstruction financed by Western democratic governments. Given the ability of their own construction and engineering companies to participate in major reconstruction projects and thus to recycle the investment their national governments will make in this bank, this will provide the quid pro quo required by European and Asian countries to contribute. Faced with mounting reconstruction and occupation costs, President Bush appealed in the spring of 2004 both to NATO and to the Group of Eight nations to provide troops and financing for Iraq’s reconstruction. He failed. He failed simply because he neglected to include the key component: He did not also invite those nations to bring their own major contractors into the economic distribution. His message was, “We want your money and your troops, but Halliburton will do all the work and reap all the profits”.
Our predictable scenario for the neoconservatives is to arrange for the new government of Baghdad to invite American forces to stay in Iraq as a semipermanent, Korea-like stabilizing force and thus legitimize construction of several garrisons for the stay-behind forces. These may amount to troop levels of as many as fifty thousand on a rotating basis and would provide legitimacy for a permanent U.S. military presence in the Middle East. Once again, the French and other colonial powers will testify to the vulnerability of static garrisons to a continuing anti-occupation insurgency.
A serious disengagement plan, however, must be based on a central reality: We cannon insist on a pro-American, client-state Iraqi government of the sort long envisioned by the neoconservatives. This may have been their dream, but Iraq’s long, complex history and complicated mixture of cultures should have shown it years ago to have been a pipe dream.
In any case, we will never end our self-defeating occupation and assure the Iraqis and others in the volatile region of the Middle East that we have no imperial intentions, as they now widely suppose, until this issue is settled. It is one thing to continue intensive diplomatic and even commercial attention to the area; it is quite another to leave behind several brigades (or perhaps a full division or more), helicopter wings, and weapons depots. This issue will be the clearest indicator of our policy and intentions. Either we came to bring democracy to the Iraqis, or we came to use Iraq as the base from which we would wield our influence through military force in the future.
Few would dispute now that the restoration of order, security, and stability in Iraq is going to take far longer than we were led to believe when the preemptive war was undertaken in 2003. “We can’t simply walk away now” is the way this is usually put. Therefore, any serious disengagement plan must provide for replacement capabilities in training and equipping Iraqi security forces.
This is a role that NATO can fill, but our allies must be asked, because NATO nations are already providing more than sixteen thousand troops for stabilization and nation building in Afghanistan. NATO peacekeepers units can oversee the training of Iraqi police and military forces and move those units into the principal security roles, especially border control missions to seal Iraq off from foreign jihadists. Those jihadists in any case will have much less interest in Iraq once the United States has departed, and will be much less welcome by Iraqi citizens.
Persuading NATO nations to assume this role will require diplomacy, especially since many of its member nations were peremptorily and arrogantly dismissed as “old Europe” (in the words of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld) when they refused to suppose the Bush administration’s preemptive invasion. Nevertheless, skilled diplomats have overcome greater hurdles when they have a will to do so and when they can offer incentives. Further, NATO troops are filling important security and combat support roles in Afghanistan and are perfectly capable of training Iraqi security units.
The incentive for NATO and other democratic nations to participate in Iraq should be provided by internationalizing the country’s reconstruction program. Construction and engineering companies from Europe and some Asian nations should be both permitted and encouraged to participate in competitive bidding for major infrastructure project contracts. Energy and electrical systems, water and waste treatment plants, transportation facilities, and communication projects should not be handed out to a few politically favored American companies.
Further, the burden of financing Iraq’s reconstruction should not be borne solely by United States taxpayers. We should quickly establish a Bank of Iraqi Reconstruction financed by Western democratic governments. Given the ability of their own construction and engineering companies to participate in major reconstruction projects and thus to recycle the investment their national governments will make in this bank, this will provide the quid pro quo required by European and Asian countries to contribute. Faced with mounting reconstruction and occupation costs, President Bush appealed in the spring of 2004 both to NATO and to the Group of Eight nations to provide troops and financing for Iraq’s reconstruction. He failed. He failed simply because he neglected to include the key component: He did not also invite those nations to bring their own major contractors into the economic distribution. His message was, “We want your money and your troops, but Halliburton will do all the work and reap all the profits”.
Monday, October 16, 2006
How to get out of Iraq (Part 1 of 3)
The keys to liberating Iraq and liberating ourselves from Iraq are: know your enemy; divide and conquer; welcome help; create economic unity; and share burdens and rewards.
