I Shall Vote With Fear Once Again

Liberals and Democrats surround me. My wife comes from union-land Cleveland, Ohio and chooses her representatives based on which ones she thinks will affect the economy in such a way that we can afford a newer and bigger house. My father claims that the GOP is the party of fear and bases his vote on anyone but Bush (or any other Republican for that matter). Both have been fervently trying to convince me that on Election Day I should vote more toward my issues of interest rather than on my professed party of identification.

I should vote for Nancy Pelosi and friends because a Democrat controlled congress will bring legalized or at least decriminalized illicit drugs; better environmental laws and a rush of alternative fuels; stem cell research-based cures for all known diseases; more and better paying jobs; cheaper land and mortgages; a chicken in every pot; forty acres and mule, and a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow.

I should not vote for Republicans because the Bush administration has screwed up the war in Iraq to a fare thee well and some of the Congressional Republicans have committed heinous to wildly unethical crimes. My loved ones and some friends would have me believe that nothing good has come of the Bush Presidency or the GOP controlled congress and furthermore, I should stop voting based on fear of terrorist and start voting based on what I believe in.

It doesn’t help that the current GOP strategy for hanging on to control of congress is to keep saying that if you vote for a Democrat, any Democrat, this will be your future government:

Representative Charles Rangel, Democrat of New York, the senior Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, a proponent of tax increases {will become chairmen of said committee}.

Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, would be the chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, {and it has been said} would launch criminal inquiries into the Bush administration.

Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, would be Judiciary Committee chairman {has threatened to impeach President Bush}.

Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, is in line to take over the Government Reform Committee.

Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, is the senior Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

Representative John Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, would return to the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
David Obey, Democrat of Wisconsin, would take back the reins of the Appropriations Committee. (Source)

When campaign strategy essentially is, “Don’t vote for them, scary people will control the government,” and it is repeated by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on the radio, I find myself cringing the same way I did when in 2004 liberals were running to and fro screaming, “Anyone but Bush!” and managed to nominate the most milquetoast and uninspiring candidate since Walter Mondale.

In both of these cases, the former and the present, party operatives and radio talk show hosts have forgotten the most elementary of impetuses’ in getting out the vote, (no, not VOTE OR DIE!!!!!!) simply having ideas.

Contrary to popular opinion in the elite world, people will vote for good ideas rather than celebrity status or kitsch marketing – if only people would actually run on good ideas instead of celebrity status or kitsch marketing. For better or for worse, Bush won over Kerry because he had an idea to fight worldwide Islamofascist terrorism. The veracity of his idea is debatable but at least he had one and other than gays not being able to marry (again, a firm idea) that one idea won out over his opponent who had no ideas and purely ran on his decades old war record and airy fairy promises that somehow he could reverse globalization and bring jobs back to America.

That is my problem with this election cycle; this time the Democrats still have no ideas and neither do the Republicans. The Democrats seem to still be running on (Anyone but Bush!) and are helped by virtue of the fact that many are not thrilled with some of what is going on in this country. They are also running on the interesting but rather juvenile idea that Republicans (Tom Delay and Mark Foley) are awful and corrupt and the Democrats will bring respectability back to Congress in much the same way Bush promised to restore integrity back to the White House after Bill Clinton left the Oval Office. Both ideas are laughable at best and downright insulting at worst. If you want the laundry list of crimes or unethical behavior Democrats in congress have committed (including Pelosi) I’m sure you can find that in someone else’s column.

My point is not to sling mud but rather to point out that this time around, neither party is promoting any ideas. As I said above, the Democrats have nothing but rhetoric and the dubious luck of running at a time where Iraq isn’t going well while the Republican have decided to fight back with essentially, “Sure we’ve betrayed our base on border security and Iraq looks horrible but…do you really want to deal with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the near future?”

That’s not a strategy, that’s propaganda. The sad thing is that if the Republicans just went with good ole common sense, you know, ideas (even bad ones sell with John Q. Public) then I wouldn’t have a problem voting for them in November.

On the other hand, and maybe it’s because as a mandated reported I’m mortified at the sharp, piercing sounds of petulant jubilation, I cannot handle the thought of liberals with the mentality of eight-year-olds running around shrieking, “Nanny nanny foo foo, we won, we won, free Palestine, impeach Bush!

Even with a sordid history of incompetence from the White House on down (Terry Schiavo anyone?) I cannot and will not indulge the flatulence of selfish and self-important man/woman-children that make up the Democrat Party.

These are the same people that believe we are not at war with Islamofascists. These are same people that believe dealing with terrorists involves strictly law enforcement and are not proponents (for the most part) of an active military. These are the people with no ideas. Nancy Pelosi and her ilk have not played a part in governing this country, they have simply obstructed in the name of reclaiming power they believe is rightfully theirs. The Democrats self-righteous claim of Capitol Hill power is as preposterous as it is childishly destructive and I won’t support it with the one vote I get per year.

Quite frankly, if it weren’t for the whole national security issue, I would be voting Green all the way down the ballot as at least those people run on ideas (both good and bad) as opposed to the Democrats who have not run on a single idea since Carter was in the White House (and probably not even then).

You can comment and e-mail me all day long that voting for Republicans based on national security issues is a vote based on fear and you are welcomed to that opinion. That is how I will vote until the Democrat Party and liberals at large grow up and learn to run on ideas instead of a fine combination of political luck and carefully marketed propaganda. If a vote for any Republican is a vote against Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker, then I shall swallow the bile raising in my throat and cast my vote for the lesser of two evils.

New Review: Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women

It is amazing to me what the mainstream media and supposed conventional wisdom of the day will try to convince women is true. Judging by the average relationship book, dating column or TV commercial, one might assume that men only like one type of woman and are only interested in one thing when it comes relationships. Unfortunately savvy marketing and patriarchal beliefs have some women practically killing themselves to live up to impossible standards all for the sake of companionship. The sad irony is that while women try to fashion themselves into something they are not, in reality they are doing for men who for all intents and purposes don’t really exist.

For example, many women have heard the phrase all to often that if they are talented enough to be professionally successful, their chances of getting married were smaller than their chances of being hit by a bus. One can easily see how hearing “wisdom” uttered from peers and influences might cause severe brain drain in among potentially great women. As a man living in the 20th century I have no idea why anyone would tell their daughter, mother, sister, etc this tripe. It simply isn’t true.

Certainly men are very driven by their more aesthetic senses (being attracted to a women’s looks) but in many cases we stay with said women for their brains and ambition. As one radio talk show host once said about dating, water rises to its own level. In most cases, a smart and successful man will want someone that compliments them in all facets. When you marry you (theoretically) share your most intimate thoughts, needs, wants, fears and dreams. Obviously you want the person whom is receiving your soul to be competent, sympathetic, and intelligent to simply get you.

You don’t have to take my word for it; Princeton University professor and prominent journalist for the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and the New York Post has written probably the best book on the subject of women and dating titled, “Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women.” She not only single-handedly obliterated the myth that smart successful women do in fact marry at the same rate as their not so successful sisters but also (for the purposes of this book) commissioned a Harris Interactive survey to conclusively prove this fact with hard data.

