How Long Can This Guy Last?

First, let's acknowledge the fact that Rudy Giuliani is a pro-gay, pro-immigrant, pro-choice, pro-gun-control, cross-dressing Catholic Republican with a vicious authoritarian streak. I mean, the guy is a mix between Caligula and Khomeini.

Right wingers shouldn't vote for him because of his liberal beliefs, and liberals shouldn't vote for him because of his right-wing behaviors. That in itself should have been enough to have deep-six'ed his candidacy, but it hasn't.

Then come the scandals:

First, Rudy Giuliani recommended a guy he knew was a soon-to-be-convicted criminal, Bernard Kerik, to President Bush as a nominee for the head of the Department of Homeland Security.

Then, Rudy Giuliani hired a Catholic priest to work for his consulting firm months after the priest was accused of sexual molestation. (The priest still works for him as well.)

Then, it was discovered that Rudy Giuliani was using New-York-City-tax-paid motorcades (i.e. police and vehicles) to chauffeur his mistress around the Tri-State area, and the costs of those trips were mixed in with other city government expenses to hide them.

Then, he tried to claim that he had spent as much... if not more... time at Ground Zero in Manhattan than most of the workers recovering bodies there, and that he was "exposed to the exact same things they were exposed to." (It was actually 29 hours lifetime total.)

On top of all of this... now we discover that his consulting firm, Giuliani Partners, worked with a company which mines personal data on Americans, and received a commission for winning them a government contract, and receiving such a commission is eeee-legal in America.

And yet he is still hanging in there.

However.... we can all agree on three things:

• First: Nobody gets caught at everything.
• Second: The worse the thing you did, the better you hide it.
• Third, as corollary to first and second: The shit tends to hit the fan bigger and harder and smellier as time goes on (and it is usually safe to assume that the biggest and last turd is so bad, and so well-hidden that you never get to find out about it).

Therefore, the one thing that is likely is, people aren't going to have to make the hard decision of whether to vote for a Republican Robespierre-in-drag or a Democrat this year, because this guy is going to... has to... crater long before he wins the nomination.

(I'm just sorry that your other Republican choices... save one... barely qualify as an improvement.)

But seriously: I nominate Rudy Giuliani as the Worst Republican Presidential Candidate. Yes... even worse than Alan Keyes. Hell: You can even vote for Tom Tancredo before you vote for the Manhattan Mussolini for all I care.

---

UPDATE:

I guess we now have our answer as to "how long can this guy last?": Giuliani has dropped dramatically to...

• third in Iowa polls, 30 points behind the leader,
• third in New Hampshire polls,
• fourth in South Carolina polls,
• third in Florida, and
• third in Michigan.

The lesson: People... even Republican primary voters... figure stuff out eventually. Giuliani is toast... thankfully.

America Just Doesn't Get It

Veni, Vidi, Cruciati... or Crucio Ergo Sum.

Weclome to the Roman Empire, V2.0. The people have spoken. Gather them for the games. Loose the lions and hear the masses cheer as their simple minds are filled with simple pleasures so that worries of the world outside the seven hills fade from memory.

Let their shallow morals be buttressed by the common belief in their own righteousness and superiority so that theirs can withstand any attack of conscience which Rome's actions shall cause.

Let their remaining insecurities be handed over to gods or government with an unfettered permission to fix and fiddle... to protect and preserve the only way of life they know. Let the Vestal flame be kept alive with the tinder of compromised integrity.

Let the hand of evil be bent to the service of Rome so that the gladius can be thrust and the javelin hurled against all who would harm the empire, without tarnishing the pure heart which commands it, without blinding the pure eye which witnesses it, and without corrupting the pure law which forbids it.

Let them carve in stone above it all "We act for the greater good."

Why Thailand Will Never Be A World Power

I send Maid Go all the time to Fuji restaurant to pick up lunch for me. However, Maid Go can barely read Thai (let alone English), and if I ever want something new off the menu, I have to explain to her what the picture looks like on the menu. (It's either that or try myself to remember something like "gyoza maki yamazuka california roll" or some other Japanese tongue twister... and then write it down for Maid Go and hope that between herself and the waitress she talks to, they can figure out what menu item I am actually referring to.)

So I'm at Fuji today having lunch with Epril, and I get the smart idea to pull out my camera and take photographs of the pictures on the menu of the food which I like to eat so that I can show the photos to Maid Go when I want a particular item. Maid Go may not read too well... but she remembers photos and images and pictures with ease.

The manager of Fuji quickly comes over and insists that I stop photographing the items in the menu. I try to explain what I am doing, but he just frowns and says, "cannot." So I ask him if he has a take-home menu. He says no. Then I ask him if I can take photographs of the food that I order (which looks exactly like the photos in the menu) when they are brought to the table, to which he says "yes, of course."

That's the manager... the smartest guy in the place.

Imagine how much of a defecit of critical thinking you have to have to make a decision like that; what a complete lack of imagination and intuitive ability you have to have in order to come to a conclusion that photographing the photo of food is somehow bad, but photographing the real food is not a problem.