The fatal flaw in the Bush occupation is its insistence that all those attacking our troops and facilities are "terrorists". Any number of military and civilian analysts have consistently stated that we face two distinctive opponents: national insurgents on one hand, foreign jihadists on the other. Some estimates put the percentage of national insurgents at about 90 percent of all those resisting our occupation, which means that foreign jihadists represent 10 percent or fewer. Numerically, insurgents are estimated at somewhere between twenty and forty thousand, and jihadists are estimated at anywhere from five hundred to four thousand.
To understand the difference, one must ask this question: How many people are going to follow us home when we eventually depart? The purpose of the national insurgents, largely Sunni Iraqi Arabs, is to get us to leave their country. The purpose of foreign jihadists, including many Saudi Arabians, is to kill Americans wherever they can find us. By insisting that they are all "terrorists", president Bush guarantees that we will occupy Iraq at least as long as the British (or their surrogates) did - about thirty-five years. This is the "course" that he wishes us to "stay".
The first step in a new policy towards Iraq, then, is to drive a wedge between the national insurgents and the foreign jihadists be negotiating with the former to help eradicate the latter. We should more seriously negotiate with moderate Sunni Arabs, and there clearly are a large number, to establish an agreement for a mutual and speedy draw-down of forces. The United States would agree to a two-phased withdrawal whereby combat forces will be withdrawn from occupational roles to bases outside the cities in exchange for verifiable insurgent disarmament. Once insurgent disarmament is complete, Sunnis would be guaranteed full political participation with protected civil and political rights.
As this mutual disengagement is taking place, the United States should obtain Sunni commitments to help in the isolation, suppression, and eradication of the foreign jihadist elements in Iraq. The Sunnis have tolerated their presence and made common cause with them in the shared hope of getting the Americans to leave. Once that is clearly happening, the Sunnis not only have no further use for the foreigners, they have a positive motive for removing them from Iraq soil. Because they have been cooperating int he insurgency, the Sunnis will know the identity, location, and methods of jihadists and will be crucial players in their eradication in ways that we can never hope to achieve on our own.
Iraqi nationalists, whether Sunni, Shiite, or Kurdish, will also want assurances that the United States intends no permanent military presence in Iraq. Thus, the United States should declare that it is not constructing and will not construct permanent military bases in Iraq. Some might wish to quibble over what is "permanent" and what is not. But clearly, pouring concrete foundations for barracks and welding steel for armories is permanent, whereas tents and trench latrines are not. We either intend to maintain a long-term presence in Iraq - and there is little doubt that that was (and perhaps even today still is) the intent of the neoconservative policy makers in the Bush government, thought it was never revealed as such to the American people - or we do not.
The fatal flaw in the Bush occupation is its insistence that all those attacking our troops and facilities are "terrorists". Any number of military and civilian analysts have consistently stated that we face two distinctive opponents: national insurgents on one hand, foreign jihadists on the other. Some estimates put the percentage of national insurgents at about 90 percent of all those resisting our occupation, which means that foreign jihadists represent 10 percent or fewer. Numerically, insurgents are estimated at somewhere between twenty and forty thousand, and jihadists are estimated at anywhere from five hundred to four thousand.
To understand the difference, one must ask this question: How many people are going to follow us home when we eventually depart? The purpose of the national insurgents, largely Sunni Iraqi Arabs, is to get us to leave their country. The purpose of foreign jihadists, including many Saudi Arabians, is to kill Americans wherever they can find us. By insisting that they are all "terrorists", president Bush guarantees that we will occupy Iraq at least as long as the British (or their surrogates) did - about thirty-five years. This is the "course" that he wishes us to "stay".
The first step in a new policy towards Iraq, then, is to drive a wedge between the national insurgents and the foreign jihadists be negotiating with the former to help eradicate the latter. We should more seriously negotiate with moderate Sunni Arabs, and there clearly are a large number, to establish an agreement for a mutual and speedy draw-down of forces. The United States would agree to a two-phased withdrawal whereby combat forces will be withdrawn from occupational roles to bases outside the cities in exchange for verifiable insurgent disarmament. Once insurgent disarmament is complete, Sunnis would be guaranteed full political participation with protected civil and political rights.
