Christmas and Babies.

I'm so tired of hearing the phrase "'Christmas' made it's comeback this year!"
Christmas NEVER left.
I'm so tired of hearing how people are "offended" by a "Merry Christmas" or a freakin' tree.
Or a baby.
What do left-wingers have against babies, huh? First they want to kill them before they're born and now they're OFFENDED by manger scenes with a mommy and a daddy and a baby.
Oh, yeah, I forgot. Mommy and a daddy. That promotes a healthy household/relationship. My. Bad.


But at any rate, you kids have a Merry Christmas. Be safe.
And love babies.

Is there ANYTHING newsworthy anymore??

Lindsay Ho-han. Paris Hilton. Nichole Richey. Miss USA. Britney Spears.
Why is it that every news channel wants to run these story in fifteen (or less) minute intervals?
Do we really care? I mean, honestly...I'm tired of hearing about these idiotic, pampered brats running around pantyless at their AA meetings, "blinging" out their Sidekicks (tm), and which dog they carry in their expensive bowling handbags. Give me a break.
How is that helping the world at all? Why is the media so obsessed with these girls???
Sure, maybe they've got big boobs, daddy owns a hotel chain (and a crappy one at that), daddy was a famous singer (again, a crappy one at that), or maybe it's the "washed up teen pop star trailer trash" thing. Or hey, wow, that skinny girl does cocaine!
(Yeah, if she shows up to a pageant with white powder under her nose, you should either fire her make up artist, or get a drug dog in the room.)
And maybe these women should consider dying their hair something other than blonde...I'm noticing a trend...(except with Ho-han, but her hair color changes every day, apparently).
It's so sad when a few of the top stories read "Lindsay Lohan bruises her legs practising for her new role as a pole dancer in her upcoming movie!" or "Miss USA's platform went to anti-drug abuse to 'Don't take my **** tiara or I'll eat something.' "

Maybe I'm just adding to the attention they're receiving, but I don't want to hear about them again until they eat something other than the (gluttonous binge, mind you) olives at the bottom of their martini glasses. THEN that might be news worthy.

Something else that keeps reappearing on the news in about five minute spells.
(It's sad, it really is, and my heart goes out to the families, but, I still have a problem with it.)
The "Mt. Hood Climbers." Ok. Ok. Doesn't this sort of thing happen all the time? I mean, sounding incredibly insensitive and heartless, but willing to take that risk, why does the whole nation have to be on a lookout search for these men? It seems to me that this is more of a family/search team matter--and the press would only be hindering, not helping. I certainly wouldn't want cameras all over me if one of my family members were trapped on a mountain--most likely dead.
I realize that it's the family's call, and I'm not in the situation yadayada...but, why pick this story out of all the other people disappearing on mountains?
I shall parallel this to the Natalie Holloway "case." (Disclaimer: I am in no way saying that anyone deserved anything that happened to them, so don't even try that.)
Natalie left her hotel room unsupervised, really late at night/really early in the AMs. She left to go to a bar, where she was probably drinking something...and then left with strange boys (from what I understand, of course). Everything you do has risk involved. Especially when said place is known to be dangerous (ex. Mt. Hood--a mountain--which tend to get the "dangerous" labels, if you will--and Aruba, known for kidnappings, etc.), why take extra risk? Or, continue with your "plans" fully knowing the risks?
I went around that in a complete ambiguous circle to say: If you're going to climb a mountain, charge your cell phone, carry a lighter...do something. I don't see how people are SO suprised that "oh my gosh, the snowy mountain!! It's DANGEROUS??!?! Poor climbers, they must not have known!" or "Poor Natalie Holloway...She must not have known that leaving her hotel room unsupervised in a different country could be dangerous!"

With that said....moving on to politics.
Hell-ary Rod-ham (Clinton).
"Oh, well, I guess I'll run for president in 2008...*giggle*...I bet no one was expecting that!"
*rolls eyes*
I almost forsee Hellary and Obama as running mates...that would be a scary world...*witholds mean stereotypical, borderline "ad hominem" rant.*
Obama's support group has been running ads of him, and he is "entertaining" the idea of running. Yep. Just like Hellary was for...oh...TWO years (+/-).
I am almost willing to put money on Hellary's and Billy Rodham-Clinton's divorce if she becomes the next "Resident."
What the heck does she have to run on other than a stained blue dress and a horribly written book? "Burn your bras, we're taking over!" ???
Sorry, ma'am/sir/it, I like my Victoria's Secret.

