Barney Frank apparently fancies himself an advocate of democratic principles. Recently, he called the guidelines in the Senate “anti-democratic” for requiring 60 votes for bill passage, and suggests that an initiative be taken by Democratic senators to abolish the rule. His opinion is that the revision to lower the requirement from 67 votes to 60 was a good start, (1) so one can only assume that he would like for that threshold to be a strict majority, or 51 votes. Frank feels that this will alleviate the influence of roustabouts in the “smaller states” and diminish their role in a filibuster against a party in majority.
Barney Frank is calling for the abolition of this 60 vote rule under the guise of moral outrage and an adherence to democracy. But it is nothing more than a ploy to garner more control in Congress, and it has absolutely nothing to do with our system being “anti-democratic.”
This is obvious when we examine, for example, the healthcare reform package that his party supports. Barney Frank would argue that it should only require a majority vote in the Senate to initiate sweeping and costly healthcare reform. That would be “democratic.”
But this question looms. If he indeed values the precepts of democracy, why does he ignore the majority of Americans that have been much more prevalently against this healthcare bill? (2) This Senate majority has been blindly charging forward with their agenda in blatant spite of public opinion. By what logic is that acceptable within the guidelines of democracy?
For that matter, according to the most recent polls, the majority of Americans are against abortion, (3) despite the Democratic Party’s largely “pro-choice” agenda. Shall we ban abortions across the board because 51 percent of Americans feel it is wrong? The majority of Americans also persist in opposing gay marriage, (4) in clear opposition to Barney Frank’s obvious position in that arena. Shall we take the right to decide on this matter from the states and apply a federal ban on gay marriage because well more than 51 percent of Americans are against the practice?
With these issues, would Barney Frank stand firm with the democratic principles he claims to maintain, and support such large-scale reform on the basis of the majority? I would wager that he would not.
The fact is that Barney Frank is not truly an advocate of democracy. He is an advocate of his party’s agenda, and an advocate of any measures necessary to advance that agenda. In this case, he is just feigning a devotion to democracy to lower voting requirements, which will then allow Democrats pass their unpopular legislation without having to hide their backroom deals that grease politicians for those few extra votes.
No one knows better than Barney Frank that Americans are paying attention to Washington’s corruption and shady deals, and that they don’t like it. His home state just shouted its disapproval in an election.
William Sullivan
Houston, TX
1) http://www.breitbart.tv/barney-frank-god-didnt-create-the-filibuster/
2) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
3) http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx
4) http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/majority-americans-continue-oppose-gay-marriage.aspx
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Will the Democrats Listen to the People or Prove Their Elitism
Scott Brown’s victory last night in Massachusetts has naturally set the political world abuzz. It’s not just that the republican win breaks the filibuster proof majority that the democrats held, but that it happened in a state where a republican senator hasn’t won an election since 1972. To add to the significance of this election is the well known fact that the seat Brown won was the same seat formerly occupied by the late Ted Kennedy. While Kennedy spent the majority of his career pushing for public healthcare, Brown made it a point in his campaign to say that he would be the 41st vote against this current healthcare bill. Had the republicans gained a senate seat in almost any other state, while being just as numerically important, it would not have sent the same overwhelming message that the Massachusetts victory did. The vast majority of the people in this country do not want the current healthcare bill to become law. The big question now is how will the democrats respond.
There is a great deal of speculation that the democrats will try to delay the swearing in of Brown in order to buy just enough time to mesh the senate and house healthcare bills together and get it to Obama before Brown’s vote can derail the bill. Another possibility is that the house would just accept the senate version of the bill, in which case the bill would never have to be sent back to the senate and would go straight to the president. Both of these strategies ignore the overwhelming will of the people and would prove the “elitist” mindset of the democratic party. This is a mindset comprised of the belief that those in power know what is better for the nation and its citizens than do the citizens themselves. This “elitist” mindset is a slap in the face of what the founders of this nation had in mind when this representative form of government was formed. The premise behind our political system is for members of congress to vote as their constituency would vote if such an issue went to a popular vote in said district or state. Brown’s victory wasn’t just a whisper but a shout from the people that they do not like the way the democratically controlled congress is currently doing their jobs, specifically when it comes to the issue of healthcare reform.
With many incumbent congressman up for re-election in November it is unlikely that the house will just pass the senate version of the bill, if only in the interest of self preservation. The two versions differ greatly with provisions in the senate bill that if had been included in the house bill would have guaranteed its defeat. The democrats have shown time and time again that they are willing to pay off or cater to certain individuals or groups (i.e. unions) just to get the votes they need for passage. So to expect a change from the left’s standard operating procedure might be too much to expect even in the face of almost certain political defeat in November. Many in the democratic party still see the healthcare bill as must pass whereas a few have come out and said that if the democratic party doesn’t pay attention then it is in real trouble. This is a real chance for the left to change their tone and begin to listen to the will of the people, but if they choose to ignore and dismiss what this election meant, then they are proving their “elitist” mindset.
Either way the next few weeks will be very telling as to the true nature of the democratic party.