As this mutual disengagement is taking place, the United States should obtain Sunni commitments to help in the isolation, suppression, and eradication of the foreign jihadist elements in Iraq. The Sunnis have tolerated their presence and made common cause with them in the shared hope of getting the Americans to leave. Once that is clearly happening, the Sunnis not only have no further use for the foreigners, they have a positive motive for removing them from Iraq soil. Because they have been cooperating int he insurgency, the Sunnis will know the identity, location, and methods of jihadists and will be crucial players in their eradication in ways that we can never hope to achieve on our own.
Iraqi nationalists, whether Sunni, Shiite, or Kurdish, will also want assurances that the United States intends no permanent military presence in Iraq. Thus, the United States should declare that it is not constructing and will not construct permanent military bases in Iraq. Some might wish to quibble over what is "permanent" and what is not. But clearly, pouring concrete foundations for barracks and welding steel for armories is permanent, whereas tents and trench latrines are not. We either intend to maintain a long-term presence in Iraq - and there is little doubt that that was (and perhaps even today still is) the intent of the neoconservative policy makers in the Bush government, thought it was never revealed as such to the American people - or we do not.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Physicist Stephen Hawking to Star in Movie
Sat Oct 14, 6:31 PM ET
LONDON (AFP) - Acclaimed British physicist Stephen Hawking will reportedly trade in scientific journals for the big screen by starring in a movie.
The film, "Beyond the Horizon," aims to explain some of the complicated theories backed by Hawking and his fellow physicists, including the idea that space has up to 11 dimensions and the cause of the big bang.
The 64-year-old Hawking, famous for his 1988 international best-seller "A Brief History of Time," will also narrate a soundtrack which explains cosmological concepts.
"Beyond the Horizon" centres around a fictional religious affairs correspondent for The Times newspaper who approaches Hawking, interviewing the physicist for a major feature.
Leonard Mlodinow, a former scriptwriter on the television series "Star Trek," is working with Hawking on the project, which does not yet have a release date, The Sunday Times said.
The academic, who is the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge -- a post once held by Isaac Newton -- was diagnosed with the muscle-wasting condition motor neurone disease at the age of 22. He is in a wheelchair and speaks with the aid of a computer and voice synthesiser.
His research has centred on theoretical cosmology and quantum gravity, looking at the nature of such subjects as space-time, the "Big Bang" theory and black holes.
LONDON (AFP) - Acclaimed British physicist Stephen Hawking will reportedly trade in scientific journals for the big screen by starring in a movie.
The film, "Beyond the Horizon," aims to explain some of the complicated theories backed by Hawking and his fellow physicists, including the idea that space has up to 11 dimensions and the cause of the big bang.
The 64-year-old Hawking, famous for his 1988 international best-seller "A Brief History of Time," will also narrate a soundtrack which explains cosmological concepts.
"Beyond the Horizon" centres around a fictional religious affairs correspondent for The Times newspaper who approaches Hawking, interviewing the physicist for a major feature.
Leonard Mlodinow, a former scriptwriter on the television series "Star Trek," is working with Hawking on the project, which does not yet have a release date, The Sunday Times said.
The academic, who is the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge -- a post once held by Isaac Newton -- was diagnosed with the muscle-wasting condition motor neurone disease at the age of 22. He is in a wheelchair and speaks with the aid of a computer and voice synthesiser.
His research has centred on theoretical cosmology and quantum gravity, looking at the nature of such subjects as space-time, the "Big Bang" theory and black holes.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Entry for October 13, 2006
We had our first snow last night here in Saginaw, so this morning I was doing a rare occurrence for me: I watched the local news. I gave up the local news years ago (about the same time I gave up soda) because I realized that it added nothing beneficial to my life. The only thing I ever tune in for anymore is local election results and an occasion large story. This being the first snow and Friday the 13th, I figured it should be amusing. Plus, I really didn't feel like doing much else.
Along with the road closures they talked about the upcoming elections and gas prices heading back. They showed a number of clips of people from both parties talking about oil to emphasis the fact that both oil prices heading up, and the upcoming elections, were both real stories. What struck me odd is that both candidates talked about our dependence on foreign oil and said that they did not know what our current reserves were or how long they would last. This somehow hit me at an odd angle and I thought I would check it out and post it here on my blog for those candidates far too busy to do the research themselves, but still found time to read my blog.
As of Sept 29, 2006, the US has an Oil Reserve of 687.7 million barrels of oil (1). We currently consume about 9,125,000 barrels a day (2). Soooo, about 75 day’s worth of oil just on the reserves, if we were completely cut off. We do also produce a percentage of our own oil - but that would only get us to about 100 days. And during that time, prices would skyrocket and demand would outweigh supply so much that most individuals would not be able to afford to fill up their cars.