It's not like the "Republican" ticket is any better. Giuliani? McCAIN???? Great. Third party ticket, anyone?
Sure, big names big names, but the Dem. ticket seems to have actual representations of their party. (AKA: Feminist and Muslim.)
2008-2012 will be in the hands of a complete social liberal, no matter which party "wins."
I'm almost thinking the Green Party might have a tempting candidate...the legalization of the green stuff seems like the lesser of evils so far (totally kidding, guys).

"ABC show regular Joy Behar stuns audience by suggesting former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is 'like Hitler.'"
How did you back this up, Ms. Behar?
Well, then again, she is the same one who, after Sen. Tim Johnson's brain surgery said:
“Is there such a thing as a man-made stroke?" she asked. "In other words, did someone do this to him?”
Those EVIL Republicans! They'll stop at NOTHING to get their priceless Senate back...they must not have liked those beautiful blue curtains that were hanging in the room...They MUST have gotten some chemicals or something and created a stroke in Poor Mr. Johnson. Down with the Republicans!!

Oh, the View. Right up the donkey's rear. Beautiful, just beautiful.

The women on that show make me almost as sick as Ho-han, Spears, Richey, and Hilton..and probably almost as sick as they make themselves after eating that horrid olive--must. throw. up. (bulimia...you know..)

OH, and I have a little bit of news.
March 1-3, I shall be in DC....meeting Ann Coulter (who is always first on these lists), VP Dick Cheney, Sean Hannity, Giuliani (What is he doing at the CPAC? I know, right?), and scores of others....so, if you have any of these "rich, white, bald republican male" friends....send them in my direction. We can use a wee bit of funding.

It has been a while since I've really written anything...so I'm still kinda rusty.
That's pretty much all that's coming to mind right now.
Oh, besides that..I dislike Ted Kennedy very much.


--Acorn.

Reactions

Well, the world appears to be responding favorably to the recent Democratic victory in the congressional races. Ayatollah Khamenei, for example, praises their victory by proclaiming it "an obvious victory for the Iranian Nation" (He also condemned attacks by the "savage Zionists" in the Gaza strip.) Similarly, the Europeans seem to be largely happy that their American counterparts have been granted the majority after a "six year nightmare".
A french politician offered this pearl of wisdom: ""I am happy to see American foreign policy criticized by the American people because it is bad.""

On the other hand, the Israelis (who, unlike Iran -and increasingly, French suburbs- are not in the habit of proclaiming us the great satan and shouting death threats to us in their streets) seem to be just a bit apprehensive about dealing with the new majority.

And though opinions vary on whether Rumsfeld's recent departure was for better or worse, the Democrats seem willing to take the credit. Unfortunately, Al-Qaeda fails to give them their proper due in their latest communique, although they, like our liberal friends, are quite happy to see him go.

-04|<

Apologies

Sorry for the long lack of entries, if anyone still checks this thing. I suspect, given the elections, that I will have quite a bit to post in here soon. Perhaps it won't all be negative, we'll see.

In case you live in a cave somewhere, Democrats swept the House and took the Senate by one. Rumsfeld also resigned, and there is speculation as to John Bolton's resignation or replacement as our secretary to the UN. (his lack of reverence for the esteemed world body of almost inconceivable inanity and corruption will doubtless rub our new majority party the wrong way.)
Oh well, maybe they can have Kofi come give a speech at Pelosi's drape-fitting ceremony...

More to come.

-04|<

Irritated

I am tired of this. Yes, Grand Theft Auto is not a wholesome cuddly game that your seven year old should be playing (that's what the M/AO rating exists). But, this is just one game out of all the games produced every year (a vague fraction, I know). The earlier iterations of this "best selling series" were not at all realistic in any sense. They were designed as purely arcade games. Yes, you shot police officers, but the goal was to make money, and to not get the police to chase after you, that way you stayed alive longer and had more cash to buy better stuff to take better jobs.

In the linked article, the author asserts that "Young men that play Grand Theft Auto III were more likely to drink booze, smoke marijuana, and be defiant than those who played a 'low-violence' game based on The Simpsons cartoon television series, according to a study published this spring in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine." I would argue, that the proclivity of drinking, drug use, and defiance were already present. I find it hard to believe that a game can trigger a major change in behavior in a mentally healthy person. The author is right when he says that gaming increases blood pressure. I'm guessing that's related to the adrenaline produced while gaming. There is certainly a euphoric feeling after defeating some level that has challenged you greatly (rather like completing a programming project). On the other hand, the study focused on "players from homes or neighborhoods troubled by violence." This little bit is interesting, because these are people that have direct contact with the subject matter. Thus, would be more prone to react to stimuli associated with what they have experienced. I'm not sure what the cited study was supposed to prove. To use GTA as the benchmark for all "violent" games is a silly premise.