Whelan starts off by singularly identifying and labeling the women in question as SWANS (Strong Women Achievers, No Spouse). Whelan composes her book not only from data in the self-commissioned Harris Interactive survey but also from US Census data and most importantly from the aforementioned SWANS. Whelan conducted multiple in depths interviews with SWANS from cities all across the United States, which lends a personal tone to what would otherwise be a study bound up in hardcover. Hearing the various tales told from the mouths of these so-called SWANS paints a sympathetic picture of truly special and driven women who deserve all that the world has to offer and more. After hearing the trials, tribulations and confessionals of these great SWANS one wonders how anyone in their right mind would object to dating one.

And that is exactly the point of Whelan’s book. According to all of her data there are scores of men from across the spectrum that are lining to date women that are their mental and financial equals, if not their superiors. Whelan spends the bulk of the book looking at several examples of relationships where the men simply adore the women they are with because they are so successful and brilliant. The numbers don’t lie, as Whelan will show you.

She doesn’t just concentrate on dating and marriage. She also shatters many other myths that accompany the fallacy that smart women don’t marry. She rabidly attacks the notion that all women whom have blasted through the glass ceiling are also merciless wenches with a heart of stone. This is where the first person accounts really serve the author well in making the point that just like men, women are professional in the work place and multifaceted in their personal life. A SWAN will do her job to the best of her ability and make the hard choices and then be just as sweet as the proverbial girl next door during the off hours. To think that men are any different is ridiculous in the extreme so it should go without saying that women wouldn’t be any different. Whelan includes this information exactly because the misperception tends to outshine the truth.

Whelan also talks about how with the change in gender roles and expectations, not to mention differential in women with high salaries as opposed to men, there are lots of newly minted househusbands across the American landscape. These are men who are clearly not intimidated by their high earning wives and girlfriends (as it should be) and are perfectly comfortable being the more domestic partner, supporting their significant other as they do battle in the increasingly intense business world. Again, the truth of the matter is that most guys have no problem cooking and cleaning up the house if afforded the opportunity to stay home or be home more often to do so. In line with that, though there are plenty of women who don’t want a house husband or lesser earning boyfriend, many SWANS are comfortable enough with themselves to just be happy with a decent fellow who treats them accordingly rather than being preoccupied with their earning potential.

My only issue with the book is the part about SWANS having children. Whelan states that SWANS will have significantly more successful and fulfilling marriages because they tend to marry later in life and therefore have more maturity and life experience to guide through the prickly briar patch of marriage. This also means that these same SWANS are having children much later in life if at all. I don’t have a problem with that per se. Whelan takes a hard left though when she begins to talk about SWANS opting to forgo finding a partner and going straight to having a child. Whelan is free to believe and promote whatever her opinion of single motherhood is but she should not refer to having a raising a child by ones self in much the same way someone talks about achieving a promotion. As a social worker I found this part to be somewhat lacking in context. Many single mothers do just fine and certainly try their best but the ideal situation is to in fact have a mother and A FATHER. To say otherwise, as she does somewhat by omission is to be intellectually disingenuous. Children are not like pets are some award and they should not be linked to SWANS as if they are a personal achievement. Anyone that has tried to raise a child on their own will tell you that being a parent is not about you, it’s about the safety and sanctity of the child – not the mothers ego or perceived grandeur.

Debates about single motherhood aside, “Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women,” is an absolutely excellent book. It is essential reading for teenage girls struggling with their own feelings and thoughts and the perception that they have to dumb themselves down in order to seek validation, attention and approval from guys. It is also essential reading for women in their 20’s and 30’s that need that extra boost that yes, they did the best thing for themselves and they will be rewarded with the best guys possible whom will treat them like the queens that they are. I highly recommend that anyone in the dating realm read, “Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women,” by Christine B. Whelan.

Hong Kong Phooey or: How I Learned to Stop Kvetching and Love the NOKO Bomb

When Kim Jong Il and his military machine set the world on its ear by testing a nuclear device, I along with many others thought that were definitely headed for dark days. I got this unfortunate news after having just finished watching “The Wire” on HBO and was still in the afterglow when my smiling face morphed into a look of abject horror. In fact, it would not be an exaggeration to say that when the Fox News Alert blared across my flat-screen television, I reacted like the prototypical 1950’s housewife hammering frantically with a broom against a mouse scurrying across the kitchen. My wife thought I was having a stroke.

But this was nothing compared to how I felt a few days later when I heard that both China and Russia were against sanctioning North Korea for their blatant disregard for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT]. I sat in front of my computer mouth agape as I suddenly realized that it didn’t matter what the US said or did on the UN Security Council or what we wanted to see happen on the world stage, so long as China had a UNSC veto, they could derail any plan to contain North Korean, Iran, or any other expansionist/hostile nation. Never mind the neutron bomb, Chinas veto was the single most destructive weapon on the planet.

Oh how cried and moaned and kvetched about how in one seemingly innocuous headline, the United States was made to look toothless on all but the least important of geopolitical issues. I lamented that the NOKO Bomb (as all the hipsters are calling it) had made China the real superpower in the world and they seemed to be hell bent on making sure that the United States was roundly supplanted as the leader in world affairs and impotent to do much of anything in the way of stopping nuclear proliferation.

I suddenly became the child who suddenly realizes that there is no Santa Clause.

However, after all the crying, moaning and most importantly, the kvetching, I found a series of headlines that has turned a rather bleak situation into one where there is a glimmer of hope.

According to an article in The Australian, Beijing is openly considering "regime change" in Pyongyang after last week's nuclear test by their confrontational client state.

"In today's DPRK Government, there are two factions, sinophile and royalist," one Chinese analyst wrote online. "The objective of the sinophiles is reform, Chinese-style, and then to bring down Kim Jong-il's royal family. That's why Kim is against reform. He's not stupid."

More than one Chinese academic agreed that China yearned for an uprising similar to the one that swept away the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu in 1989 and replaced him with communist reformers and generals. The Chinese made an intense political study of the Romanian revolution and even questioned president Ion Iliescu, who took over, about how it was done and what roles were played by the KGB and by Russia.

Mr. Kim, for his part, ordered North Korean leaders to watch videos of the swift and chaotic trial and execution of Ceausescu and his wife, Elena, the vice-prime minister, as a salutary exercise.

The balance of risk between reform and chaos dominated arguments within China's ruling elite. The Chinese have also permitted an astonishing range of vituperative Internet comment about an ally with which Beijing maintains a treaty of friendship and co-operation. Academic Wu Jianguo published an article in a Singapore newspaper - available online in China - bluntly saying: "I suggest China should make an end of Kim's Government."

"The Chinese have given up on Kim Jong-il," commented one diplomat. "The question is, what are they going to do about it?"

What will they do about it indeed. The NOKO Bomb may have inadvertently led to the demise of Jong Il dynasty in North Korea, by of all hands China. I have said in the past and it has been affirmed by many analysts that N. Korea does the dirty work for China. They are something like Chinas personal mafia, what with all the counterfeiting of US dollars, drug running by N. Korean diplomats and large scale spy training going on. I would not have thought in a million years that Hu Jintao would throw his buddy the “Dear Leader” over the falls to safe face with the world community. But if the reporting in The Australian is indeed sound, that may in fact become a welcomed reality.