I don't think that the people who hate us would ever cut us off. No dealer ever cuts off their addicts because they know that they are their best customers. What they can do is slowly drive the price up by reducing how much they produce (which OPEC did last week, 3) and sending some of that cash that they made for us to people who want to do us harm or to prop up governments who really, really dislike us inorder to grow their own government as powerful or more powerful then our own (at our expense). Luckily enough for us, our largest importer of oil is Canada - who are wonderful, nice, friendly, sexy, well-hung people who would never raise their prices because they are too good looking and beautiful to do so.
Now of course this doesn't take into account that some of our oil is sweet and some is sour (meaning it can only be turned into certain types) and that there is some argument as to whether or not the reserves actually exist. Also, the oil that we have in reserves is crude oil and would not be ready for consumption for a number of weeks. What's that mean? It means that we are a country addicted to oil, sold to us by our enemies, and encouraged by our government. We have become too dependant, too quickly, without a decent backup plan.
What bothers me more then anything else is that I've yet to hear a candidate talking about how we can reduce our consumption. Instead, it's all about how to get our next fix. If we could only make our own oil. You know, then we could have all that we wanted and never have to pay anyone else. Maybe we could then go into business for ourselves and sell enough to pay for our habit. Man that would be cool, all the oil we could ever want and cash on the side. That would be sweet. Mmmm sweet, sweet oil.. ... .I gotta go. .. ..I gotta go pump a couple of gallons before breakfast - you know, just to get me going. Later.
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/spr-facts.html
www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061008/bs_nm/energy_opec_dc_2
Along with the road closures they talked about the upcoming elections and gas prices heading back. They showed a number of clips of people from both parties talking about oil to emphasis the fact that both oil prices heading up, and the upcoming elections, were both real stories. What struck me odd is that both candidates talked about our dependence on foreign oil and said that they did not know what our current reserves were or how long they would last. This somehow hit me at an odd angle and I thought I would check it out and post it here on my blog for those candidates far too busy to do the research themselves, but still found time to read my blog.
As of Sept 29, 2006, the US has an Oil Reserve of 687.7 million barrels of oil (1). We currently consume about 9,125,000 barrels a day (2). Soooo, about 75 day’s worth of oil just on the reserves, if we were completely cut off. We do also produce a percentage of our own oil - but that would only get us to about 100 days. And during that time, prices would skyrocket and demand would outweigh supply so much that most individuals would not be able to afford to fill up their cars.
I don't think that the people who hate us would ever cut us off. No dealer ever cuts off their addicts because they know that they are their best customers. What they can do is slowly drive the price up by reducing how much they produce (which OPEC did last week, 3) and sending some of that cash that they made for us to people who want to do us harm or to prop up governments who really, really dislike us inorder to grow their own government as powerful or more powerful then our own (at our expense). Luckily enough for us, our largest importer of oil is Canada - who are wonderful, nice, friendly, sexy, well-hung people who would never raise their prices because they are too good looking and beautiful to do so.
Now of course this doesn't take into account that some of our oil is sweet and some is sour (meaning it can only be turned into certain types) and that there is some argument as to whether or not the reserves actually exist. Also, the oil that we have in reserves is crude oil and would not be ready for consumption for a number of weeks. What's that mean? It means that we are a country addicted to oil, sold to us by our enemies, and encouraged by our government. We have become too dependant, too quickly, without a decent backup plan.
What bothers me more then anything else is that I've yet to hear a candidate talking about how we can reduce our consumption. Instead, it's all about how to get our next fix. If we could only make our own oil. You know, then we could have all that we wanted and never have to pay anyone else. Maybe we could then go into business for ourselves and sell enough to pay for our habit. Man that would be cool, all the oil we could ever want and cash on the side. That would be sweet. Mmmm sweet, sweet oil.. ... .I gotta go. .. ..I gotta go pump a couple of gallons before breakfast - you know, just to get me going. Later.
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/spr-facts.html
www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061008/bs_nm/energy_opec_dc_2
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
How to hack a diebold voting machine
I would never suggest doing this, only that it could be done easily.
"It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes." - Joseph Stalin
"It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes." - Joseph Stalin
Monday, October 09, 2006
In response to the previous poem...
Yes, poems CAN get worse. Examine the following poem:
The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool.