Calvin Parker
There is a great deal of speculation that the democrats will try to delay the swearing in of Brown in order to buy just enough time to mesh the senate and house healthcare bills together and get it to Obama before Brown’s vote can derail the bill. Another possibility is that the house would just accept the senate version of the bill, in which case the bill would never have to be sent back to the senate and would go straight to the president. Both of these strategies ignore the overwhelming will of the people and would prove the “elitist” mindset of the democratic party. This is a mindset comprised of the belief that those in power know what is better for the nation and its citizens than do the citizens themselves. This “elitist” mindset is a slap in the face of what the founders of this nation had in mind when this representative form of government was formed. The premise behind our political system is for members of congress to vote as their constituency would vote if such an issue went to a popular vote in said district or state. Brown’s victory wasn’t just a whisper but a shout from the people that they do not like the way the democratically controlled congress is currently doing their jobs, specifically when it comes to the issue of healthcare reform.
With many incumbent congressman up for re-election in November it is unlikely that the house will just pass the senate version of the bill, if only in the interest of self preservation. The two versions differ greatly with provisions in the senate bill that if had been included in the house bill would have guaranteed its defeat. The democrats have shown time and time again that they are willing to pay off or cater to certain individuals or groups (i.e. unions) just to get the votes they need for passage. So to expect a change from the left’s standard operating procedure might be too much to expect even in the face of almost certain political defeat in November. Many in the democratic party still see the healthcare bill as must pass whereas a few have come out and said that if the democratic party doesn’t pay attention then it is in real trouble. This is a real chance for the left to change their tone and begin to listen to the will of the people, but if they choose to ignore and dismiss what this election meant, then they are proving their “elitist” mindset.
Either way the next few weeks will be very telling as to the true nature of the democratic party.
Calvin Parker
Monday, January 11, 2010
Oliver Stone to Breed New “Historians”
Seemingly, academic research or interpretation must be verified by the panels of Hollywood before it becomes valid, or “truth” for the public at large. Take, for example, the topic of anthropogenic global warming. The Hollywood elite largely propagandized the theory, and it was Al Gore’s 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth that catapulted awareness of the topic, and validated the theory of global warming in American minds. Millions of climatologists were born overnight, ready to convince the deniers that Al Gore is right and any information to the contrary is propaganda by the oil companies and George Bush.
And now Oliver Stone, the unconventional mind that promoted the esoteric conspiracy that became film in JFK, is offering a “10-hour crash course in the history of the twentieth century,” (1) intended to wipe away conventional viewpoints of polarizing characters such as Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. And despite a focus largely comprised of non-Americans, he is to call it, “Oliver Stone’s Secret History of America.”
Among his assertions, he is to include the purposefully incendiary belief that Hitler is a fall-guy, too often used as a “scapegoat.” He challenges the widely kept opinion that Hitler was “evil,” though logic suggests that the stigma may be justified. After all, he was the figurehead of an aggressive regime that spearheaded a global conflict causing millions of deaths, and he was the architect of the most heinous and effective genocide in history.
But according to Stone, the average American’s choice to refer to Hitler as “bad or good” reflects a lack of sophistication, because Hitler was neither. He was simply the product of a series of events that occurred between World War I and World War II. And apparently, “people in America don’t know the connection.”(1) Either Oliver Stone feels that Americans are too uneducated to know about the events that shaped Hitler’s rise to power, or, more likely, he is taking the conspiracy theorist's approach, arguing that "the powers that be" have successfully covered up what they don't want you to know. And only Stone knows the “truth.”
It takes extraordinary egotism for Oliver Stone to claim that, seasoned only by a career of directing fictional films and attending Hollywood galas, he has achieved what lifelong historians and scholars have been entirely unable to do. Stone claims he has “been able to walk in Stalin’s shoes and Hitler's shoes,” (1) and apparently has unraveled the truth from the seamless web of historical lies that we have been universally duped to believe.
But rather than taking offense to Stone’s arrogance, or questioning why such revelations are coming from a filmmaker rather than a former CIA operative or something, many will likely just watch his “Secret History” and assimilate the selective disclosure and corruption of historical facts. And then they will lecture all of their friends about how the history books are wrong, and Oliver Stone is right.
Just as a viewing of An Inconvenient Truth conferred immediate and imaginary climatology degrees in the minds of its viewers, the “Secret History” will likely breed an entire mass of liberal “historians” ready to argue their cause, complete with outlandish conspiratorial perspectives about how conventional history has been fabricated by an enemy of the “truth.”
And frustratingly, they will think themselves well-versed scholars. But their understanding will probably have a hollow foundation, save only the viewing of a politically slanted film made by an egomaniac.
It will be familiar. But this time, not about “global warming.”
William Sullivan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/jan/10/hitler-stalin-oliver-stone-history
And now Oliver Stone, the unconventional mind that promoted the esoteric conspiracy that became film in JFK, is offering a “10-hour crash course in the history of the twentieth century,” (1) intended to wipe away conventional viewpoints of polarizing characters such as Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. And despite a focus largely comprised of non-Americans, he is to call it, “Oliver Stone’s Secret History of America.”