And, as anybody who lives here in Thailand knows: The entire country is filled with people who think the exact same way as this this guy: By rote. Somebody senior to the manager in the restaurant at some point told him that no customer shall photograph the menu. That senior person never told the manager that a customer could not photograph the food though. That's all the manager knows... and that is all he feels he needs to know. No inquistiveness, no ability to make snap decisions, no thought process that allows for independent thought or the ability to make conclusions that conflict with what he has been told.

That is how children are taught in Thai schools. It is like they know that 7 plus 5 is 12 because they have been taught that answer; but if you ask them what 7 plus 6 is — unless they have been taught the answer — they wouldn't know.

And that is how Thai restaurant managers are taught as well.

And from this little lesson what can we conclude? That Thailand is a country filled to the brim with people who can only learn if given permission, and can only provide those answers which they are already provided. It's intellectually stagnant at all but the highest levels, and shows no signs of changing.

Double Pricing On Walking Street

Sometimes white skin is the cheapest.

First off, it has to be said that this information does not come from one of Pattaya's newspapers or other news sources, and instead comes from anonymous writing on an "anyone-can-post" web board. Therefore, the accuracy of what is said about the specific bar cannot be verified. However, I happen to know of several other bars where such policies, or similar policies, are in place, so I will pass this along...

It seems that Peppermint have started charging a 200 Baht entry fee to Asian customers.

Their door staff are now equipped with several signs.

First there is a sign saying 'Full' used to turn away South Asians and Arabs (A common Pattaya policy, said to be based upon safety for the girls and the higher risk of misogynist attitudes from men from those parts).

There is now also a sign indicating a 200 Baht entrance fee. This sign is used for Asian customers or perhaps it is targeted at Japanese visitors.

Farangs are waved in without let or hindrance.

Yup... absolutely true. If you are an Indian or Middle Eastern, there are very few Walking Street bars you will be allowed to walk into. I've heard that it is the propensity to get into fights when drunk, while the quote above seems to think it is for the girls' benefit. Either way, it's not really all that fair, and I don't think they should do it.

Charging Asian tourists 200 baht to get into the gogo bars is a bit funny... although also not really all that fair. The vast majority of Asian tourists in Pattaya spend virtually no money outside of the cost of their trip, and anything that sucks a few extra baht out of their pockets seems justified, if the method is morally questionable (i.e. pricing based on skin color).

If it really is because groups of Asians come in to the bar, take up a bunch of seats, nurse one bottle of water for 40 minutes or an hour, and don't buy one lady drink or otherwise benefit the bar financially, then it's unfair but logical. (Try charging 190 baht for the first drink, and 10 baht for the second drink, and 100 baht per drink after, if you want... or something like that. I don't know.)

If the bar is charging 200 baht per Asian because the bar simply thinks that they have more money (like the Thai people do to us white folks at tourist attractions), then it's just economic racism, and really should stop.

Aren't You Tired Of This America?

A foreign tourist... an old man... who spoke no English was riding alone on the Amtrak train between New York and Boston. Halfway to Boston, the train was stopped, the old man was removed from the train and taken into police custody.

His crime? He was taking photographs of the Connecticut scenery as he went by.

No... I'm not joking. Taking photographs on trains is now illegal in America.

Listen, I don't live in America anymore, so this kind of stuff only angers me on a practical level... but you, in America, how can you stand this? Where is your outrage that the land of the free and home of the brave is now the land of people who piss themselves at the sight of an old man with a camera, and take him into police custody?

I was thinking last night about the right and wrong way to decide whether "The terrorists are winning."

People with no common sense think that "the terrorists are winning" when terrorists cause explosions and kill people. To them, the terrorists are most definitely not winning in America... because of the alert American people who are brave enough to confront the potential terrorists riding our trains.

People with half a brain think that "the terrorists are winning", when terrorists change American values, cause the loss of freedom, and the loss of common sense. To them, the terrorists are definitely winning... because of the American people who are so petrified of terrorists that everywhere they look they see danger and suspicious behavior.

If Osama Bin Laden heard about this poor old man on the train, you know damn well he would be laughing his ass off, knowing that it all hapened because of him.

Hey Look: A Conseravtive Running For President

Glen Greenwald notices Ron Paul.

In case you didn't know, Ron Paul is a Republican Congressman from Texas running for President. Andrew Sullivan noticed this guy months ago, but I'm as likely to pay attention to a fringe Republican candidate as I am to pay attention to Chinese badminton results (a big thing here in Asia).

I believe that around 6 years ago this month, Republicans forgot what being conservative was all about, and focused all of their attention on war, security, revenge, and power... without really caring whether or not they adhered to any basic rules of conservatism or not.

Ron Paul never forgot, and has never taken a political act, or expressed a political belief that would compromise his conservative reputation. He believes in a strict adherence to the constitution and the role of limited government and non-interventionist foreign policy, and as a congressman, has never voted in contradiction to those beliefs.