They lay. They rotted. They turned
Around occasionally.
Bits of flesh dropped off them from
Time to time.
And sank into the pool's mire.
They also smelt a great deal.
The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool.
They lay. They rotted. They turned
Around occasionally.
Bits of flesh dropped off them from
Time to time.
And sank into the pool's mire.
They also smelt a great deal.
Move over Paul Nancy Millstone Jennings of Greenbridge, Essex
My time of starvation and yearning hunger,
Called for something of pure enjoyment,
It’s an emptiness not understood by the younger.
So with ample time from unemployment,
A feast was enlisted to create the day.
Called upon were a Dagwood and an ale,
With ham, provolone, turkey, bread and greens.
Soon I will pounce, as if it were pray.
I must eat it all, I cannot (will not) fail,
This sandwich I will rise above and prevail,
For soon enough I will feel tightness of my jeans.
Called for something of pure enjoyment,
It’s an emptiness not understood by the younger.
So with ample time from unemployment,
A feast was enlisted to create the day.
Called upon were a Dagwood and an ale,
With ham, provolone, turkey, bread and greens.
Soon I will pounce, as if it were pray.
I must eat it all, I cannot (will not) fail,
This sandwich I will rise above and prevail,
For soon enough I will feel tightness of my jeans.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
How did we let things get this bad?
Keith Olbermann lays it all out in simple english, with references, and quotes as to why we may have waited too long to serve responsibility to those who deserve it.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Overheard on a radio show...
...I would personally like to thank Senator Mark Foley for molesting those young pages down there so that we don’t have to molest them up here.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Saginaw, MI
Living in Saginaw, it’s extremely hard to exhibit a decent level of joie de vivre. We are always surrounded with what seems to be a once vibrant past, built on the blue-collar dreams of the now retired local inhabitants. The usual lively assortment you would expect to find in any small city is virtually nonexistent here do to the lack of employment and hard economic conditions brought on by the exiting manufacturing jobs and all that goes with it. This has left a very depressed area consisting of those who cannot leave, those who too fondly remember good times, and those who will leave soon.
The small exception to this is the medical community – which is our reason for being here. As with any area that has seen its share of economic hardship, it is the daily increases in the local hospital population that are always the most telling. This is how it is in Saginaw, and is an excellent opportunity for medical students to see the full gambit of hardships.
Unfortunately, this area has left me with little to no local employment prospects other then a level of underemployment that borders on humor to our friends and family. This situation is wholly depressing in the worst way. Nothing is more shameful and destructive to a man then the feeling of public inadequacy – and here, among this drab outlook and impending ennui, I will slowly rot.
The small exception to this is the medical community – which is our reason for being here. As with any area that has seen its share of economic hardship, it is the daily increases in the local hospital population that are always the most telling. This is how it is in Saginaw, and is an excellent opportunity for medical students to see the full gambit of hardships.
Unfortunately, this area has left me with little to no local employment prospects other then a level of underemployment that borders on humor to our friends and family. This situation is wholly depressing in the worst way. Nothing is more shameful and destructive to a man then the feeling of public inadequacy – and here, among this drab outlook and impending ennui, I will slowly rot.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
My letter calling for Representative Hastert to resign
As most of you are aware, Mark Foley resigned this week after ABC aired a segment in which they revealed his instant messages to a juvenile page of the House.The messages included a proposition for the juvenile to come over and have a drink, one asking if he made the child horny, and new claims from three other pages that they were also inappropriately contacted by Senator Foley. Foley has since resigned and is currently under investigation.
The larger problem at hand is that Dennis Hastert, the current Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, who knew about the situation months, if not years in advanced. Moreover, he allowed Senator Foley to not only remain in Congress, but also to stay Co-Chair of House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children (I hope the irony isn’t lost on anyone).
Speaker Hastert, through his inaction, has shown that he believes that political power is more important then basic human decency and safety of children that had been entrusted to someone he knew to be a child predator.
So I ask all those out there in internet land, to email Senator Hastert and ask for his resignation. No one who values political power of the welfare of children should be allowed to represent anyone besides that scum that calls itself NAMBLA.
Click here to email Dennis Hastert
He accepts email from any address, not just his own district.