It all depends on what exactly China wants for themselves or sees as their needs. They want to dominate South East Asia and the Pacific in a sort of Big Brother way like the US used to do in Latin America. They are accomplishing this obviously through military build-up but more importantly through becoming a major economic impact player.

For example, the latest doings in Chinas markets report that, “Wal-Mart Stores Inc., stymied this month in its attempt to expand in Japan, plans to double its stores in China by acquiring Trust-Mart for about $1 billion, a person familiar with the proposal said.
Trust-Mart, a closely held chain of grocery and appliance stores, is in talks with Wal-Mart and other overseas companies, said a spokesman, Huang Shiying. A Wal-Mart deal needs regulatory approval and may not be announced for weeks, the person familiar with the proposed acquisition said yesterday, declining to be identified before an announcement.

Expansion in the world's fourth-largest economy may counteract slowing U.S. sales and bolster revenue at Wal-Mart. The retailer's overseas ambitions were thwarted by its midyear withdrawal from Germany and South Korea, and after Japan's Aeon won exclusive rights to acquire the supermarket company Daiei this month.” (source)

I could name at least a dozen more stories from just yesterday alone that show how the Red Dragon is extending its economic reach further and deeper in the world at an exponential rate. If they do not have designs on violently crippling the US, just nudging it out of its position of power on the global economic stage, then the last thing they want is to go to war with anyone or set up a scenario where we exert our military might in their sphere of influence. Where making money is concerned, sometimes you have to trade in your old destructive friends for the more prominent crowd.

I’m willing to go along with the idea that China might throw Mr. Il over the falls because of yet another story that happened to have brightened my day. Real Clear Politics opinion writer James Lewis writes that because Iran and North Korea have been working hand-in-hand on weapons that endanger China along with everybody else, China may move away from their unabashed love fest with that wild and crazy anti-Semite, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and back workable sanctions against Iran.

The other reason why Beijing may turn on Tehran is because of the old adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Lewis makes the point that China has its own radical Islamists, the restless Ughuirs. “Beijing doesn't want a bloody Chechnyan rebellion, or its own intifada, like the one foolish France is now experiencing. It especially doesn't want an Islamofascist Pakistan on its borders, armed with nukes and ICBMs and run by expansionist martyrs.”

I’ve been following the story of nuclear proliferation in South East Asian and Middle East since early 2005 and generally it’s not pretty. There’s a whole lot of diplomacy, broken promises and subterfuge to cover malicious intent. The most frustrating part covering this mess has been having to watch the European Union hold mad tea parties with disingenuous thugs under the umbrella of “negotiations.” It’s an exercise in masturbation at best and serious threat to world stability at worst.

However, now that I’m learning to love the fallout from the NOKO Bomb, I’ve realized that the world may have taken a sharp turn to the right. Not only does China slowly seem to be seeing the light, but those dusty old codgers from the EU may also have finally grown a set of grapefruits and opted to make an executive decision on Iran.

Reuters reports that, “The European Union, spurred by North Korea's nuclear test, was set to back limited United Nations sanctions against Iran on Tuesday after Tehran spurned conditions for opening negotiations on its nuclear program.

The EU's 25 foreign ministers, meeting in Luxembourg, were to discuss incremental measures targeted first at individuals and materials involved in Iranian uranium enrichment activities, which the West suspects is aimed at making a bomb.

After four months of talks with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, Iran this month rejected a U.N. demand that it suspend enrichment.

"For that reason, we will not be able to avoid the Security Council now taking up consultations with the aim of a resolution on the first step in sanctions," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told reporters.

Ministers arriving at the meeting made clear that alarm at North Korea's nuclear test and its implications for other countries were a key factor in the way they approached Iran, although their economic interests with Tehran are far greater.

"The most important thing is to have a united response as we showed with North Korea. We must show Iran that the international community is completely determined to remain united," European External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner said.”

As Rush Limbaugh would say, hubba hubba.

I have learned to stop kvetching and am loving the NOKO Bomb. It may have become the high water mark for steering the rest of the world in the general direction of the United States, which I should remind all of you, said we should have been dealing with these issues back in 2002. I’m just saying is all.

Trojan Horses and the Big Lie of Clean Coal

The world is running out of oil and even if it weren’t, burning as much oil as we can results in the degradation of the world’s ecosystems. There is no point in pussyfooting around this subject. The bottom line is that unless the world consumes less fossil fuel energy or fossil fuels are entirely replaced by renewable energy sources (irregardless of the cost) then the world as we know it will face Old Testament-like disastrous consequences. We all should know this by now. The state of energy affairs as I have described them should not take anyone by surprise.

What may be surprising however is how much talk there is of just switching from strictly oil, the lifeblood of the entire industrialized world, to coal. Coal? Anyone that remembers their junior high American history textbooks will recall pictures of coal miners from the days of yore covered in soot from the dirtiest of all fossil fuels, coal. Before I read “The Empty Tank” by Jeremy Leggett I never would have thought that anyone living in the 21st century would seriously contemplate trying to replace oil with coal of all things. I stand before you corrected, befuddled and disgusted.

There has been a push, despite efforts at mainstreaming renewable energy technology, to abandon those efforts and instead move toward a coal-oil world economy. Like all things terrible and complicated in this world, China is the leader of nations aiming to hitch their Communist star to the wagon burning coal. As a matter of fact, China and coal have always been fast friends.

According to American.edu’s study of China and coal, “Coal accounts for about 70% of China's total energy consumption. The development and production of the coal industry provides stability in China's economic growth. The coal resources in China have been exploited since 476 BC, and it is estimated that even with all the years of coal exploration, China has total coal deposits of 4, 490 billion tons, which are as deep as 2,000 vertical metres. Eventually China will exploit its coal resources until they are eliminated.”

American.edu reports that China’s shortsightedness will result in massive environmental problems for Beijing and the world over. “The carbon dioxide emissions from coal burning is larger than any other energy sources such as, petroleum and liquefied natural gas. In addition, analysts argue that increases in carbon dioxide will contribute to global warming. Besides carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, which is believed to cause acid raid, is another pollutant generated from coal burning. When sulfur dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere, it takes approximately ten days for it to settle to the earth. In this period of time, the sulfate particles can travel several thousand kilometers. China is not the only country suffering from acid rain problems. Other Asian countries, such as Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, and the Philippines have all reported acid rain problems originating from China's coal burning pollution. The Central Research Institute of Electric Power and Industry in Japan has reported that acid rain from the China mainland will soon be a major problem for Japan.”

Aside from the fact that we, of all countries, are in no position to make China alter their pollution spewing ways, much like the old saying goes, we aren’t even trying to beat them, we are actively trying to join them. As I stated earlier, there is a movement in this country to transition from crude oil dependence to coal-oil dependence. This campaign is replete with gimmicks and political chicanery that makes the movie “Wag the Dog” look like a Disney movie.

Like all things, this tale begins with a current story in the news. The Assoicated Press is reporting out of Dallas that, A building boom that would add scores of new coal-fired power plants to the nation's power grid is creating a new dilemma for politicians, environmentalists and utility companies across the United States.

Should power companies be permitted to build new plants that pollute more but are reliable and less expensive? Or should regulators push utilities toward cleaner burning coal plants, even if it means they will cost more and are based on newer, yet still unproven, technology?