Among his assertions, he is to include the purposefully incendiary belief that Hitler is a fall-guy, too often used as a “scapegoat.” He challenges the widely kept opinion that Hitler was “evil,” though logic suggests that the stigma may be justified. After all, he was the figurehead of an aggressive regime that spearheaded a global conflict causing millions of deaths, and he was the architect of the most heinous and effective genocide in history.
But according to Stone, the average American’s choice to refer to Hitler as “bad or good” reflects a lack of sophistication, because Hitler was neither. He was simply the product of a series of events that occurred between World War I and World War II. And apparently, “people in America don’t know the connection.”(1) Either Oliver Stone feels that Americans are too uneducated to know about the events that shaped Hitler’s rise to power, or, more likely, he is taking the conspiracy theorist's approach, arguing that "the powers that be" have successfully covered up what they don't want you to know. And only Stone knows the “truth.”
It takes extraordinary egotism for Oliver Stone to claim that, seasoned only by a career of directing fictional films and attending Hollywood galas, he has achieved what lifelong historians and scholars have been entirely unable to do. Stone claims he has “been able to walk in Stalin’s shoes and Hitler's shoes,” (1) and apparently has unraveled the truth from the seamless web of historical lies that we have been universally duped to believe.
But rather than taking offense to Stone’s arrogance, or questioning why such revelations are coming from a filmmaker rather than a former CIA operative or something, many will likely just watch his “Secret History” and assimilate the selective disclosure and corruption of historical facts. And then they will lecture all of their friends about how the history books are wrong, and Oliver Stone is right.
Just as a viewing of An Inconvenient Truth conferred immediate and imaginary climatology degrees in the minds of its viewers, the “Secret History” will likely breed an entire mass of liberal “historians” ready to argue their cause, complete with outlandish conspiratorial perspectives about how conventional history has been fabricated by an enemy of the “truth.”
And frustratingly, they will think themselves well-versed scholars. But their understanding will probably have a hollow foundation, save only the viewing of a politically slanted film made by an egomaniac.
It will be familiar. But this time, not about “global warming.”
William Sullivan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/jan/10/hitler-stalin-oliver-stone-history
Monday, December 14, 2009
Tiger-love: Or How America Learned to Stop Thinking and Love Celebrity Gossip
Visit nearly any current event webpage today, and you will hear the same message. That Tiger Woods is an adulterer. That Tiger Woods is a very bad man. Recently, as the women step up to be counted among his mistresses, we are even hearing stories about him having crazy weekends blowing $40K in Vegas on huge drinking binges, and having his way with 10-15 woman at any one time. (1)
Now let’s take a step back and breathe, America, because it’s gone well past the point of ridiculous. What began as a simple celebrity affair has become more like a series of opulent orgy scenes from Caligula.
So I would just like to explain a few things. Call it a last-ditch effort before he’s implicated of some completely untrue bondage fetish and people really lose their minds about Tiger.
Yes, Tiger obviously cheated on his wife, and that’s bad. If he’s divorced, maybe he should give her the millions she’s entitled to according to their pre-nuptial agreement. And maybe his impeccable character was manufactured. But let’s be honest. To most golf fans, it might have well been an arranged marriage. To us, she wanted money and to be with the best golfer in the world. He wanted a smoking hot blonde wife. I didn’t think the relationship went too far past that, and if it did, we didn’t need to know.
But in the wake of the recent news, American women are claiming some kind of curious affinity to Elin Nordegren, the victim housewife who was wronged, although they know nothing about her and her lifestyle is anything but something the common woman can relate to.
Even more curious, the public is all too eager to start casting stones at Tiger. The dreadful hypocrisy here is that the same people that crucify Tiger as a whore are viciously defending the whores he allegedly had sex with, even to the point of vocally supporting them in litigation against Tiger. Why? Do the American people really think Tiger took some kind of precious innocence from the loose women that are coming forward, who “maybe” had sex with him and are now chomping at the bit to publicize that fact and take his money?
Maybe. Or maybe these Americans want to see Tiger punished so badly that they'll claim a moral alignment with the likes of these cocktail waitresses, escorts, porn stars, or worst of all, would-be reality television divas.
And as ridiculous as that is, many Americans will never get past it. That is because most Americans have attention spans that can be measured in microseconds, and celebrity gossip-hounds are the worst. Therefore, most people won’t take the time to think anything other than the message they hear on the news: that Tiger is a real bad guy, a sex-fiend and adulterer. And I fear he will never win a spot in their good graces again.
But to the sports fans that are not yet a lost cause buried in a sea of TMZ, and whose evening schedules are not contingent on the progress of American Idol: let’s compare him to other athletes for a moment.
If he were single, would this even be an issue? No, probably not. So his marriage is the spark inciting most of the public rage. However, we know of numerous baseball and football players that are well-known for this kind of activity, and yet they are not nearly as vilified by the media. Furthermore, baseball players who allegedly took steroids have more peace of mind than Tiger, and Tiger’s crimes have nothing to do with his sport; it’s entirely personal.