Admittedly, that wasn't my primary issue with the article. The headline is rather misleading: "'Grand Theft Auto,' driving the dark side of video games.' What is meant by the "dark side of games"?

Is it sexual content? As a friend of mine pointed out, GTA does have quite a bit of fornication in it. But, if that is the benchmark used, why isn't Leisure Suit Larry right along side it (that one is so debaucherous that I won't bother to link to it)? Thanks to Jon for pointing out this missing piece of my arguement.

Is it only real world violence? The Total War series is incredibly violent, though historically accurate. Armies march by the hundreds (and in the upcoming version, thousands) into each other. What about the Brothers In Arms games? I don't hear anyone complaining about these realistically violent WWII games. Did anyone think that Ghost Recon was a bad influence?

Or is it about sheer numbers or gore? Is the Unreal Tournament series causing random real-life deathmatch games to occur? Is Serious Sam making anyone think that a mini-gun and some one-liners can solve all of life's problems? Did Stubbs the Zombie make people start eating brains? Is it the gore and horror of F.E.A.R? Gibbing in Quake 3?

None of these are harolded as the bringer of the gaming apocolypse. Instead, one game is referenced and compared to "low-violence" games. I'm just asking for a little honesty in how this issue is presented. Do a side by side comparison with people who play Grand Theft Auto, and gamers* who play some of the above mentioned games. That might tell more about who is playing what and what the effects of those games are.

Grand Theft Auto is not the driving force behind the "dark side of gaming." It's the media and the public. It seems to me that GTA has gotten more press than any other game I can name at this moment. So, I have to ask, might this be somehow connected to the high sales numbers? Please, can we stop telling people that games are the root of all evil? Bad things were happening long before GTA appeared, and will continue long after no one cares about it anymore. Perhaps we should focus on instilling in people an understanding of civic and personal responsibility and respect, instead of thinking that removing one game will make everything better (you know, that might make the game go away anyway) [1] [2] [3] [4].

*Yes, I draw a distinction between a "gamer" and a person who plays games. This is a recent shift in terminology that should not have occurred. A couple of years ago, a gamer was someone who knew exactly what made the games work. They knew what bump-mapping meant. They knew what was inside their computer/console. Now, anyone who picks up a controller is a gamer, and that is a sad thing.

To all of you faux gamers out there, I just have one thing to say: Is that a three-headed monkey behind you?

Chavez's Speech at the UN - Transcript

A couple of speeches to fill the blog. Here's the first of two. Commentary to follow. It'll be nice to have them here to reference.

I found this one from the Drudge Report.
-----------
President Chavez of Venezuela at the UN- 9/20/06

Representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all
of you. First of all, I would like to invite you, very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it. Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books, 'Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States.'" [Holds up book, waves it in front of General Assembly.]

It's an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century, and what's happening now, and the greatest threat looming over our planet. The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads. I had considered reading from this book, but, for the sake of time," [flips through the pages, which are numerous] "I will just leave it as a recommendation.

It reads easily, it is a very good book, I'm sure Madame [President] you are familiar with it. It appears in English, in Russian, in Arabic, in German. I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is right in their own house. The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house.

And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here." [crosses himself]

And it smells of sulfur still today.

Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.

I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.

An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: "The Devil's Recipe."

As Chomsky says here, clearly and in depth, the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its system of domination. And we cannot allow them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated.

The world parent's statement -- cynical, hypocritical, full of this imperial hypocrisy from the need they have to control everything.

They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that's their democratic model. It's the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that's imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons.

What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at the root of democracy.

What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?

The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I'm quoting, "Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom."

Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother -- he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there's an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.

The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists. It's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are standing up.

I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.

Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.

The president then -- and this he said himself, he said: "I have come to speak directly to the populations in the Middle East, to tell them that my country wants peace."

That's true. If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city, San Antonio, San Francisco, and we ask individuals, the citizens of the United States, what does this country want? Does it want peace? They'll say yes.

But the government doesn't want peace. The government of the United States doesn't want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war.

It wants peace. But what's happening in Iraq? What happened in Lebanon? In Palestine? What's happening? What's happened over the last 100 years in Latin America and in the world? And now threatening Venezuela -- new threats against Venezuela, against Iran?

He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen how your homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie shamefacedly. The bombs in Beirut with millimetric precision?

This is crossfire? He's thinking of a western, when people would shoot from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire.