How those questions are answered will have huge implications over the next few decades. It could determine how Americans light, heat and cool their homes and business, the rate of return on utility investments and the potential environmental impact of the new plants.

Nowhere do these competing interests play out with such force as in Texas, where 16 new coal-fired plants are proposed - 11 of them by Dallas-based TXU Corp., the state's biggest power company.”

There are more examples of this sort of thing all over the news. Despite conventional eco-energy wisdom and common sense, Big Coal is seriously trying to gain market share in an incredibly politicized and imminently important part of the US energy economy. Most experts agree that if we were to seriously consider burning coal at the rate we are currently burning oil, we’d absolutely cook this planet with greenhouse gases. Again, I direct you to The Empty Tank if you want to know what kind of Armageddon a future based solely on coal would bring us. Despite environmental and geological scientists tripping over each other to warn people not to do this, like everything else in America, the business industry shall determine our fate, even if it is on the path to oblivion.

I realized how much trouble we were in while watching television this past weekend. While following the earthquake in Hawaii story on Fox News, I found myself agape as a commercial for “clean coal” flashed across my television screen. The narrator promised that there was “clean coal technology” on the horizon and that coal would indeed make the best and cheapest choice to supplant oil.

“Horse pucky!” I exclaimed to my wife as I bolted up the stairs to compile information for this article. There is no way this can be on the level, and sure enough, the good folks who brought us Fox News viewers this message were indeed sent here by the devil; the Big Coal devil.

You see, the people telling me and you that coal could be burned cleanly were from Americans for Balanced Energy Choices. They misrepresent themselves as a grassroots organization aiming to show the clean benefits of coal as an overabundant source of domestic energy.

Here’s the rub; the nice people over at ABEC are actually coal industry representatives. Like many parts of industry (see my article on bath and beauty reps being determinant factors on legal ingredients in said products) ABEC is engaged in a sophisticated ploy that's being used more and more by large companies to sway public opinion called which is called Astroturf. Essentially this is when the BIG Business companies try to make something look like a grassroots movement when it's not.

For example, on its site, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices says only that "initial funding for this worthwhile project" was provided by "America's coal- based electricity industry."

It doesn't say that the coal industry -- which in reality has provided virtually all funding for the group since its establishment in 2000 -- contributed nearly $4 million to politicians in the 2000 election cycle, primarily Republicans.

Nor does it say that in the 2004 presidential election, President Bush was by far the leading recipient of coal-industry cash, raking in more than $250,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog organization.

Sen. John Kerry, by contrast, received a meager $5,900 in coal money for his efforts.

Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, which bills itself as nonpartisan, also doesn't say in its ad or online that it receives logistical support, including staff members and other resources, from the Center for Energy and Economic Development, a coal-industry trade group.

The center has aggressively lobbied against limits on greenhouse-gas emissions, widely seen as a cause of global warming.

On its Web site, the center says it rejects "the theory of catastrophic global climate change" and takes credit for helping persuade Bush not to support the Kyoto Treaty on reducing emissions. We can argue about Kyoto all day long but one doesn’t get to call themselves non-partisan and then go about mothballing a piece of legislation detrimental to their business.

Aside from obviously being yet another cog in the machine that helps keep the GOP in office and thus keeps the pro-energy industry legislation flowing, Big Coal also wants people to think about so-called clean coal, which is actually an industry buzz term for technologies that allow dirty- as-ever coal to be burned with fewer deadly emissions.

Contrary to ABEC’s assertions, cleaner-burning technologies focus almost exclusively on toxins such as sulfur dioxide and mercury. They don't address the more contentious matter of carbon dioxide, believed to be the leading culprit for global warming.

The main technology the coal industry has advocated to cut carbon dioxide is a process called sequestering emissions. It involves pumping millions of tons of the gas into large holes in the ground.

The Sierra Club has described sequestering as "monstrously expensive, unproven technology that's analogous to nuclear waste."

The last bunch of hooey these folks have purported is to take credit for improved air quality. Yes, Big Coal is taking credit for clean air. Of course the only reason why that is even remotely true is because the coal industry was forced by the 1970 Clean Air Act to implement reforms, which they spent millions of dollars lobbying against. (source)

Coal isn’t going to work. It will be an unqualified disaster and the people crowing loudest for it are no better than Exxon/Mobile or Shell Oil. Though the renewable energy options are not perfect nor are they cheap, I would prefer an expensive world to a destroyed world, given those options. Don’t be fooled by the Trojan Horses of industry riding atop fresh Astroturf. To paraphrase Groucho Marx, I don’t care what they have to say, it makes no difference anyway, if it comes from Big Coal, I’m against it!

Giving Back and Giving Thanks

In 2004 I started a blog. As I've stated before, from about 9/12 through the 2004 Presidential election I annoyed just about everyone I knew with my political analysis and sharp criticisms of just about everything. Once I alienated enough people the suggestion was made to stop bothering people at work with incessant e-mails and just start my own blog. That way I if anyone cared what I had to say they could just read it themselves.

PC was begun not only as an outlet for my thoughts on world events but also as a way for me to begin writing again while achieving that instant gratification I never got from screenwriting. PC led to paid book reviews as well as some other interesting projects. I'm not quite Daily Kos or Andrew (not even close), but that's OK - as long as I'm writing and somebody is reading, I'm perfectly happy.

Along the way some of my friends and family have supported this endeavor with gusto and when there are times when I feel like I shouldn't even bother anymore, it is they whom inspire me to continue (and the occasional nuclear test by North Korea or political candidate riding across the US-Mexico border on an elephant).

Some of those very same friends and family have (I guess) equally taken inspiration from me and started their own blogs or MySpace pages. Here are the plugs and thank you's:

My wife Robyn: When we first met and I told her I was a writer with my own site she was quite impressed. She thought that this was how I made my living...or some money at the very least. She was rather suprised (knowing nothing about blogging) that it was just a hobby I had religiously dedicated myself to. Though we've gone back and forth over this, in the end she knows it is important to me and so like a good partner, she supports it in the only way she knows how; by helping me pick articles to write about. Oddly enough, it's mostly her ideas that end up generating the most hits for my site, especially So I Married a Career Woman, which garnered the attention of Simon and Schuster. Someone there liked it so much they commissioned me to review, Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women (review will be up this Friday). To her I say I love you and thank you for all your help, support and gentle nagging that nobody wants to hear about Iran every single day. Lastly, she too has joined what the kids call "the addiction" in that she has created her own anti-MySpace MySpace page. She too has begun to post her own news musings and it's pretty good stuff.

John - executive producer: Contrary to what some people may have thought, I haven't just given the whole bloody site over to him. However, sometimes there's a story that calls for some shtick (which he's very good at writing) and I don't have time to deal with it myself (see twinkie cookbooks and other assorted stories featuring elephants and a mariachi band). John has been gracious enough to take time from his day to post on my blog when I can't. He also apparently thinks I'm too talented not to be read by the greater majority of internet users so he took it upon himself to FRANCHISE my site on MySpace.com. For that I say thank you for the interest and the effort.