So let him work out his personal life, either by repairing the marriage and moving on, or by a divorce and a fiscal pounding. And let him play some golf for God’s sake, without condemnation campaigns from the soulless media trying to get rich from his tragic fall. He is not a celebrity because he is a beacon of moderation or morality, though some people chose to paint him that way and even Tiger himself embraced that image. He is a celebrity because he is quite possibly the best golfer to ever live, and these are the years where he can take the "quite possibly" out of this sentence forever.
Golf needs Tiger Woods on the PGA Tour. And don’t worry, he’ll still have legions of fans. They’ll just be less fickle and judgmental, and will simply appreciate his contribution to the sport rather than gawk at the fact that he is super-rich and in the sacred media limelight. And that’s going to have to be enough for him.
William Sullivan
Houston, TX
(1) http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2768606/Madam-claims-Tiger-Woods-paid-for-escorts.html
Now let’s take a step back and breathe, America, because it’s gone well past the point of ridiculous. What began as a simple celebrity affair has become more like a series of opulent orgy scenes from Caligula.
So I would just like to explain a few things. Call it a last-ditch effort before he’s implicated of some completely untrue bondage fetish and people really lose their minds about Tiger.
Yes, Tiger obviously cheated on his wife, and that’s bad. If he’s divorced, maybe he should give her the millions she’s entitled to according to their pre-nuptial agreement. And maybe his impeccable character was manufactured. But let’s be honest. To most golf fans, it might have well been an arranged marriage. To us, she wanted money and to be with the best golfer in the world. He wanted a smoking hot blonde wife. I didn’t think the relationship went too far past that, and if it did, we didn’t need to know.
But in the wake of the recent news, American women are claiming some kind of curious affinity to Elin Nordegren, the victim housewife who was wronged, although they know nothing about her and her lifestyle is anything but something the common woman can relate to.
Even more curious, the public is all too eager to start casting stones at Tiger. The dreadful hypocrisy here is that the same people that crucify Tiger as a whore are viciously defending the whores he allegedly had sex with, even to the point of vocally supporting them in litigation against Tiger. Why? Do the American people really think Tiger took some kind of precious innocence from the loose women that are coming forward, who “maybe” had sex with him and are now chomping at the bit to publicize that fact and take his money?
Maybe. Or maybe these Americans want to see Tiger punished so badly that they'll claim a moral alignment with the likes of these cocktail waitresses, escorts, porn stars, or worst of all, would-be reality television divas.
And as ridiculous as that is, many Americans will never get past it. That is because most Americans have attention spans that can be measured in microseconds, and celebrity gossip-hounds are the worst. Therefore, most people won’t take the time to think anything other than the message they hear on the news: that Tiger is a real bad guy, a sex-fiend and adulterer. And I fear he will never win a spot in their good graces again.
But to the sports fans that are not yet a lost cause buried in a sea of TMZ, and whose evening schedules are not contingent on the progress of American Idol: let’s compare him to other athletes for a moment.
If he were single, would this even be an issue? No, probably not. So his marriage is the spark inciting most of the public rage. However, we know of numerous baseball and football players that are well-known for this kind of activity, and yet they are not nearly as vilified by the media. Furthermore, baseball players who allegedly took steroids have more peace of mind than Tiger, and Tiger’s crimes have nothing to do with his sport; it’s entirely personal.
So let him work out his personal life, either by repairing the marriage and moving on, or by a divorce and a fiscal pounding. And let him play some golf for God’s sake, without condemnation campaigns from the soulless media trying to get rich from his tragic fall. He is not a celebrity because he is a beacon of moderation or morality, though some people chose to paint him that way and even Tiger himself embraced that image. He is a celebrity because he is quite possibly the best golfer to ever live, and these are the years where he can take the "quite possibly" out of this sentence forever.
Golf needs Tiger Woods on the PGA Tour. And don’t worry, he’ll still have legions of fans. They’ll just be less fickle and judgmental, and will simply appreciate his contribution to the sport rather than gawk at the fact that he is super-rich and in the sacred media limelight. And that’s going to have to be enough for him.
William Sullivan
Houston, TX
(1) http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2768606/Madam-claims-Tiger-Woods-paid-for-escorts.html
Monday, December 7, 2009
Al Gore: Environmentalist, Politician... Poet?
Step aside Shakespeare, Whitman, and Dickinson. Embrace the work of the prophet and Savior, Al Gore.
One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears
In midnight sun
Vapors rise as
Fever settles on an acid sea
Neptune's bones dissolve
Snow glides from the mountain
Ice fathers floods for a season
A hard rain comes quickly
Then dirt is parched
Kindling is placed in the forest
For the lightning's celebration
Unknown creatures
Take their leave, unmourned
Horsemen ready their stirrups
Passion seeks heroes and friends
The bell of the city
On the hill is rung
The shepherd cries
The hour of choosing has arrived
Here are your tools (1)
It's a very pleasing poem to the global warming advocate, and your average English undergrad may even find it pleasing to the ear, delighted that such language is still used. The problem is, it’s not a very good poem. It lacks depth, is utterly blatant, and unjustifiably implies parity with classical poetry. As for its substance, its purpose is the same as his film's: to scare the hell out of people about global warming.