This is imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal, the empire and Israel firing on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened. And now we hear, "We're suffering because we see homes destroyed.'

The president of the United States came to talk to the peoples -- to the peoples of the world. He came to say -- I brought some documents with me, because this morning I was reading some statements, and I see that he talked to the people of Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon, the people of Iran. And he addressed all these peoples directly.

And you can wonder, just as the president of the United States addresses those peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell him if they were given the floor? What would they have to say?

And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed people think. They would say, "Yankee imperialist, go home." I think that is what those people would say if they were given the microphone and if they could speak with one voice to the American imperialists.

And that is why, Madam President, my colleagues, my friends, last year we came here to this same hall as we have been doing for the past eight years, and we said something that has now been confirmed -- fully, fully confirmed.

I don't think anybody in this room could defend the system. Let's accept -- let's be honest. The U.N. system, born after the Second World War, collapsed. It's worthless.

Oh, yes, it's good to bring us together once a year, see each other, make statements and prepare all kinds of long documents, and listen to good speeches, like Abel's (ph) yesterday, or President Mullah's (ph). Yes, it's good for that.

And there are a lot of speeches, and we've heard lots from the president of Sri Lanka, for instance, and the president of Chile.

But we, the assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ. We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world. And that is why Venezuela once again proposes, here, today, 20 September, that we re-establish the United Nations.

Last year, Madam, we made four modest proposals that we felt to be crucially important. We have to assume the responsibility our heads of state, our ambassadors, our representatives, and we have to discuss it.

The first is expansion, and Mullah (ph) talked about this yesterday right here. The Security Council, both as it has permanent and non-permanent categories, (inaudible) developing countries and LDCs must be given access as new permanent members. That's step one.

Second, effective methods to address and resolve world conflicts, transparent decisions.

Point three, the immediate suppression -- and that is something everyone's calling for -- of the anti-democratic mechanism known as the veto, the veto on decisions of the Security Council.

Let me give you a recent example. The immoral veto of the United States allowed the Israelis, with impunity, to destroy Lebanon. Right in front of all of us as we stood there watching, a resolution in the council was prevented.

Fourthly, we have to strengthen, as we've always said, the role and the powers of the secretary general of the United Nations.

Yesterday, the secretary general practically gave us his speech of farewell. And he recognized that over the last 10 years, things have just gotten more complicated; hunger, poverty, violence, human rights violations have just worsened. That is the tremendous consequence of the collapse of the United Nations system and American hegemonistic pretensions.

Madam, Venezuela a few years ago decided to wage this battle within the United Nations by recognizing the United Nations, as members of it that we are, and lending it our voice, our thinking.

Our voice is an independent voice to represent the dignity and the search for peace and the reformulation of the international system; to denounce persecution and aggression of hegemonistic forces on the planet.

This is how Venezuela has presented itself. Bolivar's home has sought a nonpermanent seat on the Security Council.

Let's see. Well, there's been an open attack by the U.S. government, an immoral attack, to try and prevent Venezuela from being freely elected to a post in the Security Council.

The imperium is afraid of truth, is afraid of independent voices. It calls us extremists, but they are the extremists.

And I would like to thank all the countries that have kindly announced their support for Venezuela, even though the ballot is a secret one and there's no need to announce things.

But since the imperium has attacked, openly, they strengthened the convictions of many countries. And their support strengthens us.

Mercosur, as a bloc, has expressed its support, our brothers in Mercosur. Venezuela, with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, is a full member of Mercosur.

And many other Latin American countries, CARICOM, Bolivia have expressed their support for Venezuela. The Arab League, the full Arab League has voiced its support. And I am immensely grateful to the Arab world, to our Arab brothers, our Caribbean brothers, the African Union. Almost all of Africa has expressed its support for Venezuela and countries such as Russia or China and many others.

I thank you all warmly on behalf of Venezuela, on behalf of our people, and on behalf of the truth, because Venezuela, with a seat on the Security Council, will be expressing not only Venezuela's thoughts, but it will also be the voice of all the peoples of the world, and we will defend dignity and truth.

Over and above all of this, Madam President, I think there are reasons to be optimistic. A poet would have said "helplessly optimistic," because over and above the wars and the bombs and the aggressive and the preventive war and the destruction of entire peoples, one can see that a new era is dawning.

As Sylvia Rodriguez says, the era is giving birth to a heart. There are alternative ways of thinking. There are young people who think differently. And this has already been seen within the space of a mere decade. It was shown that the end of history was a totally false assumption, and the same was shown about Pax Americana and the establishment of the capitalist neo-liberal world. It has been shown, this system, to generate mere poverty. Who believes in it now?