My letter:
Mr. Hastert,
It is a shame that a political career can be tarnished so quickly in our system - although there are times when the actions or inactions of an individual in power can warrant that conflict. You allowed a man who you knew to be a danger to children to not only keep his job, but have access to the very group in which you knew that he was a danger. This, unfortunately, was both a flagrantly ill-advised and presently unforgivable. There is a well known line of Dante’s that reads, “There is a special place in Hell for those who, in times of moral crisis, preserve their neutrality”. You choose no action, neutrality in the face of impending devious conduct towards a minor, and you must now accept the consequences for your inaction. This regrettable situation has prompted me to ask for you to step down from your post and surrender your job. I know that there is an election soon, but we cannot sacrifice our values and morals for an individuals pride and to preserve a system that would overlook such behavior to maintain a majority voting block.
Thank you,
Brian Hamilton
The larger problem at hand is that Dennis Hastert, the current Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, who knew about the situation months, if not years in advanced. Moreover, he allowed Senator Foley to not only remain in Congress, but also to stay Co-Chair of House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children (I hope the irony isn’t lost on anyone).
Speaker Hastert, through his inaction, has shown that he believes that political power is more important then basic human decency and safety of children that had been entrusted to someone he knew to be a child predator.
So I ask all those out there in internet land, to email Senator Hastert and ask for his resignation. No one who values political power of the welfare of children should be allowed to represent anyone besides that scum that calls itself NAMBLA.
Click here to email Dennis Hastert
He accepts email from any address, not just his own district.
My letter:
Mr. Hastert,
It is a shame that a political career can be tarnished so quickly in our system - although there are times when the actions or inactions of an individual in power can warrant that conflict. You allowed a man who you knew to be a danger to children to not only keep his job, but have access to the very group in which you knew that he was a danger. This, unfortunately, was both a flagrantly ill-advised and presently unforgivable. There is a well known line of Dante’s that reads, “There is a special place in Hell for those who, in times of moral crisis, preserve their neutrality”. You choose no action, neutrality in the face of impending devious conduct towards a minor, and you must now accept the consequences for your inaction. This regrettable situation has prompted me to ask for you to step down from your post and surrender your job. I know that there is an election soon, but we cannot sacrifice our values and morals for an individuals pride and to preserve a system that would overlook such behavior to maintain a majority voting block.
Thank you,
Brian Hamilton
Entry for October 05, 2006
In a time a time where everyone believes that they are middle class, everyone is also under the strange misconception that they are a political centrist. But if you ask them what they mean by this they will give you the standard answer of, “Well, sometimes I’m conservative and sometimes I’m a bit liberal”. They will usually follow this with several caveats and examples so that you fully understand that they are a political wash. This is an odd turn of events and I blame the parties themselves. No one wants to be included in a Democratic Party that has no direction and very few cohesive ideals. Moreover, no one wants really to be called a Republican when you realize that they are in no way still conservative, and have pushed for larger government, less personal responsibility, a reduction in states rights, and more government intervention into the personal lives of the citizens. No, in this day we all call ourselves middle class and centrists because all of the other options leave a bad taste in our mouths.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Entry for October 04, 2006
The Democrats seemed poised to take back the House and with the recent news coming from Florida, stand a decent chance to take back the Senate as well. All future impeachment discussions aside, this will make the current president essentially a lame duck for the remainder of his term. With this soon to be neutering of the White House it has set up a certain media driven person with name recognition, now schooled in the art of changing principles and extreme swings towards daily fluctuation political views, as the current choice for the Democratic candidate in 2008. Unfortunately with the way the parties now stand, this leaves the voting population with the party of “stay the course to ruin” or to change leadership to “we are for whatever you people are for this very minute as long as you support us”.
This worries me. For years the Democrats have been in search of a leader on a white horse, an exciting new candidate who will lead the Democratic Party out of the wilderness. This argument has become a substitute for thought, for purpose, for conviction. Twenty-first century Democrats cling to the hope of a messiah in the vacant centrist venue where messiahs never appear. Instead, the Democratic Party must decide what its core principles are and the, and only then, decide which national leader or leaders best embody those principles. No politician can save a political party that does not know what it stands for.
This worries me. For years the Democrats have been in search of a leader on a white horse, an exciting new candidate who will lead the Democratic Party out of the wilderness. This argument has become a substitute for thought, for purpose, for conviction. Twenty-first century Democrats cling to the hope of a messiah in the vacant centrist venue where messiahs never appear. Instead, the Democratic Party must decide what its core principles are and the, and only then, decide which national leader or leaders best embody those principles. No politician can save a political party that does not know what it stands for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