Yet Gore is somehow collecting idiotic accolades. Mark Hetzgaard, from Vanity Fair, praises him for his contribution, saying of Mr. Gore’s poetic lines: they are visually specific and emotionally arresting even as they are scientifically accurate. (2)
Mr. Hetzgaard should impart his Vanity Fair wisdom about what is so "scientifically accurate" about this poem. It seems much more like a collection of outcomes to an outlandish doomsday prophecy, every bit as "scientific" as the Book of Revelations.
Even more frustrating, of the final stanza, Mr. Hetzgaard has this to say: "Is Gore himself that shepherd? No matter. What counts is that the hour of choosing has indeed arrived." Mr. Hetzgaard can delude himself about the intention, but Al Gore most certainly likens himself to a shepherd in the final stanza, warning his flock about the coming disaster. It is difficult to cast aside his egotism, and even harder to ignore his use of the allegorical "shepherd" imagery to establish himself as a Christ-like figure. But if we push these criticisms of his arrogance aside, we can approach the "scientific accuracy" of his predictions with one question that Mr. Gore repeatedly ignores:
If his predictions are “scientifically accurate,” then why is there a schism in the scientific community between those who believe in anthropogenic global warming and those who believe in naturalistic climate change? There is a consortium of scientists saying that changes in anthropogenic activity will have little effect on future climate patterns. Since the "science" is in contention, perhaps rather than saying Gore is "scientifically accurate," Mr. Hetzgaard would be more truthful to relate that "Mr. Gore is scientifically accurate according to the science that he and I subscribe to."
This poem has little literary value and no scientific merit whatsoever, and should be referenced only as a piece of propaganda espousing man-made global warming. It merely provides a picture of the elaborate Armageddon of the environmentalist's Faith. Given that global warming alarmism is the creed of choice for many liberal arts patrons, I will not be surprised when Gore claims a Pulitzer.
But Gore’s poem is brilliant in one specific way, insofar as his intent. He seems as if he’s channeling masterful poets, almost as if written in emulation of classical poetry. This is evident in William Petrocelli’s account in the Huffington Post. In an effort to receive self-validation, Gore jovially suggested to his editor that William Butler Yeats had written the poem to see if it was believable. (1) He even references Poseidon, god of the sea, in his Roman name of Neptune. Invoking historical gods of the Greeks is a common theme in classical poetry, and this reference's unnecessary inclusion is meant to give the poet the credibility of a well-read author. This way, if Gore’s poem is negatively critiqued, Gore and his supporters can just say that the naysayer is too unsophisticated and uneducated to understand the value of it.
So Gore will know well how to spin any criticism. After all, he is highly experienced in admonishing cynics as ignorant primitives; it has been his one and only response to those who challenge his ideas on anthropogenic global warming.
William Sullivan
1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-petrocelli/als-poem_b_363065.html
2) http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/12/al-gore-the-poet-laureate-of-climate-change.html
One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears
In midnight sun
Vapors rise as
Fever settles on an acid sea
Neptune's bones dissolve
Snow glides from the mountain
Ice fathers floods for a season
A hard rain comes quickly
Then dirt is parched
Kindling is placed in the forest
For the lightning's celebration
Unknown creatures
Take their leave, unmourned
Horsemen ready their stirrups
Passion seeks heroes and friends
The bell of the city
On the hill is rung
The shepherd cries
The hour of choosing has arrived
Here are your tools (1)
It's a very pleasing poem to the global warming advocate, and your average English undergrad may even find it pleasing to the ear, delighted that such language is still used. The problem is, it’s not a very good poem. It lacks depth, is utterly blatant, and unjustifiably implies parity with classical poetry. As for its substance, its purpose is the same as his film's: to scare the hell out of people about global warming.
Yet Gore is somehow collecting idiotic accolades. Mark Hetzgaard, from Vanity Fair, praises him for his contribution, saying of Mr. Gore’s poetic lines: they are visually specific and emotionally arresting even as they are scientifically accurate. (2)
Mr. Hetzgaard should impart his Vanity Fair wisdom about what is so "scientifically accurate" about this poem. It seems much more like a collection of outcomes to an outlandish doomsday prophecy, every bit as "scientific" as the Book of Revelations.
Even more frustrating, of the final stanza, Mr. Hetzgaard has this to say: "Is Gore himself that shepherd? No matter. What counts is that the hour of choosing has indeed arrived." Mr. Hetzgaard can delude himself about the intention, but Al Gore most certainly likens himself to a shepherd in the final stanza, warning his flock about the coming disaster. It is difficult to cast aside his egotism, and even harder to ignore his use of the allegorical "shepherd" imagery to establish himself as a Christ-like figure. But if we push these criticisms of his arrogance aside, we can approach the "scientific accuracy" of his predictions with one question that Mr. Gore repeatedly ignores:
If his predictions are “scientifically accurate,” then why is there a schism in the scientific community between those who believe in anthropogenic global warming and those who believe in naturalistic climate change? There is a consortium of scientists saying that changes in anthropogenic activity will have little effect on future climate patterns. Since the "science" is in contention, perhaps rather than saying Gore is "scientifically accurate," Mr. Hetzgaard would be more truthful to relate that "Mr. Gore is scientifically accurate according to the science that he and I subscribe to."