What we now have to do is define the future of the world. Dawn is breaking out all over. You can see it in Africa and Europe and Latin America and Oceanea. I want to emphasize that optimistic vision.

We have to strengthen ourselves, our will to do battle, our awareness. We have to build a new and better world.

Venezuela joins that struggle, and that's why we are threatened. The U.S. has already planned, financed and set in motion a coup in Venezuela, and it continues to support coup attempts in Venezuela and elsewhere.

President Michelle Bachelet reminded us just a moment ago of the horrendous assassination of the former foreign minister, Orlando Letelier.

And I would just add one thing: Those who perpetrated this crime are free. And that other event where an American citizen also died were American themselves. They were CIA killers, terrorists.

And we must recall in this room that in just a few days there will be another anniversary. Thirty years will have passed from this other horrendous terrorist attack on the Cuban plane, where 73 innocents died, a Cubana de Aviacion airliner.

And where is the biggest terrorist of this continent who took the responsibility for blowing up the plane? He spent a few years in jail in Venezuela. Thanks to CIA and then government officials, he was allowed to escape, and he lives here in this country, protected by the government.

And he was convicted. He has confessed to his crime. But the U.S. government has double standards. It protects terrorism when it wants to.

And this is to say that Venezuela is fully committed to combating terrorism and violence. And we are one of the people who are fighting for peace.

Luis Posada Carriles is the name of that terrorist who is protected here. And other tremendously corrupt people who escaped from Venezuela are also living here under protection: a group that bombed various embassies, that assassinated people during the coup. They kidnapped me and they were going to kill me, but I think God reached down and our people came out into the streets and the army was too, and so I'm here today.

But these people who led that coup are here today in this country protected by the American government. And I accuse the American government of protecting terrorists and of having a completely cynical discourse.

We mentioned Cuba. Yes, we were just there a few days ago. We just came from there happily.

And there you see another era born. The Summit of the 15, the Summit of the Nonaligned, adopted a historic resolution. This is the outcome document. Don't worry, I'm not going to read it.

But you have a whole set of resolutions here that were adopted after open debate in a transparent matter -- more than 50 heads of state. Havana was the capital of the south for a few weeks, and we have now launched, once again, the group of the nonaligned with new momentum.

And if there is anything I could ask all of you here, my companions, my brothers and sisters, it is to please lend your good will to lend momentum to the Nonaligned Movement for the birth of the new era, to prevent hegemony and prevent further advances of imperialism.

And as you know, Fidel Castro is the president of the nonaligned for the next three years, and we can trust him to lead the charge very efficiently.

Unfortunately they thought, "Oh, Fidel was going to die." But they're going to be disappointed because he didn't. And he's not only alive, he's back in his green fatigues, and he's now presiding the nonaligned.

So, my dear colleagues, Madam President, a new, strong movement has been born, a movement of the south. We are men and women of the south.

With this document, with these ideas, with these criticisms, I'm now closing my file. I'm taking the book with me. And, don't forget, I'm recommending it very warmly and very humbly to all of you.

We want ideas to save our planet, to save the planet from the imperialist threat. And hopefully in this very century, in not too long a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our children and our grandchildren a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations.

And maybe we have to change location. Maybe we have to put the United Nations somewhere else; maybe a city of the south. We've proposed Venezuela.

You know that my personal doctor had to stay in the plane. The chief of security had to be left in a locked plane. Neither of these gentlemen was allowed to arrive and attend the U.N. meeting. This is another abuse and another abuse of power on the part of the Devil. It smells of sulfur here, but God is with us and I embrace you all.

May God bless us all. Good day to you.

Warm Air, Cold Commentary

The current politically plausible end of the world scenario involves weather. Will the world’s climate turn to extreme heat or to extreme cold? There is some evidence for both, simultaneously. There is also evidence against both. I’m not a follower of the “global climate change” idea. To get my view on it out it the open, it strikes me that both are wrong.

In the 1975, Newsweek ran a story entitled “The Cooling World” which suggested that we should cover the polar ice caps with soot. The soot would cause the ice caps to absorb more sun, and therefore melt slightly faster. The concern at the time was the climate cooling, causing shortages in food due to the lack of water (that water having been frozen in the polar ice caps). Thirty-one years later, we’re now facing a different crisis. According to the EPA the four warmest years in the 20^th century occurred in the 1990’s. The earth's temperature has risen 1 degree Farenheit in the past 100 years.