Mark D - Mark has been with PC from the beginning. I've been nagging at him periodically for the past two years that he should lend his own comments to blogosphere but much like my efforts to get him to read adult books, my pleas went unheard - until now. Mark has finally started his own blog called Bite Size Commentary. I laughed at his first post because, other than Homer Simpson, nobody argues with his own brain better than he does. Anywho, if you have the time, check out his site. Mark generally sends me good stuff that he sees going on in the world like this story about Bush's new space policy. It's a great read as is Marks new site. To him I say good luck, God bless and have fun with the new blog.

Lastly, there's my dad. We haven't agreed on much since 9/11 and are arguments increasingly resemble a particularly nasty episode of Hannity and Colmes. I've told him on more than one occasion that instead of screaming at me all the time he should just start his own blog. After a false start where we shared a blog together he finally went out on his own and started the aptly if not exactly originally named Some thoughts from a liberal. I personally think he sounds like an angry nutcase but that sort of thing seems to be popular with the leftist crowd so if George Carlin-esque blogs are your thing, give my dad a look. He too has been supportive of this blog so I owe him a plug.

This has been a busy and productive weekend here in the virtual world. I'm glad to have been a part of it.

Thanks again to those that read and comment. Tomorrow we return to our regularly scheduled postings.

Two things...

(by Rev. John, "MarkRadulich.com" executive producer with a PhD in Blogonomics)

While our friend Mark rests on Sunday (much like God did, just one of their many similarities), there were two small items I wanted to bring to your attention.

MarkRadulich.com is now on MySpace. If you are one of the 100 million junkies like I am, we can be found right here.

Also, Straight Talk America sent me a survey the other day, wanting to know my opinion on the problems facing America. With the elections coming up, I thought it might make a tasty conversation starter to see how the following issues rate with you.

• War on Terror
  
• The Economy
  
• Taxes
  
• Federal Budget Deficit
  
• Social Security
  
• Rising Cost of Fuel
  
• Education
  
• Health Care
  
• Federal Disaster Preparedness
  
• Immigration Reform
  
• Global Climate Change
  
• Growth of Government Spending
  
• Lobbying Reform.

Reality TV star mixes elephant, politics - Part Deux

(by John Brodigan, "Progressive Conservatism" executive producer with a PhD in Blogonomics)

And now the video...

Reality TV star mixes elephant, politics

(by John Brodigan, "Progressive Conservatism" executive producer with a PhD in Blogonomics)

Have you ever read a story that sounded a little bit off, and then realized it was on a parody site like The Onion? Like this morning, a buddy of mine sent me and article about Terrell Owens blaming his poor game on Drew Bledsoe, the Offensive Line, Hamid Karzai, NASA, and Samsung. It had me going at first, then I said to myself, "Self, this is obviously from The Onion."

About an hour ago, your friend and mine Mark, the Bon Jovi to my Sambora and the Dr. Dre to my Snoop Doggy Dogg, called to tell me about how a Republican Congressional candidate, who was a contestant on The Apprentice, marched an elephant and a six-piece mariachi band across the Mexican border to make a point about border security. I laughed, and then I said to myself, "Self, this is obviously from The Onion."

That's when I hopped on the computer to read a few articles on the ol' Associated Press. Folks, it's days like this that make me thank God for the blogosphere.

BROWNSVILLE, Texas - A Pennsylvania congressional candidate and former reality TV star used an elephant and a six-piece mariachi band for an elaborate political stunt designed to make a point about border security.

Raj Peter Bhakta, who was "fired" by Donald Trump on "The Apprentice" two years ago, paraded an elephant and the band through the water near the mouth of the Rio Grande along the Texas-Mexico border Tuesday.

"The elephant never made landfall into Mexico, but I tell you something, he could have made 15 laps back and forth, but no one showed up," Bhakta, a Republican, told The Brownsville Herald.

Bhakta, who favors construction of a fence along the border, said he was in Brownsville to raise money with friends when he saw half a dozen men swimming under one of the international bridges. Circus producer James Plunkett said he was hired for the photo shoot and provided three elephants.

Plunkett said his crew entered the Boca Chica beach area in Texas and remained for about an hour. The Border Patrol alerted the U.S.

Department of Agriculture and the elephants were detained and sprayed for ticks then released, the newspaper reported Wednesday.
Bhakta is challenging Democratic freshman Rep. Allyson Schwartz for her congressional seat.

New Review: Showdown

Since China has emerged in the world as a military, diplomatic and industrial/economic powerhouse, there have been rumblings that eventually the Red Dragon and the Eagle would collide in a battle of epic and devastating proportions. Though the current wisdom of the day suggests that Beijing has everything to lose and nothing to gain by throwing its trade partnership with the US over the falls, some would suggest that our current detent with China and its growing markets is only a stalling ploy while a plot to do battle with Washington is underfoot.

Simply put, there is a segment of the knowledgeable population that believes that eventually China will declare war on the US, finally utilizing the tools that we gave them in the 1990’s. Oddly enough, that’s not the good part of the story. The really interesting part is how exactly China will choose to light the spark that will set the world on fire. Their choices range from a possible attack and reclamation of Taiwan to various oil wars in the Middle East to Hugo Chavez permanently and wholly cutting off the Latin American oil spigot to the very timely possibility of North Korea unleashing its very own functional nuclear bomb.

“Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States,” by former deputy undersecretary of defense under George HW Bush and the author of the anti-UN book “Inside the Asylum,” Jed Babbin and investigator for issues on national security and international financial crimes plus author of the books, “Year of the Rat,” “Red Dragon Rising: Communist China's Military Threat to America,” and “Target: Taiwan,” Edward Timperlake, have written a pseudo political fiction book about the various scenarios in which China and the US war against one another.

Essentially what Babbin and Timperlake have done with “Showdown” is taken a great deal of the research regarding the various possible flashpoints between the US and China and arranged into several quasi-fictional scenarios. For example, as you might know there currently stands a law on the books stating that if China attempts to forcibly bring Taiwan back under Communist Chinese control, we will send our own forces to deflect said invasion. Babbin and Timperlake take us to a probable future where this event does come to fruition and describes in fairly good detail just what it might look like.

Other scenarios include the possibility of Venezuela diverting all of their oil exports from the US to China, which apparently would set off a military conflict between Washington and Caracas. In that vein there is another scenario with oil at its heart that puts us square in the sights of Beijing’s vastly growing military machine. Yet another reveals the possibility of China attacking the US not with bombs and standard military weapons but with cyber-warfare and anti-satellite systems.

Now the subject of China and their designs for power and influence throughout the world could be handled in an even-handed and unbiased manner. Many books do just that. This is not one of those books. Babbin and Timperlake, though well meaning and probably correct, tip their hands and reveal themselves to be conservatives of the war hawk variety. In “Showdown” they accomplish this task in two ways.

First, the book, though fiction, is loosely based on a few known characters or amalgamations of known political personalities. President George W Bush makes a short appearance at the beginning of the book as he is thrown into a situation with China while on the last leg of his presidency. The authors make no secret that they view this man as having been unmercifully butchered by a left-wing, pansy press and equally unpatriotic, near treasonous opposition party. As I recall the authors allude to their dear president as having narrowly missed being impeached. Anywho, in the chapter on Taiwan Babbin and Timperlake paint a picture that has Mr. Bush trying to defend this country from evildoers only to almost be undone by those who just don’t understand our enemy. In other words, this book is solely for Republicans and Conservatives that already have a bias against the Democrats on the issue of national security.