This poem has little literary value and no scientific merit whatsoever, and should be referenced only as a piece of propaganda espousing man-made global warming. It merely provides a picture of the elaborate Armageddon of the environmentalist's Faith. Given that global warming alarmism is the creed of choice for many liberal arts patrons, I will not be surprised when Gore claims a Pulitzer.
But Gore’s poem is brilliant in one specific way, insofar as his intent. He seems as if he’s channeling masterful poets, almost as if written in emulation of classical poetry. This is evident in William Petrocelli’s account in the Huffington Post. In an effort to receive self-validation, Gore jovially suggested to his editor that William Butler Yeats had written the poem to see if it was believable. (1) He even references Poseidon, god of the sea, in his Roman name of Neptune. Invoking historical gods of the Greeks is a common theme in classical poetry, and this reference's unnecessary inclusion is meant to give the poet the credibility of a well-read author. This way, if Gore’s poem is negatively critiqued, Gore and his supporters can just say that the naysayer is too unsophisticated and uneducated to understand the value of it.
So Gore will know well how to spin any criticism. After all, he is highly experienced in admonishing cynics as ignorant primitives; it has been his one and only response to those who challenge his ideas on anthropogenic global warming.
William Sullivan
1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-petrocelli/als-poem_b_363065.html
2) http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/12/al-gore-the-poet-laureate-of-climate-change.html
Monday, November 30, 2009
America on Iran: Where do we stand?
As of November 30th, 2009, the Iranian parliament has approved earmarking $20 million to fund anti-Western terrorists. (1) This money will inevitably supply weapons and bombs for the likes of Al Qaeda and Hamas, compensate the families of suicide bombers, and provide recruitment propaganda for terrorist units. The fruit of these earmarks will undoubtedly be vicious attacks upon the United States and its allies.
But this is only one instance of Iranian rebelliousness aimed at challenging the resolution and grit of Western culture. Recently, we witnessed the surfacing of one particular Iranian enrichment facility, in construction, that had been meant to remain shrouded from the international eye. In response to their blatant deception, the UN has demanded that they halt its production. Displaying staunch defiance, Iran has now announced the plans to construct ten more of these facilities rather than comply. (2)
Why would they do this? Don’t they want to grasp the olive branch that America has coaxed the Western powers to extend?
Absolutely not, nor have they ever. Iran has simply deemed Obama’s elegant political candor impotent, and his resolve empty. Therefore, they no longer feel they should pay lip-service to the international community, whose idle threats do not impede their goal of nuclear proliferation. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has bluntly told the world what he thinks of the international sanctions by proclaiming, “If they want to continue with that path of sanctions, we will not be harmed. They can issue resolutions for 100 years.” (3)
Apparently, Iran does not respect sanctions or UN resolutions. So it is rather suspect that every trip to the international drawing board yields the same feeble offerings for policies to engage Iran: resolutions, and possibly more sanctions.
This would not be so dangerous if we could say that Iran is nothing more than a rogue nation, but that would imply isolation and a lack of concerted efforts with other enemies of America. Quite the contrary, their unchecked insolence has spurred enemies of the United States to publicly announce support for the rabid nation. (4) This gives the Iranian powder keg a global blast radius.
And there is more than sufficient evidence of Iranian intent to spark a detonation. Given that international political posturing has drawn lines in the conflict, along with the heralded intent of the Iranian regime, it does not take clairvoyance to understand that current events portend the ominous signals of a global conflict.
The most horrifying of these signals lies in the simple fact that the rhetoric of Iranian leaders is in the very vein of Adolf Hitler. Take, for example, a 2005 decree by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “There is no doubt that the new wave in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world.” (5) This is one of his many calls to reference genocide as an acceptable solution to destroy the Jewish nation. If one correlates these statements with both their nuclear endeavors and the fact that a nuclear Holocaust would be the most efficient means to dispatch Israel’s existence, Iran’s aims should not be ambiguous. Yet, in a recurrence of the historical mistakes committed by those who failed to recognize the evil suggestion of Mein Kampf, our vigilant media refuses to see the genocidal overtones. Rather, most often one finds politically correct terms for the language, like “anti-Zionist rhetoric.”
Ahmadinejad spouts this hateful dogma regularly. So we must ask ourselves why this government and the UN believe that somehow Iran is vying for peace, and that its nuclear production is meant for peaceful ends. It is a tremendous stretch when the entire world is privy to the infallible source of the horse’s mouth, which screams to the contrary. Yet somehow, Obama’s soothing tenor convinces America that Iran, like the rest of the world, wants peace. Pure naiveté, but it sounds pleasing to American sensibilities, nonetheless.
Despite the diplomatic façade, it is impossible to conclude that Iran wants peace with Israel, and highly unlikely to perceive their nuclear program is a peaceful enterprise. So this leaves America with a harrowing question regarding America’s insistence on dialogue with Iran: on which side of the conflict do Barack Obama’s interests lie?