I’m not saying outright that either are completely wrong. Since I’m not one of these mythical scientists, I don’t have the expertise to declare that. There is still evidence of a coming ice age ([1] [2]). The threat of cold is considered gone and the threat of hot is presented ad nauseum. Either that or it is presented as a nebulous “global climate change” that will certainly devastate life as we know it. If the earth has been here for a billion years, then do we have the data set necessary for predicting what the weather of the earth will do next, regardless of the impact that humans have on it? Recorded data only goes back so far. There might be patterns that we are unable to see.

Even the affect that humans have can be balanced by nature. In 1883, Krakatau erupted. The ash from it fell as far as 6000km (approx. 3700 mi) away. The temperature dropped as much as 1.2C (32 times more intense a change than the EPA's declared change in the past 100 years) and stayed lowered for 5 years. Granted, such large eruptions only happen once ever 100 or so years, but there are eruptions more often (a weekly activity report is released by the Smithsonian). Do these natural occurances have a similar impact on the global climate?

I'll agree that the earth's climate is changing (it seems like the Earth is consistantly changing in some way or another). I do not think that humans are solely reponsible for that change. Conflicting predictions indicate that these mythical scientists don't really know what's going on. For all the press about scientists agreeing, they really don't. If it really is a problem, why use it for political gain rather than stepping up to stop the problem? For all the political talk about saving the environment, nothing really has been done to provide a solution. Sure, the "we should all stop doing this" (this being using freon, exploring for new oil sources, driving SUVs, etc...) is nice lip service, but I don't see it really meaning anything. All in all, it seems like just a lot of hot air.

I'm sorry, but...

How can any democrat think they are better for this country's security than the current office?

I wanted to have a big rant explanation..but I almost think the question answers itself.

But if you need reasons why:
1. A liberal's tendancy to want to protect privacy opposed to security.
"Oh no, we can't do that! He's not a white male Christian...we cannot possibly profile him."
Yes I understand the fine line you cross when you do this...but if England hadn't have profiled a few suspicious characters, we might've had another 9-11...just not on 9-11.
2. Note there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9-11.
If Kerry had been president, he would've completely ignored any outside threat, simply shown them his bought purple medals, thrown his botoxed chin in the air, and walked away.
Once again, we would've had a "resident" instead of a "president".
3. They're too ready to appease everyone...except the white male Christian (and white female, I shall add). They claim Islam is a peaceful religion until their tongues catch on fire...but no peaceful religion would place killing themselves in car bombs or a jet liner about to crash into one of the tallest buildings in the world above family and "world peace".
4. I'm sorry, need I go further? Really? The dems are too caught up with killing secretaries in cars, having affairs in oval offices, and bringing up watergate every chance they get to pay attention to any form of national security.

However, all this said, I believe it will be a democrat's term in office in 2008...I hope I'm wrong. I really do.

The UNmen

Well, if anyone had any questions about the UN's objectivity, this should pretty much settle it:
They don't have any. If given the chance, they will side with terrorists and third world dictators (being primarily composed of such) at every opportunity.

Someone pointed out to me that this violates the UN's own statues. And indeed it does, clearly aiding and abetting a terrorist organization who hides behind civilians (and boasts of this fact) while targeting civilians and militia indiscriminately with homegrown and Tehramascus-supplied rockets.

As if the UN cares about their own statutes...
An interesting characteristic of the UN is that they're incredibly corrupt, ineffective, and biased, but they don't seem to care about even appearing useful in any way. Most international governing bodies attempt to preserve at least some sort of legitimacy, but the UN just doesn't seem to want to bother with unnecessary trifles such as promoting the ideals they clame to support.

Atrocities commited by UN 'peacekeepers' in the Belgian Congo?
Contracts manipulated so Kofi's son can receive illegal payouts?
And now feeding restricted information to Hezbollah?
Eh, they shrug. And propose a global tax so they can have more money to waste.
Repeat, ad inifinitum et ad nauseum.

Why are they still in New York? A city still rebuilding the wreckage of 9-11 is no place for an organization that provides military intelligence to terrorist organizations.

Don't steal my Karr! Er...

Ok...So what was Mr. Karr doing in Thailand that he wants out so badly?
Let's think about this...
Thailand. Sex trade capitol of the world..
And he was there discussing a sex change too.
It makes me think that he did something in Thailand that would be so much worse than claiming he murdered a little girl model (and if he did..well I'll get to that in a second) and getting off for it.
The laws over there are so different..and if he did something worth major punishment--the best he can do for himself is to claim he killed the girl to get sent back home.
Where he will plead "not-guilty" or some form of insanity and get off.