(He also believes that life begins at conception, and that is probably a deal-breaker for a lot of people, but... make up your own mind.)

I do dislike the modern Republican party. They aren't conservative like me: Remember Terry SchiavoThe U.S. Congress passed a law demanding that this brain-damanged/brain-dead woman be kept alive against her husband's will.? Remember the Military Commissions Act of 2006A bill that limits/restricts the right of Habeas Corpus: A civil proceeding used to review the legality of a prisoner's confinement in criminal cases.? No true conservative would consider such acts of congress as having anything to do with being conservative. Those are just two examples of the extremist polemic initiated by the Republican party that have divided this country, and tore holes the fundamental fabric of the American nation and its system of government in the process.

I share no common beliefs with today's Republican party... but I most certainly do with Ron Paul.

If you are a Republican, watch this video, and think about it. I don't want to see the Republicans nominate a flim-flam artist like Romney, or a tyrant like Giuliani. If you are a Republican, watch this video, and think about voting for Ron Paul in your state's Republican primary. He's the only Republican any conservative should vote for in this election.

Adjustable Rate Mortgage Rescue Plan Outrage

If there is one thing that frustrates me, it is watching stupidity get rewarded.

People who purchased homes on a mortgage which had the possibility of interest rates that could skyrocket to over 10% annually, and who had that possibility come true — and who were fully aware of that possibility going in — should be responsible for their own stupidity and/or gullibility.

Instead, mortgage companies are saving them from foreclosure by "playing the nice guy" and changing the rules on these mortgages, and giving these people new, low interest rates; in many cases interest rates much lower than people who opted for "safe" fixed-rate mortgages.

Of course there are one hundred reasons for the financial institutions who granted these loans in the first place to change the rules halfway through the game... but the one reason to be against it — rewarding stupidity — is the only one I'm thinking about right now.

Not everyone is happy about mortgage lenders' latest efforts to help troubled borrowers.

Take Teresa Nelson. Instead of going for an adjustable rate mortgage with its lure of low initial rates, she opted for the security of a 30-year fixed at 7.10 percent for a house she bought in Pinellas Park, Fla. in December, 2005.

"I was well aware of what an ARM meant, and was staying far away from those snake-oil pipe-dream promises," Nelson said. "I also wasn't shopping for a short-term, big payoff investment - I was looking for my home, until I retire."

But many delinquent subprime borrowers who went for low teaser rates that shot up to unaffordable levels are now paying lower rates than Nelson as part of a new round of foreclosure prevention packages. And she doesn't like it.

For example, one subprime borrower had a riskier hybrid adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) with a rate of just under 7 percent that was going to reset in December to 10.5 percent. But last month, as part of a new bailout plan from Countrywide Financial, the lender gave him a rate reduction to 5 percent on his loan, saving him hundreds of dollars a month.

Nelson feels cheated and has little sympathy for people who she believes weren't as careful as she was. "Everybody was seeing dollar signs," she said, "and let their greed get the better of them. So, no. No bail-out, no assistance with my tax dollars. Not one red cent."

Exactly.

Hash House Harriers Anthrax Attack On Ikea

Fear of fear itself.

Two members of a local Hash House Harriers ("The drinking club with a running problem") are facing first-degree felony charges for spreading flour in an Ikea parking lot in Connecticut.

Hash House Harriers are a cross-country running club, and they use fun and entertaining (and confusing) "signposts" for each of their runs to keep things interesting. This time around, the organizers were putting down flour arrows in the Ikea parking lot to direct the runners. (Obviously spray paint wouldn't have been very polite to use on Ikea's parking lot... hence this much more "temporary" marker.)

Anyway, people thought the flour was a terrorist attack, promptly freaked out, called the police, and the whole store had to be evacuated for several hours while authorities responded. Now the run organizers are facing "first-degree breach of the peace."

Really America: Have the terrorists scared you so badly that mere white powder arrows in a parking lot (or some Lite Brite cartoon characters in Boston) are enough to send you into a traffic-stopping panic? Has your perspective really been damaged that much?

If so... If the threat of terrorism has managed to replace rational consideration and level-headed first impressions with knee-jerk panic, and better-safe-than-sorry overreactions... then terrorism has accomplished exactly what it set out to do: Affect America's ability for rational thought, cause you to jump at shadows, and infect you with an unhealthy paranoia.

The Legal Conundrum Of Jack McClellan

"There is no law against someone making you feel uncomfortable."

Jack McClellan likes to go to the park, likes to sit and watch, and take pictures of little girls, and likes to go home and blog about how much the little girls turn him on.

Jack McClellan is a pedophile. He has never hurt a child, never molested a child, and vows he never will. Nothing he does is against the law, and he has never broken the law. However, because of the obvious discomfort and distress he causes to people, he is, nonetheless, targeted for law enforcement with restraining orders, trespassing, and likely whatever else police can come up with to satisfy the outraged parents who see this man ogling their children.