Either willfully conniving or idealistically incorrect, I fear that the answer to that question becomes more apparent with each day that Obama ignores the security of Israel in favor of forging a diplomatic relationship with a genocidal despot.
William Sullivan
1) http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091129/D9C95AJ00.html
2) http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20091129/twl-iran-to-build-ten-new-nuclear-facili-41f21e0.html
3) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7261040.stm
4) http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4953
5) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1510017/posts
But this is only one instance of Iranian rebelliousness aimed at challenging the resolution and grit of Western culture. Recently, we witnessed the surfacing of one particular Iranian enrichment facility, in construction, that had been meant to remain shrouded from the international eye. In response to their blatant deception, the UN has demanded that they halt its production. Displaying staunch defiance, Iran has now announced the plans to construct ten more of these facilities rather than comply. (2)
Why would they do this? Don’t they want to grasp the olive branch that America has coaxed the Western powers to extend?
Absolutely not, nor have they ever. Iran has simply deemed Obama’s elegant political candor impotent, and his resolve empty. Therefore, they no longer feel they should pay lip-service to the international community, whose idle threats do not impede their goal of nuclear proliferation. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has bluntly told the world what he thinks of the international sanctions by proclaiming, “If they want to continue with that path of sanctions, we will not be harmed. They can issue resolutions for 100 years.” (3)
Apparently, Iran does not respect sanctions or UN resolutions. So it is rather suspect that every trip to the international drawing board yields the same feeble offerings for policies to engage Iran: resolutions, and possibly more sanctions.
This would not be so dangerous if we could say that Iran is nothing more than a rogue nation, but that would imply isolation and a lack of concerted efforts with other enemies of America. Quite the contrary, their unchecked insolence has spurred enemies of the United States to publicly announce support for the rabid nation. (4) This gives the Iranian powder keg a global blast radius.
And there is more than sufficient evidence of Iranian intent to spark a detonation. Given that international political posturing has drawn lines in the conflict, along with the heralded intent of the Iranian regime, it does not take clairvoyance to understand that current events portend the ominous signals of a global conflict.
The most horrifying of these signals lies in the simple fact that the rhetoric of Iranian leaders is in the very vein of Adolf Hitler. Take, for example, a 2005 decree by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “There is no doubt that the new wave in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world.” (5) This is one of his many calls to reference genocide as an acceptable solution to destroy the Jewish nation. If one correlates these statements with both their nuclear endeavors and the fact that a nuclear Holocaust would be the most efficient means to dispatch Israel’s existence, Iran’s aims should not be ambiguous. Yet, in a recurrence of the historical mistakes committed by those who failed to recognize the evil suggestion of Mein Kampf, our vigilant media refuses to see the genocidal overtones. Rather, most often one finds politically correct terms for the language, like “anti-Zionist rhetoric.”
Ahmadinejad spouts this hateful dogma regularly. So we must ask ourselves why this government and the UN believe that somehow Iran is vying for peace, and that its nuclear production is meant for peaceful ends. It is a tremendous stretch when the entire world is privy to the infallible source of the horse’s mouth, which screams to the contrary. Yet somehow, Obama’s soothing tenor convinces America that Iran, like the rest of the world, wants peace. Pure naiveté, but it sounds pleasing to American sensibilities, nonetheless.
Despite the diplomatic façade, it is impossible to conclude that Iran wants peace with Israel, and highly unlikely to perceive their nuclear program is a peaceful enterprise. So this leaves America with a harrowing question regarding America’s insistence on dialogue with Iran: on which side of the conflict do Barack Obama’s interests lie?
Either willfully conniving or idealistically incorrect, I fear that the answer to that question becomes more apparent with each day that Obama ignores the security of Israel in favor of forging a diplomatic relationship with a genocidal despot.
William Sullivan
1) http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091129/D9C95AJ00.html
2) http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20091129/twl-iran-to-build-ten-new-nuclear-facili-41f21e0.html
3) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7261040.stm
4) http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4953
5) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1510017/posts
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Election Eye Opener
As every media outlet and political website and blog have headlined, the GOP won two very telling victories on November 3rd. Bob McDonnell won the governors race in Virginia by 18% and Chris Christie won the New Jersey governors race by 5%*. The Christie victory, while still surprising, is not as cut and dry as it might appear. Christie is a moderate Republican, and Corzine was extremely unpopular in New Jersey. Nevertheless, both victories are sending shock waves through the political community and, hopefully, a message to all incumbents.
The reason that these two races have received so much attention is due to the fact that Obama carried both states in the 2008 election and had campaigned for both Democratic candidates. This could easily be viewed as a direct showing of disapproval of the Obama administration and democratic congressional policies. The sway Obama and the democrats seemed to have over both states appears to have faltered but the GOP should only look at this as a small stepping stone going into the 2010 elections and even Republican incumbents should be paying attention.
When the Democrats took control of both the House and the Senate in 2006, a Democratic political adviser warned on CNN that the majority of the country still leans fiscally conservative, and that the newly elected Democrats would be wise to keep this in mind if they want to remain in office. He went on to say, that prior to 2006, the Republicans in power had drifted away fiscally conservative principles. Their constituents were unhappy and it showed at the polls. This remains true today and the two governors races might just be a warning to all incumbents that listening to the electorate is job one.
