oil spill

2 06 2010

The hot topic of these days is the oil spill in the gulf of mexico.  it has been destroying wildlife, and people are actually very concerned about it.  it is a problem which has not been resolved, and is a national emergency.

now that we are done with the obvious i have a few observations i would like to make.  one is people need to stop blaming Obama directly for the problem not being solved.  he is not a god despite what some may think and the only power he really has in this subject is to get people to fix it, he cannot will them to fix it right.  this reminds me of a certain situation with a hurricane where before the hurricane hit the president declared a state of emergency, doing all he could do.  then he was crucified for not acting fast enough.  by those rules obama is the same as bush, but i think niether of them are at fault.

I heard an environmentalist on real time with Bill Maher say that this shows us that oil industries  don’t have our good intrest as their priority.  what an ignorant statement.   first of even if they don’t they still make their money off selling oil.  is this little fiasco in their best interest?  no.  therefore it is safe to assume that this was not intentional and thus i find it hard to believe that this is a indicator of any statement such as that.  Not only did he make that ignorant statement, but he also compared the oil spill to the naturally occurring red tide in the gulf, as examples of how we are destroying the earth.  i think the moral is don’t listen to environmentalist on every single environmental issue.

on

Advertisements




Canada’s Olympics: One big Death trap!

23 02 2010

I personally have found the Toronto Olympics as extremely entertaining, and that is not just because the United States is leading in gold medals.  They have been as exciting as any of the past contests yet there has been a new interesting twist that has highlighted this specific set of games: a sense of danger.

I am not trying to assert that there was never danger involved with any Olympic event before Vancouver, but for some reason it seems that this has been the most challenging and dangerous Olympics yet.  Just a few days ago a bob sled tipped over on top of the two men driving it, severely injuring the occupants.  The Ski circuit has seen more injuries in a long time, multiple jumps and challenging speed has tested the athletes.  there has even been a fatality in the luge event.  Since the most recent crash from a bob sled team, the rest have decided to withdraw from the games, because they think that the course is too dangerous.

I am not sure if Canada had intended to host the most dangerous game, but they have set a new standard for athletes to strive for.  the wins here have been big, exciting, and extremely close.  The falls have been bigger and so has the glory.  Even so, when around half the contestants fall on the downhill ski event, and bob sledder’s drop out of the competition out of fear, something may need to change.  Im not so sure its the difficulty of the events though.

All these events have been do-able. The athlete’s just messed up a lot.  I say we should just be calling for a better class of athlete.  we are progressing as a species, what good would it do to make our most important physical contest progressiveley less challenging.  We should make ourselves better atheletes and keep breaking records.

That is not to say that we shouldnt work to make the games safer, but I still say that we should keep the games at a very challenging level, or else whats the point? who wants to see the best athletes in the world compete on a bunny slope?





Denial of the Double Standard

20 01 2010

It is becoming increasingly hard to ignore the almost painfully obvious double standard that is happening in the media and among politicians themselves.  Liberals have the ability to hang a conservatives career the instant any remark that can be interpreted(usually wrongly) the slightest bit racist, or offensive in any way.  But a democrat can say or do things that would have a conservative burned at the stake and come out completely fine, reputation intact.  This is exacerbated by the mainstream media, who hold the same double standards when it comes to conservatives. The truth is not what matter’s anymore, and to be honest, it never really meant much.  the only thing that matter’s is that the liberal’s have a system going that allows them to spew a constant stream of slander towards the other side, and still be right, yet when anyone else speaks against, they are ignorant…  racist… opinionated… the list goes on.  To quote journalist Andrew Klaven  their main argument is the two words “Shut Up”. The thing that baffles me, is that is works all the same, the same double standard is just accepted. in fact, i would be willing to bet, that any liberal’s reading this blog would just say that i am just a conservative whack job, who is to ignorant of anything to see that i am simply wrong, and probably a racist too.

The Easiest way to show the double standard in Washington is to look at the situation with Harry Reid.  Harry Reid is the majority house leader.  He is a democrat.  Harry Reid has a strange idea of what the American people care about.  He thinks that all white people are inherently racist and that all other people are not capable of taking care of themselves and should be helped out as much as is possible.  In fact the only white people he does not think are racist are his fellow white democrats in office with him.  He said in his book titled “Game Change”  that white voter’s were willing to vote in a black president “especially one so light skinned, and with no negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.”  Harry Reid is not a racist.  but anyone can admit he used the wrong words and it was worth apologizing about.  But where were the watch dogs that usually take down the racist like they did to Trent Lott in 2002?  oh yeah that’s right, Mr. Reid is a democrat.  Reverend Al Sharpton had nothing to say about Mr. Reid’s comments other than i’m glad he apologized.  this from the man who was one of the strongest pressure’s to make Lott resign.  if you look into it, even a liberal could find a pattern.  what about congressmen Joe Wilson who got criticized on the news for being a racist when someone accused him of using the term “boy” during his outburst when he screamed “You Lie!” out during Obama’s speech.  Even if he did say it, Boy is a racist term now? when uttered by a republican, obviously.  what about the good congressmen Robert Byrd, former grand dragon of the ku klux klan?  a democratic senator.  key word democratic, this man would have never made it into politics if he were a republican but a democrat, sure who cares if he was part of the most hateful white supremacist groups in america, he does have a little D next to his name.  he’s clean.  what about the cartoon published showing Bush as the Joker from batman?   it was a hit because it attacked bush.  now bare in mind the poster of Obama also dressed like the joker.  RACIST. Democrats claim that the poster was clearly a reference to lynching the president.  which of course would make it racist.  it is Obama dressed like the joker, nothing else. literally the same thing was done with bush, but it was not offensive, and no one thought that it was an allusion to lynching then did they.  and everyone remembers the countless cartoon’s as Bush as a chimp.  almost every week there was that cartoon.  Now fast forward to obama’s presidency, a cartoon featuring a chimp, who just symbolizes a politician, not obama, and it is absolutely racist, and everyone has to apologize for even thinking about it.  now keep looking reader. because it does not come close to ending their.  and its not just race, its gender, sexual orientation, even where they are from. i may be an ignorant fool of a conservative, but i can see a double standard when i see one folks, and it seems the american public doesn’t.