Now if you like a good rhapsodizing of the president then you’ll the rest of the book. Babbin and Timperlake assume that Hillary Clinton (whom in the book goes by the name of some kind of witch) will become president. They then place her into all of these aforementioned various scenarios where her indecisiveness and (at times) perceived abject hostile lunacy nearly gets the entire country blown to smithereens. Ultimately we win most of the scenarios written about in the book but not before Madam President does some serious damage to the country at large. As I recall, Babbin and Timperlake think she’ll cause Japan to get nuked all over again due to sort of capricious, Marie Antoinette-ish decision making. Needless to say, though I’m no fan of the woman, their portrayal of her is chez over-the-top.

Babbin and Timperlake also paint Chinese President Hu Jintao as a villain a-la Snidely K. 'Whip' Whiplash of Dudley Do-Right fame. There’s really no rhyme or reason to what Jintao does, only that he is bent on dominating the US like he is a less overdramatic version of Cobra Commander from the old GI Joe cartoons. Honestly, Pinky and The Brain had more of a clear motivation for why they were attempting to rule the world than what is presented as the reasons Hu Jintao goes to war with the US in “Showdown.” You just have to accept as read that the Chinese want to fight and then enjoy the rest of the book as you would a Tom Clancy novel or James Bond movie. Though let me add that their description of Hugo Chavez as being something of a mook is probably accurate.

Don’t get me wrong; I actually liked the book. I found their presentations of how we might find ourselves embroiled in military conflicts with China to be fascinating. The reader just has to get past how very slanted the narrative can be at times. “Showdown” is very much like an old junior high school American history textbook: we are the good guys; they are the bad guys and anything we are always in the position of righteous defense and never aggressive imperialism. For those fans of standard Regnery faire, this is par for the course and obviously it didn’t bother me, as I’m something of a hawk myself.

Overall “Showdown” is a nice, short, exciting book that is candy for the non-fiction/current event set. If you are looking for some light reading but don’t want to stray too far from the non-fiction shelves of your local Borders Book Store, then you should pick yourself up a copy of “Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States” by Jed Babbin, Edward Timperlake.

PC Mid-Week Portal: Women's Health

I've gotten some feedback regarding the nature of some of my posts. When I don't have time to write a full column I will simply find a newsworthy article and post it with a paragraph or two summarizing my thoughts. I do this for one because I'm trying to keep the content of my blog fresh by posting daily. The other reason is that when I see something in the news worth noting I want to post it. However, from what I've been told via comment and by those in my personal life that frequent my blog is that the average reader is more interested in my op-eds than my attempts as a news editor/virtual anchor. That said, what I've decided to do for both editorial reasons as well as personal (see wife) is to limit fresh content to full articles as I did at the top of the week. Mid-week I will utilize as a thematic semi-portal, simply linking a few stories without posting the content of the articles that I think are newsworthy. Or I will ditch the portal if there are no newsworthy themes and just write a shorter article. The last change is actually as the kids would say, a remix. I will go back to reserving Fridays as a book review day. Even though I am no longer working for PopandPolitics.com, I still have a voracious appetite for books and have read several since I was summarily fired. In addition, I've been commissioned by Simon and Schuster to review one of their new books as well as few others via 411Mania.com. So Friday will be book review day once again. This weeks review will most likely be "Showdown" by Jed Babbin & Edward Timperlake. That's all for now.

This weeks mid-week theme is women's health. Here are a few stories I that I think you should all know about:

Study: Soda Thins Bones In Women

Women 'face intimate violence worldwide'

Eating Fatty Fish May Cut Women's Kidney Cancer Risk

Pregnant women infected by cat parasite more likely to give birth to boys, say researchers

Samurai With a Nuclear Sword

North Korea has officially opened Pandora’s box. On October 9, 2006 Kim Jung Il categorically changed the values of geopolitics by having his increasingly built up army test an underground nuclear device. Ostensibly, unimpeded Pyongyang will be in possession of Asia’s second official nuclear arsenal (the first being China). Aside from the obvious worry about yet another country possessing nuclear weapons, which, all things being equal could accidentally or purposely, end up in the hands of terrorists from around the world. We tend to focus solely on Islamic terrorists but one can assume that any mans money is as good as the next and officials looking to sell elicit nuclear weapons aren’t going to be too picky with whom they sell to.

NK’s nuclear program matters most to Japan and South Korea, whom will most immediately feel the brunt of any aggressive move on the part of Pyongyang. The dynamic between these three nations are intriguing. Seoul and Pyongyang have in recent years attempted to find a way to negotiate a reconstitution of the whole Korean state, beginning of course with the former sending aid to the latter. Certainly a nuclear North Korea throws the prospect of creating one Korea into chaos for at least the time being.

Japan is a different story altogether. Korea was annexed and controlled by Japan until the end of World War II and much like China; they apparently have long memories regarding being imperialized. The North Korean regime has admitted to wide spread kidnapping of Japanese citizens for a variety of purposes, not the least of which to provide their “Dear Leader” with a fresh supply of sex slaves. In response to this the Japanese threatened to impose sanctions on the already impoverished nation and they in turn responded by threatening Japan with nuclear war. It is important to note here that officially, Japan is still a “pacifist” government and has been since two of their cities were decimated by the world’s first atomic bomb attack.

It is also widely believed that since North Korea already shares missile technology with Iran, it would not be a leap of faith to think that said Korean nuclear technology will find its way to Bushehr, Natanz, or Arak just as soon as the Stalinist Korean dictator can get it there.

Now here is the connection; Iran has made it perfectly clear that despite all this talk about how Islam is a peaceful religion and all of that, it is every good Muslims goal to help in the effort to push Israel into the sea. In other words, Iran, along with many Islamic terrorist groups has dedicated themselves to destroying Israel once and for all (though they may settle initially for just moving Israel to Europe or anywhere that isn’t the Middle East).

Because Israel has been under constant threat of total destruction nearly since its inception (as declared by both the League of Nations and the United Nations for those keeping score) by the Muslims/Arabs/Persians, it has made it a moral and security imperative to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. According to a Reuters article, “Based on estimates of the plutonium production capacity of the Dimona reactor, where the programme is based, Israel has approximately 100-200 nuclear explosive devices. Israel has not signed the NPT treaty.”

In short folks, Israel has allegedly armed itself to the teeth in order to defend itself from its neighbors whom are bent on Tel Aviv’s destruction. Now if North Korea is going to run around Asia making all kinds of vile threats again Japan, not to mention continuing to kidnap its citizens while supplying them with a steady supply of heroin, I think Japan has every right to forgo its “pacifist” military structure to pursue nuclear bombs for themselves.

As I’ve said in the past, if an arms race is what the majority of the world seems to want then let’s just get to it then. It seems to have worked wonders for Pakistan and India, whom were mortal enemies until the most recent years. Both of those nations have nuclear arsenals and yet they have found a way not to use them at the slightest provocation. Instead is actually making headway in establishing something resembling a modest peace.