The current congress has one of the lowest approval rating in history. The amazing thing about this statistic is that their approval rating is about the same now as it was in 2005. So despite the Democrats winning the majority in 2006 and taking even more seats and the presidency in 2008, Americans are still unhappy with the job that congress is doing. This has always been a hard concept to grasp considering that Americans can simply "vote out" who they are unhappy with. Apparently the overwhelming belief held by citizens has been one of being somewhat satisfied with their personal representative and not as pleased with those from other districts or states. This unfortunate trend seems to be fading. As of right now, both the senate majority leader and the Speaker of the House are experiencing problems on the home front. Pelosi's approval ratings have dropped significantly as have Harry Reid's. And although Pelosi's district may be a lost cause to conservatives, Reid's position could very well be up for grabs in 2010.
The American political system is supposed to be a relatively simple concept. A given district or state elects an individual to speak on their behalf. Now, as seen in the stimulus, health care and cap and trade bills, this does not always occur. When the so called "blue dog democrats" were holding out on the health care vote, due to discourse from their respective constituencies, Pelosi and Reid held closed door meetings with the holdouts. In these meetings the "blue dogs" were basically told that if they wanted any kind of future in the democratic party, including appointments to any important committees, then they should drop their objections. This is by no means a new trick, nor is it one that is party exculsive, and it worked at the time. However, on November 4th, not even 24 hours after the election, Reid himself stated that he did not believe that health care would be passed this year like the president had wanted. Before the election, some thought that a vote could come as early as November 5th. Many politicians are rethinking being linked to a bill that, so far, is wildly unpopular with the majority of people. This is also the reason that cap and trade has floundered thusfar. Not many people in congress want to explain to their electorate why they voted for a bill that is guaranteed to raise their energy costs, especially in a recession. Being guaranteed a future in any party by party leaders is worthless if you are bound to lose the next election. Hopefully this election has shown politicians on both sides of the aisle that their sole purpose is to do as their constituents would have them do. Otherwise, these constituents have shown that they will find someone who will.
*According to the AP
Calvin Parker
The reason that these two races have received so much attention is due to the fact that Obama carried both states in the 2008 election and had campaigned for both Democratic candidates. This could easily be viewed as a direct showing of disapproval of the Obama administration and democratic congressional policies. The sway Obama and the democrats seemed to have over both states appears to have faltered but the GOP should only look at this as a small stepping stone going into the 2010 elections and even Republican incumbents should be paying attention.
When the Democrats took control of both the House and the Senate in 2006, a Democratic political adviser warned on CNN that the majority of the country still leans fiscally conservative, and that the newly elected Democrats would be wise to keep this in mind if they want to remain in office. He went on to say, that prior to 2006, the Republicans in power had drifted away fiscally conservative principles. Their constituents were unhappy and it showed at the polls. This remains true today and the two governors races might just be a warning to all incumbents that listening to the electorate is job one.
The current congress has one of the lowest approval rating in history. The amazing thing about this statistic is that their approval rating is about the same now as it was in 2005. So despite the Democrats winning the majority in 2006 and taking even more seats and the presidency in 2008, Americans are still unhappy with the job that congress is doing. This has always been a hard concept to grasp considering that Americans can simply "vote out" who they are unhappy with. Apparently the overwhelming belief held by citizens has been one of being somewhat satisfied with their personal representative and not as pleased with those from other districts or states. This unfortunate trend seems to be fading. As of right now, both the senate majority leader and the Speaker of the House are experiencing problems on the home front. Pelosi's approval ratings have dropped significantly as have Harry Reid's. And although Pelosi's district may be a lost cause to conservatives, Reid's position could very well be up for grabs in 2010.
The American political system is supposed to be a relatively simple concept. A given district or state elects an individual to speak on their behalf. Now, as seen in the stimulus, health care and cap and trade bills, this does not always occur. When the so called "blue dog democrats" were holding out on the health care vote, due to discourse from their respective constituencies, Pelosi and Reid held closed door meetings with the holdouts. In these meetings the "blue dogs" were basically told that if they wanted any kind of future in the democratic party, including appointments to any important committees, then they should drop their objections. This is by no means a new trick, nor is it one that is party exculsive, and it worked at the time. However, on November 4th, not even 24 hours after the election, Reid himself stated that he did not believe that health care would be passed this year like the president had wanted. Before the election, some thought that a vote could come as early as November 5th. Many politicians are rethinking being linked to a bill that, so far, is wildly unpopular with the majority of people. This is also the reason that cap and trade has floundered thusfar. Not many people in congress want to explain to their electorate why they voted for a bill that is guaranteed to raise their energy costs, especially in a recession. Being guaranteed a future in any party by party leaders is worthless if you are bound to lose the next election. Hopefully this election has shown politicians on both sides of the aisle that their sole purpose is to do as their constituents would have them do. Otherwise, these constituents have shown that they will find someone who will.
*According to the AP
Calvin Parker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