It's a fascinating legal situation: Can you target a person for prosecution because of their thoughts? Can you arrest a person simply because his presence upsets people? Can you convict a man based on a set of actions that are, by themselves, absolutely harmless... until coupled (or, legally, even when coupled) with a loathsome mindset?

Of course you can't do those things... it's unconstitutional; but the alternative of doing nothing is hardly acceptable either, isn't it?

Like I said... A truly fascinating legal study, and social one too: It's easy to stand up for liberty and freedom and equal protection under the law in generalized terms. Our difficulty lies where we are confronted by those for whom liberty and freedom and equal protection under the law should not apply... but still do.

Why Do They Hate Us?

Twenty-one years ago, I was sitting in a cantina in a small town in central Brazil eating spaghetti with a friend of mine.

An old, grizzled-looking fellow sitting at the next table over heard that I was from New York, and he went into this long, loud tirade about America.

It seemed that at some time previous to my walk into that cantina, America had slapped tariffs and duties on the international beef market, and driven this Brazilian fellow (and hundreds of other fellows just like him) out of business. Did I — a teenaged American kid — know the first thing about the international beef market and America's influence on it? Of course not. Did everyone else in the town I was in know about it? Oh, you betcha.

It was the singlemost valuable thing I learned during that visit to Brazil: Things that America does in the world — things that don't even make the deepest-set page of the New York Times — have a huge effect someplace; an effect that, were it to happen to your or me, would have us writing our Congressmen, calling the news channels, organizing protest marches, and — unlike these Brazilian townsfolk — when election day rolled around, making sure we got our revenge at the voting booth.

That day in Brazil, I just happened to be sitting in one of those someplaces America had effected, and found out first hand what a single stroke of a Washington bureaucrat's pen on the 615th page of some obscure trade agreement can do to some people's opinion of America.

As Mohsin Hamid writes here in this excellent piece of commentary about American influence:

"[T]here is another major reason for anti-Americanism: the accreted residue of many years of U.S. foreign policies. These policies are unknown to most Americans.

They form only minor footnotes in U.S. history. But they are the chapter titles of the histories of other countries, where they have had enormous consequences.

America's strength has made it a sort of Gulliver in world affairs: By wiggling its toes it can, often inadvertently, break the arm of a Lilliputian."

It's something to keep in mind: America meddles, plain and simple. It meddles with good intentions, or it meddles with selfish intentions, or it meddles because the meddling it did before has backfired. America meddles.

I'm not going to be so shortsighted as to say that America should quit meddling altogether... but while I still haven't learned a damn thing about the international beef market (and whether the tariffs America imposed back in 1985 were actually a life-saving Godsend, or the tool of satan himself) I can say for certain that there is a village full of Brazilians who haven't thought very highly of America ever since... and I'm quite sure that there are thousands of other someplaces all over the world where people feel the same way.

Have To Disagree Here

Oscar Pistorius is an amazing person. He was born without fibulae in his legs. However, with modern technology, he was not only able to overcome an inability to walk... but has become a faster runner than nearly everybody on the planet. In fact, he recently ran the 400-meters in an attempt to qualify for the Beijing Olympics.

I would have to disgree with allowing a handicapped runner to compete against "normal" (and I use the word "normal" with no disrespect to Mr. Pistorius) runners when he requires special technology in order to run: Sports are primarily about the human body coupled with human skill. Any equipment used in sport is generally available to all participants alike... or otherwise is not directly related to participation in the sport itself.

If a runner wins a race primarily because he was born with huge, long, strong legs, that's simply (amazingly) a variant of the human body that gave him his success. If a runner wins a race because he was born without legs and the prosthetic legs that he uses can propel him faster than he might (I emphasize "might") have been able to run if born with legs, that is not a variant of the human body, but a variant of technology not available to other competitors.

The technology that has granted Oscar Pistorius such a wonderful ability has brought him within seconds of qualifying for the Olympics. That is a wonderful and incredible thing when you ponder it briefly. However, who is to say that improvements in this prosthetic technology in the future won't eventually allow him to win the Olympics? What will happen then... when the best way to win the 400-meters in the Olympics is by having prosthetic legs?

Therein lies the problem: It won't be "the best human body" winning at running, but "the best technology"... and when that technology is not available to all participants — short of voluntary amputation — it is an unfair advantage.

Despite Best Efforts...

"Al Qaeda strongest since September 11, 2001"

That really kind of sums up what has happened so far in the War On Terror, doesn't it?

Despite a campaign of military action and counterterrorism operations, al Qaeda has regained its strength and found safe haven in the tribal areas of Pakistan, the report says, according to counterterrorism officials familiar with the report.

Hmm... Pakistan? Is that anyplace close to Iraq, where all our soldiers are?

The five-page intelligence analysis remains classified and was prepared for senior U.S. policymakers. It was not issued in response to a specific threat.

Unless your talking about the threat that is related to a certain person's approval numbers.