While I doubt this model will provide for peace between either Israel and Iran or North Korea and Japan, the world should not be forced to suffer only the most mad regimes or the UN Security Council Permanent members being the only ones to possess nuclear weapons. In the case of Japan, I think they need to get on with developing their own nuclear program as soon as possible. Furthermore, I think for all of the above reasons, Israel should be as helpful as possible to Japan. Hell, if North Korea can just give Iran nuclear technology, why can’t Israel give their goods to Japan?

As a matter of fact, Israel and Japan have a long history of economic cooperation and diplomatic relations. For example, Israel exports to Japan polished diamonds, chemical products, machinery, electrical equipment and citrus fruit while importing from Japan automobiles, machinery, electrical equipment and other chemical products. Japan is one of the many countries that actually recognizes Israel, as opposed to others who apparently still think that piece of property is still trans-Jordan. There is also a lively exchange between scientists of both nations through ongoing joint projects and academic exchanges among universities. It would appear that since North Korea aids Iran in fomenting terror world wide, including in Japan, that Israel and Japan should be natural allies.

Japan needs to have a nuclear arsenal in order to defend itself from North Korea and what crazy designs they may be harboring. Sanctions do not work for the most part as other countries will just flout or institutions like the UN will make a mockery of them (UN Oil-For-Food I’m looking in your direction). Not to mention that China is one that proves that if you really want to have influence in the way the world works, it helps to have a strong economy and lots of your own nuclear bombs. Let us face facts here; NK wouldn’t have even tried this maneuver if China and its own arsenal of atomic bombs weren’t propping it up.

The once great Samurai nation needs to shake off its trauma from Hiroshima and Nagasaki fashion itself a new sword for the next great battle and dip into its ready supply of plutonium. Let the Asian arms race begin.

THIS JUST IN: N Korea Tests Nuclear Device

Here's the story and what I think it means so far:

North Korea successfully tested a nuclear bomb underground about 240 miles north east of their capital.

NK is a client state of China and in reality, China is their sole means of support. So long has China sends oil to Pyongyang, they can continue to trade in arms, drugs and terrorism to their hearts content. If China should decide to throw Kim Jung Il over the side and stop sending him precious energy then the entire house of cards his regime is built on falls apart. My feeling, and I certainly hope I'm wrong about this, is that they will condemn (as they've already done) this act in public while supporting it in private. From everything I've read on Sino-Korean relations, much like Hezbollah to Iran/Syria, N. Korea does China's dirty work.

There are other details of note. N Korea is a training ground in the vein of pre-9/11 Afghanistan, for anti-Western terrorism. N Korea and Iran are allies, even sharing in military technology. NK's Taep’o-dong missile appears to be the model for Iran's Shahab missile. It is widely believed that if either NK or Iran had the bomb first, they'd be giving it to their respective ally with haste. You can bet that if something isn't done in the immediate future, NK will have a functional atomic bomb and then in short order so will our good friends in Tehran.

N Korea has already made threats to attack both Japan and S Korea. There currently exists a mutual protection pact between US and Japan, and the US and S Korea. A few months ago N Korea tested several ballistic missiles, some of which can hit Japan rather easily. N Korea can also negate the integrity of the demilitarized zone and march right on into S Korea. Also N Korea's artillery can decimate Seoul in well before the US could offer a counter-strike. In theory, while we would probably completely destroy N Korea, there wouldn't be much left of S Korea either should total war break out.

The US and Japan are allegedly demanding stricter sanctions on Pyongyang via the United Nations. Once again, unless China steps up and ceases to support this rogue state, UN sanctions on an already impoverished state fully entrenched in arms dealing and drug running won't matter much in the grand scheme of things.

This is ugly folks. There are no good options. Many of them will ostensibly open up World War III (or IV depending on your view of history). Again, the linchpin here is China. Right now they have already been next to useless in dealing with both Iran and N Korea and there is no evidence to support that anyone in Beijing is about to change their minds anytime soon.

Word has it that we are preparing for a military strike in both Iran and N Korea within the next month. In theory, this should be just long enough for both diplomacy and the threat of sanctions to fail. Much like in Iraq, the UN will prove to be toothless and the world will most likely see its most devasting war to date.

Obviously I hope I'm wrong about this and China does the right thing, but I highly doubt it. I also hope there is a third option out there that isn't totally dependent on Beijing that doesn't involve war either, but again I doubt it.

I will have more on this story as it develops.

Nothing Progressive, Nothing Conservative (or, The Wheels Have Come Off the Planet)

(by John Brodigan, "Progressive Conservatism" executive producer)

Every day, I like to post a few ponderings and other miscellany that will be floating around the ol' noodle (over on MySpace, since that's what all the cool people do). Now, I could be complaining aboot politics or fantasy football. I could even be giving my thoughts on such philosophical musing like why we're here or why men are so fascinated with boobs.

However, your friend and mine, the "Punk Rock Conservative" himself, Mark sent me a picture of the following book, and...I just don't have anything to say. You really need to question where we as a society are heading that there would even be a market for this in the first place.

Or less eloquently put, what kind of a fat fuck needs this...

Friday 5

One of my friends and frequent commenters does a Friday 5 on his MySpace blog but centers around his personal interests and whatever else seems to be floating his boat at present. Like Apple to Xerox I'm going to steal his idea and make it better by posting 5 stories that I think need to be read but are not something I can write a whole column on.

1) Iran - France emphasized on developing ties

Iran's first adviser of the President discussed world stability with his French counterpart.

Iran's first adviser of the President, Hashemi Samareh and his French counterpart discussed the most significant regional issues on the phone and they both asserted the need for playing a more influential role in the world equations.

While noting that Tehran and Paris could cooperate in generating world stability by increasing their talks and making more ties, Hashemi Samareh stated that Iran does not hold any limitation in the development of ties with France.

"The development of ties with France will serve regional peace and stability and the two nations' interests, "he added.

For his part, the first French adviser emphasized on the influential role of Iran and France in regional and international issues.

Most news sources are going with the story that France announced today sanctions against Iran should be progressive, proportionate and reversible. They might as well have said the sanctions need to be token, ineffective and meaningless. When push comes to shove China and Russia won't have to veto sanctions as France seems bound and determined to make them a paper tiger. More to the point, France will make sure that whatever happens in Iran, they will be able to profit off of it. Furthermore, I do not believe for a minute that France has any desire to stop Iran from having a nuclear bomb. No, they'd rather see both a nuclear armed Iran as well as Syria in the hopes of joining an alliance with them to counterbalance against the US. This is worse than their relationship with Iraq in the run up to the 2003 invasion.

2) Iran-Brazil Caspian Sea oil contract underway

Iran’s Economic Council is presently assessing the draft of a contract inked with Brazil on oil extraction from the Caspian Sea, member of the Majlis Economy Commission Elyas Naderan said, MNA reported.

“Iran and Brazil will finalize the contract to extract oil from the Caspian Sea, upon ratification by the Economic Council,” Naderan told reporters at the sideline of the Majlis open session.

Since the legal regime of the Caspian Sea is still unclear, Iran prefers to extract oil from the middle parts of the sea that are deeper and jointly owned with other littoral states, MP explained. However, Brazil is keen on carrying out extraction from less deep areas which are near the coast, he added.

Naderan did not say whether or not Iran and Brazil have reached a consensus over the area of the extraction, however, he said “Iran’s national interests have been violated in this contract, because it is failed to determine the exact area for drilling operations.”