Obama and the F-22

5 01 2010

President Obama has announced plans to stop the air force from buying any more F-22 Raptors at a time when they are about two hundred short of what they wanted in the first place.  They had originally ordered three hundred eighty one and have been cut short to one hundred eighty three.  The reasons asserted by the administration are simple enough, for one it’s a pretty costly program, and that cannot be argued against. The only question is do the ends justify the cost.  the other reason meant to justify it, was that the raptors are unneeded for the kind of warfare that we are currently engaged in, which is of course is fire fights with insurgents in the middle east. that also has a lot of truth to it. But are these 381 planes being made for the war in Iraq?

regarding the first justification for this plan, yes it is very expensive, that’s not untrue. to me this is the only real reason to get rid of the program.  on the other hand, do we really want to try to save money on something that could be as important as air superiority in a modern war.  We might never get in a war with a major power again.  But if we are honest there is a big possibility of it happening.  and from everything i have heard, you can’t win a modern war these days without air superiority.  that being said the air force must have made 381 their number for a reason, it couldn’t have been just a shot in the dark.  now we can then draw the conclusion that they were planning for a major conflict, and that number made it integral in winning the conflict, and regardless of what you think about any administration or government, if your from the western world, you want America to come out on top in most violent conflicts.





China is self interested?

4 12 2009

China just recently donated six billion dollars to charities all over Africa, in a bid to stop claims made by western countries, that they are self interested in all other dealings with Africa.   Obviously the Chinese were outraged by these claims so in turn they donated six billion dollars.  this proves them all wrong doesn’t it?

form what i know about china and its foreign policy, it is safe to say that they have something to gain from all dealings with Africa and any country for that matter.  That is a fact that cant be ignored.  but then again what other country can safely say that they don’t have something personal to gain from dealings with LEDCs. i would be willing to say not a lot.  now I’m just as patriotic as the next guy but when the united states says that they are helping Africa for the sole purpose of helping Africa then they and anyone else who makes that claim is lying.

So it is apparent for me that even though china may be a little straight forward with their approach doesn’t mean they deserve the criticism of the world.  i feel like all the countries are doing the same thing, and its not necessarily a bad thing either.  now if what they are doing harms some African citizen then obviously they should stop, but if the charity is still a charity and people are helped then whose to say its bad even if china is benefiting from it?





White House VS. Fox News

11 11 2009

Anita Dunn is the White House communications director.  She recently went on CNN to attack FOX news.  She says that the whole organization of FOX news is

A wing of the Republican Party that does nothing but push an agenda set out by the party.  Michael Clemente in response has basically said that there is a clear difference in opinion show’s and news programs just like in a newspaper, and people who oppose the views on the opinion segments of the news channel should attack the stories not the messenger, “Which never works”.

Personally I think this is one more thing the White House is wasting its time on.  And even if they deemed it important enough to do something about, they are going about it in a very stupid way.

Dunn constantly reiterates that she is attacking FOX news as a whole in her interview with Howard Kurtz, despite literally saying just before that, That she thinks Major Garrett, the white house correspondent (part of the straight news segments of the show) is a totally fair journalist.  It seems that the white house refuses to admit that they are really just opposing the opinion of people who are paid to give their opinion, so they attack the people who pay them.  You don’t see the white house jump all over Keith Olberman when he asserts his opinion on CNN.  Is being said he is a democrat so I guess they don’t need to attack CNN.  In fact Dunn goes on to use CNN as the model for the ideal news channel saying, “Let’s not pretend Fox is a news channel like CNN is.”

Disagreeing with news personalities on opinion shows shouldn’t be a problem for president, every president has opposition, it just seems that the white house is not trying to rebut claims made by these host, but in fact silence them.  Kurtz asked Dunn why Obama didn’t go on the Fox Sunday show even though he went on all of the other networks show.  And Dunn Seemed to regurgitate that Obama has in fact been on Fox during the election.  When Kurtz asked again adding when will he go on fox again if ever she said, “he’ll go on Fox, because he engages with ideological opponents, and he has done that before. He will do it again. I can’t give you a date. But, frankly, I can’t give you dates…” I think it’s pretty obvious how contradictory this is.

The only advice I can give the White House is to STOP IT.  This is the epitome of pettiness.  I mean, yes, FOX has basically only conservative OPINION SHOWS, (even though they do have regular news as well) But that is their choice, that’s like attacking a Fashion magazine for having to many articles about clothes.  The proper way to deal if someone of the oppose opinion is to rebut them, not criticize the means in which they assert that opinion.  When in American history has that been acceptable.

My final thought is that regardless of what your opinions are, the white house needs to back off of fox news.  They are fighting a losing battle and not to mention unjust battle.  they need to  respect freedom of the press and freedom of speech and defend their policy not their reputation.