Two intelligence officials said the report's finding are similar to what is expected to be in the National Intelligence Estimate anticipated to be released later this summer. The NIE is the intelligence community's collective analysis of pressing national security issues.

What? Aren't things supposed to improve "later this summer"? Oh well.

The White House's view is that "over the past six years, we have prevented attacks from al Qaeda by taking the fight to them," a senior administration official said. "But they are an enemy that adapts."

Exactly. They adapt by sitting very still and waiting for America to go start a war in Iraq.

This new report backs up warnings by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and other officials that al Qaeda remains a serious threat and that the United States is vulnerable despite the numerous security changes made since September 11, 2001.

Indeed. In fact, Al Qaeda is so serious a threat, that we have almost 20,000 soldiers trying to find them in Afghanistan... which is all we could spare from the 150,000 or so trying to stop some war in Iraq. (Inconvenient how that civil war in Iraq started up right when we were busy fighting terrorism, isn't it? That was a bit of bad luck.)

Chertoff said Wednesday, however, that there is no "specific, credible information" that terrorist attacks on the United States are imminent.

No... They just are gaining strength, sneaking up on you, looking through your window... BOO!!! (Did I scare ya? I bet I did.)

In a House Armed Services Committee hearing Wednesday, several senior intelligence officials talked about how the terrorist group has found refuge in parts of Pakistan.

Kind of like the Canada of central Asia... a nice, friendly place and close ally of America where people can go to hide from the American Army.

"We actually see the al Qaeda central being resurgent in their role in planning operations," John Kringen, head of the CIA's intelligence directorate, testified at the hearing Wednesday. "They seem to be fairly well settled into the safe haven in the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan there. We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications."

We can see it... but, but... we can't touch it!!

Thomas Fingar, deputy director of national intelligence, told lawmakers that al Qaeda leaders hiding in Pakistan are able to maintain relationships "with affiliates throughout the Middle East, North and East Africa and Europe."

Kind of hard to get that to jive with the "Al-Qaeda On The Run" headlines from last year, isn't it? Oh well. Maybe a troop surge will fix all that?

In a statement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said it was no surprise al Qaeda has been able to reorganize and rebuild "given President Bush's stubborn dedication to keeping our overextended military mired in an Iraqi civil war."

I am Harry Reid's brain. Speak Harry, and let the people hear.

"It is a travesty that Osama bin Laden remains at large nearly six years after the 9/11 attacks and appears to have found new sanctuary to operate freely in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border regions," Reid said. "The Bush administration and most congressional Republicans would rather stubbornly stick with a flawed strategy and fight a war that senior military leaders say cannot be won militarily, than adapt to fighting the enemy who attacked us six years ago."

The choir hears you Preacher Harry. Amen and hosanna.

In recent weeks, counterterrorism authorities have expressed concern about the possibility of another attack on U.S. soil, saying several factors, such as the thwarted terror plots in Britain, have them on edge.

Yes... Keep an eye on your cardiologist folks. He may try to blow out the front windows of Cincinnati Airport.

The FBI has created a small group of agents and analysts to examine new threats and leads over the summer, a bureau official told CNN. The group, which was created several weeks ago, is supplementing what agents and others are also doing in field offices across the country and is an example of how the government is trying to make sure no credible lead is missed, the official said.

Okay... we have been told that we are facing "the greatest threat ever" to the American way of life, and now we find out that despite our best efforts to win this battle for our very survival, the enemy instead is growing ever-stronger, and the only response that this article claims the government is taking is that "The FBI has created a small group of agents and analysts to examine new threats and leads"? I've got your BOO!! for ya right there.

It's your government people. I just comment on it.

Article For My Mother and Other Bath, NY Folks

There is discussion going on about putting a Walmart in my hometown of Bath, New York. Here is an article about the effects Walmart has on a town, state, and country.

If you live in Bath, ask yourself if adding 300 people earning $12,000 per year to the town is a good thing or a bad thing... if that will mean more wealth or less wealth... if that will mean more poverty or less poverty... if that will mean higher taxes to pay for village services (police, ambulance, school) or lower taxes. How many of those 300 people will get health insurance from Walmart? Perhaps it will just be an opportunity for already poor people to work two low-paying jobs instead of one good-paying job? That's nice.

Everybody I met in Bath recently is complaining about how the V.A. Center's drug rehabilitation program is dumping possibly-not-recovered drug addicts onto the streets of this little village. These drug addicts are deciding not to go back to the cities they came from, and instead are bringing their family and friends up to live in Bath as well. I hate to sound elitist but: Now you want to give them jobs? Actually encourage them to stick around? It sounds to me like this is a point in time to consider avoiding the addition of low-skilled, low-paying job opportunities in the region.

Well, if they do build a Walmart in Bath, at least y'all will save 15 cents on Brillo pads, right folks?

Only 20 Countries

It goes without saying that there are legal differences between a rape that occurs between two strangers, and a rape between two people who are married or in a long-term relationship. However, differences aside, it's still rape.