Let's take a look at this man's past, shall we?
He married a THIRTEEN year old girl.
First of all, I don't see how any parent would sign off for their thirteen year old CHILD to marry a grown man--with major child porn problems.
Then, said thirteen year old girl got too old for him, they got divorced.
He marries a SIXTEEN year old. -_-
Between those two, he has three children..

And somewhere in there (Whitney theory, here)
JonBennet happened. If--IF--he did kill her..she was probably in line for his next twisted sicksick --I'll not go there--stuff.

But, Mr. Karr, what did you do in Thailand that you wanted out of there so badly?

Note: Baked Alaska contains no Alaska

Well, you may be aware that Alaska's largest oil field has been shut down, for an as-of-yet unknown period of time. The implications of this have not yet been fully realized, except that apparently BP has made enough money over the past year that they can afford to stop producing a large portion of their raw materials, heh. (just kidding. Or am I?) [update, the field only needed to be partially shut down in order to perform the maintenance, not totally, as BP had thought]

The sad part is that we should already have another functioning oil field in Alaska, producing its fair share of the nation's crude. Why don't we? I hate to use the cliche, but I'm afraid in this case the answer actually does seem to be Democrats In Congress, so I have little choice.

An acquaintance of mine once posted a blog saying that she wants to visit Alaska before it turns into a giant oil field. This prompted me to do a bit of math. I will reproduce my results here. Please bear with me, or skip to the part where I explain the significance of these numbers.

Area of the State of Alaska: 1,717,854 sq. km

Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: 79,318 sq. km

Thus, the percentage of the State occupied by ANWR is: 4.61%

Area of the region being researched for petroleum: 6,707 sq. km

Thus, the percentage of ANWR being investigated for possible exploitation is: 8.45%

Therefore, the percentage of Alaska that is being investigated for development is: 0.39%

This is a tiny percentage, but then Alaska is a huge state. So, we're still talking about
a fairly large area here.

So, let's see of that area under research, how much of it would be developed if oil companies were to go in and drill for oil. According to various sources (go look it up yourself if you don't believe me), the footprint would be approximately 8 sq. km.

So now we have the following numbers:

The percentage of the exploration area that would be developed would be: 0.12%

So, the percentage of ANWR covered is: 0.0101%

And the percentage of Alaska covered is: .000464%


Now, to put it all into perspective.
Take a normal sheet of printing paper (assume 8.5"x11"), and pretend it represents Alaska.
Now, relative to this sheet of paper, the area that would be consumed (assuming it would all be consumed) is... .000434 sq. inches
Or, .011 sq. mm, if you prefer.

For comparison, the area of the end of piece of new lead for a 1mm mechanical pencil is .785 sq. mm. So, the dot of a pencil on that piece of paper is 71 times larger than the footprint the oil fields would have in Alaska.

Try it.

In exchange, note that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be created, and our nation's domestic oil production would rise by 25%. One source* estimates that our trade deficit could be reduced by 14 billion dollars per year. That's $14,000,000,000 by the way.

Now, put that dot on the piece of paper, and make it 71 times smaller.
And in doing so, save billions of dollars, reduce our dependency on the whims of the People's President Hugo Chavez and Iran's Elected Jihader in Chief Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and drop gas prices to boot.

Worth it?

*The source was arguing in favor of drilling, just to keep the record straight.
You can accuse this figure of being inflated, but to be fair you must also investigate
opposing claims which are deflated. Say the number is only half that,
that's still 7 billion dollars, plus the other benefits. Worth it?

Big Willy...but not according to Monica.

Ok, for my first rantativity blog, I have chosen a subject that we all have learned to deal with.
Not quite appreciate--although some actually do.

Mr. William Rodham-Clinton.
(Because Hilary is probably just as masculine, and in her feminine standpoints on many issues, it would just be unfair not to hyphenate Willy's last name.)
And of course, the "Mister" because "President" should probably be shortened down to "resident"..he was more of an occupant than an actual leader.

Before you think I've gone Ann Coulter on you and start attacking the person (well, thing)--as deserving and as fun as it is...let's get to the meat of the issue...I don't want to get all over Clinton more than Monica was.

NAFTA.
Oh joy!

"Middle East Crisis".
Even better.

Chinese economic threats.
Whoaaaa!

What do these have in common?
Resident Clinton.
Amazing.

First things first.
Liberals always suprise me with how defensive they are over this former Resident.
The very first ones to attack Dubya are the first to claim Clinton as their "hero".
(They hate Bush because of jobs moving to other countries, the "lack of response" to outside threats, "too much response" to threats that were never threats, his habit of eavesdropping on important terrorist phone calls, and my favorite "this would've never happened if I, John 'Botox' Kerry, had been elected!")