Thailand has finally recognized this fact: A husband can rape his wife, and Thailand has just passed a law confirming that.

The amazing thing is that Thailand is only the 20th country on the planet to recognize that obvious truth.

Places where it is still possible to rape your wife and get away with it? Korea, Japan, China and all of Southeast Asia except for Thailand; almost all of Africa and all of the Middle East, except Israel; all of central Asia (except Sri Lanka); most of the Carribbean; most of Central America; and, most of South America.

Surpsingly, a fair number of European countries, including Italy, Greece, Finland, Switzerland, Portugal, Belgium and pretty much every country northeast, east, south, and southeast of Poland don't have marital rape laws either.

Like I said: There are differences between nonmarried and married sexual assualt, but they both exist... and both should be punishable crimes. Hopefully the rest of the world catches up.

Talk Radio's Conservative Bias

The big story on the blogs today is this report by American Progress, which is a study on the political slant of talk radio. It discovers that 90% of talk radio is conservative in nature, while only 10% is liberal. (Nobody would debate that fact, I imagine.) The report also makes suggestions on how to ameliorate this discrepancy by passing laws and setting up regulations for radio station ownership and content.

The conservatives of course are livid about the suggestion that the radio dominance they have crafted through the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity should be curtailed legislatively. The liberals are gloating in some kind of "your politics suck, so it's only fair that you shouldn't be allowed to be so popular" theme.

Talk radio, like every other money-making venture, is based on profit. Rush Limbaugh's immense popularity with advertisers (and his 50-some-odd million listeners, or whatever it is) spawned a thousand conservative wannabe commentators in his wake. If you don't like Rush (and his thousand radio clones) and his politics or methods, too bad: Radio stations love the profit that he generates... and the listener share they are getting... which in turn increases their profits. People listen... even if you aren't one of them. Sorry about that. Bon Jovi gave us Warrant, Cinderella, Winger, and White Lion... Rush gave us Michael Savage. Some trends stick around, other's don't.

If the liberal side of the political spectrum had been able to find a radio personality with equally powerful drawing power early on in the game (back when Limbaugh was only a minor sensation), there probably would have been some parity between conservative and liberal talk radio... because there would have been two partisan preachers to clone, instead of one. But that isn't what happened, and now radio stations go with the "safe bet" of yet another conservative talk show host instead of gambling their valuable air time on a liberal. (The fact that only a handful of liberal talk show hosts have really caught on in the past 20 years makes the conservative "safe bet" even safer.)

It's an uphill battle for liberal talk radio, perhaps made more difficult by the failure of a real figurehead to emerge from the pack to become a liberal "icon" (although Al Franken had a go at it, and Alan Colmes continues his 15-year quest to accomplish the same), but if they keep trying, eventually things will balance out. Just look at country music as it made it back from deep obscurity 30 years ago to become the most prominent radio format in America today: Put up a popular, quality product first, and success comes second... not the other way around. There most is certainly no way legislation is going to bypass that fact, or the economies it represents.

Optimistic View: 40 More Years of Oil

BP's Statistical Review of World Energy has come out with a report stating that the world has until 2047 — another 40 years — until our proven reserves of oil run out... assuming that we somehow manage to keep the planet at its current level of demand/production.

(Talk to China about that, and see what they think about not building any more factories, cars, et cetera.)

What should happen when that 40 years is up and oil production fails to meet demand? You can look back to the 1970s for your answer, to a time when oil production was curtailed to only 95% of oil demand: The price of oil rose 400% in response to a 5% difference in supply versus demand. A shortfall of as much as 10% to 15% is expected to send us into a worldwide depression of historical proportions.

Note: This is what an oil company is saying. This is the rosy picture: 40 years left until that 10% to 15% shortfall becomes a reality. Geologists and people who used to work in the oil industry, but have since quit, say the amount of time left is substantially less: They say it's only 4 years.

Also, think about what else happens when we start to run out of oil: The prices of plastic (made from oil) will skyrocket. The price of pesticides and fertilizers (made from oil) will skyrocket. The price of manufacturing (heavily dependent on oil) will skyrocket. Name one thing in your life that doesn't directly or indirectly rely on plastic, pesticides, or manufacturing.

You can help out here folks: It's easy. The next time you look to buy a new car, make a serious inquiry with your car dealer about alternative fuel or hybrid cars. Even if you decide not to buy an A.F. or hybrid vehicle in the end, your expressed interest in that technology will get fed back to car manufacturers as "demand", and that demand will speed up research and development.

Additionally, if you are building a house, ask about solar panels. If you own a company, ask your local electric supplier about renewable or green energy sources to supplement your company's power consumption.

Just ask... that's all. If the technology isn't right for you yet... at least you will have taken a look, expressed your interest, given your feedback, and can expect that interest to be acted upon by people who want to do business with you.

Eventually, the technological advances brought about by the effort to meet public interest in A.F. and hybrid motors and non-petroleum sources of energy will free aircraft, shipping, railways, and even manufacturing from the use of oil. This will leave the remaining oil sources that we have in the ground to be used for durable goods and petrochemical production which we more or less cannot live without.

Think about it: Even the oil companies — whose P.R. goals are to keep us from worrying about oil running out — are telling us that we only have 40 years left. Believe them, even if you don't believe the geologists who state that the number is closer to 4 years. If you have children, they most certainly will be seeing the end of oil as a primary source of energy in their lifetimes. It's up to us to start the process of changing this world from oil-dependent to oil-independent. If we don't start the shift now — while we can rely on oil as a temporary crutch to back us up and help us along — we will be forced to do it cold turkey, in a rush, with the burden of skyrocketing energy costs, diminishing returns, and with less margin for error at a not-too-distant time in the future.

The "end of oil" is really a point in time we do not want to meet unprepared. If we arrive at the "end of oil" without another energy production system able to replace every current ship, plane, car, train, and factory engine, it will literally mean "the end of the world as we know it": The entire transportation network will simply stop. Manufacturing will stop. The shipping of goods will stop. If you live more than a mile away from the nearest corn field, cow, or apple tree, you're going to have to put in a lot of effort to buy something to eat... assuming you still have money to buy food because you can still do your job without a car... assuming your business can still function without trucks.... assuming your business' customers can still function without shipping/receiving... et cetera, et cetera.

So start thinking about finding ways to free yourself from oil. Start nosing around. Start finding out information. Bring the subject up with people and talk about it. Keep it in mind. That's all... Just ask.

Source.

Story On WMD Screwup Provokes Left Wing Mirth

Melanie Phillips claims that
Saddam's WMDs were located
(and then lost) in Iraq.There is quite a story published in the U.K. magazine, The Spectator, by Melanie Phillips which is simply burning up the internet. It states, in summary, that Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that those weapons were discovered by Western inspectors after the American invasion, and that through sheer ineptitude, those weapons were lost by the Americans when Iraqis — with the help of terrorists, Syrians, and Russians — smuggled the weapons out of their hiding places, and moved then to Syria.

In addition, Ms. Phillips asserts, the Americans know in general where the WMDs are, and that those weapons — along with a nuclear program — are being maintained in Syria. In additional addition, she avers that American Republicans in the government are too embarrassed to admit that The Pentagon / Executive Branch lost the WMDs, and American Democrats are too embarrassed to admit that they were wrong about the fact that Saddam actually had WMDs... justifying the original reason for the American invasion of Iraq.

There is a witness to all of this: A man called Dave Gaubatz, who apparently was part of a special investigation unit which he claims found the WMDs. He says that all the inspection reports which he filed have disappeared. The story goes on from there... with China and North Korea showing up as bit players in a grand Annihilate-The-West secret nuclear scheme. A bit of a tale... but I recommend reading the article first before making your mind up.


Glenn Greenwald insists the
story is baloney, but really
doesn't explain how or why.Glen Greenwald (one of my favorite writers/bloggers) puts forward a completely vacant, inane, and uninspired post here on the issue, the substance of which is essentially, "Look at these paranoid right-wing conspiracy nuts. Aren't they crazy? Aren't they gullible?" He doesn't offer any single refutation as to why the story might be untrue... other than his own incredulity. (A surprising omission from a fellow like Glenn, who rarely offers an opinion without a half dozen articles, quotes, and facts to back himself up.)

To me, the story of the lost WMDs seems quite feasible. My only refutation — which Greenwald fails to consider — is I believe that the Democrats would choose to expose the most exceptional failure of the Bush-led Iraq invasion: A failure to not only achieve it's primary goal, but by sheer grand incompetence, actually accomplish the opposite... namely put the WMDs into the hands of the terrorists (which is the main reason why I was always against the Iraq war). I believe that they would do this rather than choosing to conceal some "evidence of having guessed wrong" (not that any of them did, since they all originally believed) that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

So, like Glenn, I'm dubious about this story. However, I'm not treating it with the utter disdain and derision that Glenn (and the rest of the left-leaning blogosphere) is treating it with. But, unlike Glenn... I won't be the least bit surprised if it turns out to be true.

Just Something Amusing

Predictions of the Year 2000 from The Ladies Home Journal of December 1900. Some of them were suprisingly not too far off... though they did seem to have an odd obsession with giant fruit.

Granted, they had a much easier time figuring out where we were going then, as compared to the job of predicting the future today: Things such as air conditioning, fast trains, automobiles, transmission of images over wires, et cetera, were easy to guess at because the foundations of the technology — if not the budding technology itself — existed in plain sight. All that was necessary for guessing the future was to follow things forward in logical steps.

I was thinking about this the other day: We live in a time... the first time in history, I would guess... where we really can't see the future coming. There are very few, if any, technologies out there that we can look at and say, "In 20 years, that technology will be everywhere." Most technology today (good examples being high speed internet and MP3 players) goes from concept to testing to introduction to wide adaptation in an incredibly fast period of time... such as a single product cycle. Today, there is comparably very little time to "envision the future" before it is upon us.