Yes, if Kerry had been elected, we'd probably all be wearing berets and waving big white flags and sending the French and Swiss peace offerings. -_-

But back to the "loss of jobs" that is all Dubya's fault. *whine*
Did NAFTA not give the opportunity to open our jobs to other countries?
We're losing thousands, if not millions of jobs to Mexico, and even Canada.
(someone explain Canada to me..everything's much more expensive up there. And cold. And I've never quite understood the appeal of a burly man in a strange outfit riding a horse)

But wait...NAFTA...drafted, agreed, signed, ect...in year what?
Hmm...What year was it, Mr. Rodham?
What? Dubya brainwashed you? He made you do it?!
Right. I mean...left. You poor liberal thing, you.
Where is Dubya?
I wanna smack him so hard that it puts a wrinkle in that suit of his--that probably belonged to his daddy!

NAFTA is probably the only thing Clinton did right during his residency.
Too bad it wasn't right for the US.

Actually, NAFTA was the only thing he did during his residency..

Oh wait, there was that whole ignoring of the aggression in the middle east. Still nothing.
No argument here.
Yeah...he was too busy giving nicknames to a certain office.
Let's bomb an Aspirin plant?
Where was your plan there?
" Huh, let's bomb that Aspirin factory with some cruise missiles. We'll show 'em who's boss. See if their headaches start feeling better!"

(I find the Aspirin/cruise missile thing to be rather ironic. Cruise. Tom Cruise. Aspirin. BAH! Tom Cruise and his scientology...we'll get into that another time)

What was he thinking?
Oh yeah, nicknames. Office. Gotcha.

Well, what's done is done.
The nineties--may they rest in peace--are forever disgraced with the United States' lack of leadership, morality, and good music.

And before you think you've gotten off without a Ted Kennedy stab...
You haven't. Ted coming soon. (Is he allowed this far south?)

But basically...a lot of the crap that's happening right now is mainly the big guy of the nineties. (Well, not really according to Monica...but...we'll not go there.)

First hot tip - Painfully obvious to no one

I received this information from an extremely trustworthy source recently in-country in Venezuela. Some of the native tribes are being drafted into forced labor to mine Uranium.
Guess where the Uranium is going? That's right, Iran.

It has become painfully obvious that Iran has discovered just how weak the UN is when swift and forceful action is required, and is exploiting this to the best of their abilities. Meanwhile the UN drafts preliminary resolutions and demands answers by an unspecified date, with the specifier of "weeks, not months". (which was summarily ignored by Tehran, of course)

One thing that's interesting is how willing Pres. Ahmadinejad is to say exactly what the rest of the Muslim community in the Middle East -or to be generous, the radical elements thereof- have been thinking for decades. When he calls for the elimination of the nation of Israel, or denies that the Holocaust occured, he is not merely voicing the inane opinions of a crazed autocrat.
He is reiterating the same goals and revisionist history that Palestinian terrorists and other organizations such as Hizbollah (this seems to be the most popular spelling lately) have been spouting for years.

The West has ignored and dismissed these claims, since from our own materialistic secular mindsets, surely the only real objectives any terrorists have are power and wealth.
They can't really be suggesting that they have religious reasons for wanting to eliminate an entire race of people, can they? This sort of thing isn't done in the 21st century..

When will we realize that the goals that the Jihadists have been trumpeting after every suicide bombing and abduction are indeed, their real goals and the source of their fanatical motivation?

They do indeed want to kill every Jew, or at least those living in Israel. They won't stop when given slices of land, although they accept these gladly, just as the Nazis would have happily carved pieces out of France, had France offered them in WWII in exchange for a ceasefire.
The Nazis would haven taken the land, then broken the ceasefire. Funny, that sounds really similar to recent events involving Israel.

The moral of this analogy should be obvious, but somehow it is not.
The shocking part to me is that while I can understand the Neville Chamberlains of the world suggesting such a strategy of appeasement, I cannot understand why Israel would go along with it. Their actions in Lebanon, finally, may imply that they have rejected this strategy of suicide by attrition. But more on Lebanon later.

-OAK

And so it begins...

The journey has begun...

In future days and weeks, I look forward to sharing with you some of my thoughts and opinions of current events, news stories, political issues, and ongoing societal trends.
Together, we will attempt to make sense of the seeming chaos of today's culture and happenings.
I hope this blog becomes a place to pick apart some of the underlying causes behind world events, and reflects back to the Truth behind what we see.

Deus Volit, it will.