I mean, in 1910, nobody had cars, but everybody knew about them, and knew that someday everybody would have one. In 1940, nobody had televisions... in 1970, nobody had mobile phones... in 1980, nobody had home computers, but everybody knew about them, and knew that someday everybody would have one.

We have nothing like that today that I can think of: Some grand technology that is out there; that exists; that you theoretically can go out and buy from a laboratory or government agency for a few million bucks if you want; and you know that eventually — even if not today — everyone will own one... everyone will benefit from it. The only thing I can think of is alternative-fuel cars... and those really aren't some distant reality. Can you think of anything else? Put it in the comments.

Imus Fired

I'm really of two opinions about Don ImusA radio talk show host, best known for his sarcasm and often harsh language. getting fired.

The first reaction is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and that's a fair conclusion at face value.

However, the second reaction is that Imus has been saying stupid stuff like this on New York City's airwaves for 35 years. Sometimes he pissed off dozens of people, sometimes he pissed off thousands. It was inevitable that eventually — given 35 years of chances — he would piss of millions. That was the minefield he played around in, and this time he got blown to smithereens. As we say in Thailand, "Som nom naServes you right.."

What is really laughable are all the people who are rushing to Imus' defence, making this a free speech issue. If you are one of those people, I mean, seriously: If every time you walked into the local convenience store, and the cashier behind the counter who handed you your change then said, "Have a nice day shithead." Would you just say, "Oh, that's free speech. I simply won't shop there any more." Would you be pissed off enough to ask to talk to that cashier's manager? No? If you didn't, would be surprised if somebody else who was called a shithead did ask to speak to the manager? Would you be surprised if that cashier's manager fired him when the manager heard what the cashier had been saying? That's what Imus' managers did. Imus insulted every black person in America (apparently... as I'm not black), and his managers fired him for it. Sorry... that's not free speech. That's about public relations and operating a business.

Well, I guess I'm not of two opinions then. (That's why I like blogging... I get to win debates with myself.) Imus finally made the mistake that cost him his job. He went too far, and making the same apology that he has made 40 or 50 previous times in his career didn't cut it with the people he insulted. They wanted Imus fired, and CBS apparently decided that Imus wasn't worth as much to their broadcasting revenue as a happy African-American public was. Som nom na.

Update On The YouTube Video Kerfuffle

The number of videos posted on YouTube that insult the king of Thailand is now up to seven. Thailand really has to find another way to handle this.

As it stands, any bored, 12-year-old, attention-seeking kid in his bedroom in Middle America can now create instant mayhem in the Thai government and boardrooms of Google. YouTube is working on imposing a block on the offending videos so that they cannot be viewed in Thailand, but the onus is obviously going to fall to the government of Thailand to find and complain about any new videos that might appear.

Additionally, the ramifications for the openness and accessibility of the internet in Thailand are quite grave: Basically any website — not just YouTube — that has member/visitor-posted content (i.e. Blogger, Typepad, MySpace) can fall victim to people who would insult the king. Thailand can either choose a wholesale ban of all of these websites if/when they fall victim to malicious posters of rude content... and hope that they find sympathetic ears from the administrators of these sites to their demands to ban certain content... or they can maintain a 24-hour hypervigilant audit of these sites so that they can rush to block individual pages, searches, archives, and backlinks... a daunting task that probably would be ineffective.

To tell you the truth, I really don't have an answer to this problem. I really don't think that the Thai government does either. The law they are enforcing dictates their actions. If the problem stays limited to a few videos on YouTube, then a solution requiring more foresight probably won't be necessary. However, problems like this don't often go away quietly.

This editorial in The Bangkok Post sums it up nicely:

The Royal Thai Police and the so-called cyber police from the ICT Ministry continue to arbitrarily use laws introduced after the coup to shut down websites they deem offensive to the monarchy or a threat to national security. Recent acts of state censorship include the blocking of YouTube and efforts to take to task the owners of the website of the Saturday Voice group which put up an online petition to seek the removal of Privy Council president Gen Prem Tinsulanonda.

The internet and the policing of its content is a dilemma that governments across the globe are facing. Thailand, as yet, does not have any specific Internet laws. A proposed bill on cyber crime is currently under consideration by the National Legislative Assembly but as it stands, it poses a considerable threat to free speech and places far too much unchecked power in the hands of the authorities, giving the government the right to shut down any website without having to make a case to gain approval through the courts.

Unfettered censorship of the internet and the continued prevalence of entrenched self-censorship through fear and confusion are the greatest barriers we face in ensuring our right of access to information, research and discourse, as well as basic press freedoms and open discussion. It is vital that such basic freedoms of discussion and access to information are championed because without them, none of our other rights and freedoms can ever be guaranteed.

My recommendation to the Thai government: Ask His Majesty what he thinks. I'm willing to bet that he can help you out.