Well they are not bosom buddies but any time an arch rival like Iran is doing business with one of the US' more amiable allies, it's generally not a good thing. This is not an indicator that the sky is falling or that even either country is doing anything wrong per se, it is yet just another example of how we really don't have 100% strategic allies anymore. This is not the world of the capitalists versus the communists. Now we're all capitalists and nobody is loyal to anyone. From a business sense this makes perfect sense. From a strategic and diplomatic point of view, the US is becoming slightly less relevant in the world every day.

3) Oil prices fall to below US $60 a barrel

Oil prices fell below US $60 a barrel in thin trading Friday on doubt that OPEC would cut output to lift crude prices.

"The market is not expecting any production cuts at the moment," said Tetsu Emori, an analyst with Mitsui Bussan Futures in Tokyo. "The market sentiment is not really confident. Some oil producing countries have already cut production but the market hasn't really reacted."

Light, sweet crude for November delivery dropped 40 cents to US $59.63 a barrel in Asian electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, midmorning in Singapore.

The contract rose 62 cents Thursday to settle at US $60.03 a barrel on expectations that OPEC would soon cut its output, though a representative of Saudi Arabia denied there was a deal to reduce production.

OPEC has the right to do this. None of us may like it, especially if gas goes back up to three dollars a gallon, but it is in their right as essentially they are just another business. Frankly, I say let them do what they need because the day the US stops buying OPEC oil and China realizes they don't have to either, they're going to need all the money they are making now just to survive. ::::crosses fingers for hydrogen power in the next 5 years:::::::::

4) Child prostitution becoming more common in Arizona

In November, a 15-year-old Valley girl was kidnapped, put in a cage and used as a sex slave inside a Glendale apartment.

In January, two men were arrested and jailed for kidnapping young girls and forcing them into child pornography and prostitution.

But, unfortunately, these two instances aren't as rare as you might think.

"Child prostitution has become and is growing epidemic in the state of Arizona and the city of Phoenix," said Chief Jack Harris of the Phoenix Police Department. "There have been over 35 child prostitutes. These are girls ranging from the age of 13 to 17 years of age."

Police say they are working for as many as 54 different pimps in our community.

The city of Phoenix hosted a six-hour conference Thursday on the subject of prostitution and sex trafficking.

"Big problem here in Phoenix. At least 80 percent of adults started as children," Vednita Carter said.

Carter is the founder and executive director of Breaking Free, "a program that provides services to help women and girls get out of prostitution in St. Paul, Minnesota," Carter said.

She was asked to speak at the conference by Kathleen Mitchell, founder and coordinator of Catholic Charities Dignity Program.

"And what we're finding out here in the streets are kids who are 11 years old, 12 years old and 15 years old," Mitchell said.

Both women believe you can combat child prostitution through education.

"Education is power, you know, and if we don't start talking about what's happening we're going to lose our children," Mitchell said.

Parenting also helps folks. This is an absolute tragedy. I also found out today that two of our teenage girls ran from our program and one of them pimped the other into becoming a teenage prostitute. The newbie of the pair is headed back to our program. Wish me luck here because I suspect this will end in tears.

...and now for the final story of the day:

5) California to Measure Toxic Pollutants in People

The Governor of California wants to terminate the toxins in your body. Unfortunately he's up against a foe more insidious than anything he ever faced in the movies.

Last Friday Gov. Schwarzenegger signed into law the nation's first statewide biomonitoring program. The plan is to collect blood, urine, breast milk and hair from a few thousand Californians who volunteer to have their bodies tested for pollutants.

What's in you is bound to scare you. Locked in fat cells and bone and circulating through your blood is a potentially toxic cocktail of thousands of human-made chemicals, some of which have been banned for decades. They have names with pronunciations as troublesome as the chemicals themselves, such as mono-2-ethylhexyl-phthalate.

Seeing how the daily recommended allowance for mono-2-ethylhexyl-phthalate is zero milligrams, its presence in your body—along with so many other chemical byproducts of our industrial age—might spell trouble.

You failed the drug test

You can eat right and exercise, swear off cigarettes, and bypass north Jersey by a good 100 miles on your way to New England, but you cannot avoid a daily dose of these substances that—in a laboratory, fed to animals at high doses—cause cancer and neurological problems.

These chemicals are everywhere, in the soil, air and water; and now they are in us as a result of eating things that soak up soil, air and water. Switching to organic foods won't help that much, because chemicals such as dioxins and furans are ubiquitous, released into the air by industry and even forest fires. These chemicals settle on organic crops and on the grass that organic cattle eat.

Running off to the ends of the Earth won't help either. The Inuit of Nunavut and Greenland have the highest levels of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination in the world. PCBs, banned in the 1970s, were used for decades in paints, adhesives, coolants and insulating materials. These chemicals leaked into the waterways from landfills or outright ocean dumping, settled into sediment, were absorbed by plants and microorganisms, and slowly made their way into seal, salmon and whale fat, the Inuit's primary food sources. Nice, huh?

Will it kill you?

Are these chemicals causing the higher rates of certain cancers and Alzheimer's seen in recent years? Scientists aren't sure. Some say we are living longer and healthier than ever, in part because of chemicals that, say, make fabrics flame-resistant. Plastics are lighter to ship than glass and reduce fuel burning, a good thing.

Others say that modern chemicals accumulated in the body are bound to do us in. It's hard to argue the added health benefit of fabric softeners and sweet-scented hand lotions containing phthalates, which alter the sexual development of laboratory mice.

California's biomonitoring program, targeting pollution in people instead of in the environment, could be a valuable tool to assess the true danger. The program builds upon reports from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention on human exposure to chemicals, which analyzed bodily samples from a diverse group of Americans.

Safe as mother's milk

Not all health advocates favor the California plan. Once you know what's inside you, what do you do?

Of greatest concern is how the mass media will handle the inevitable discovery that mother's milk contains banned and potentially dangerous chemicals. California is testing mother's milk chiefly because the breasts' fat cells so readily accumulate certain chemicals.

Yet except in rare, acute poisoning cases, the benefits of breastfeeding outweigh the risks, if any, of passing pollutants from mother to infant. Will the decades' old campaign to encourage breastfeeding be side-railed by hyperbole of tainted mother's milk? In some cultures, mothers might become depressed, seeing themselves as failures for not keeping their bodies pure.

At issue is the public's misunderstanding of hazard versus risk. A ladder is a hazard. Standing on the top rung is a risk. The mere presence of all these chemicals in our body is a hazard; that much is not refuted. The risk of levels at one part per million, billion or trillion is not well understood.

Humans as lab rats

Having your body tested for the presence of a hundred or so of the most worrisome chemicals will set you back at least $10,000. Lead and mercury, dangerous at that part-per-million level, are easy and inexpensive to spot. Dioxin, dangerous at perhaps the part-per-trillion level, is harder to test for.

Sadly it is for this cost reason that so many chemicals cooked up since the 1940s haven't been "officially" tested on humans. But we're all taking part in a great big lab experiment as these chemicals are pumped into the environment and retracted—like lead and PCBs—only after it becomes obvious that they pose serious health risks.

California will take at least a small step in understanding how pollutants from hot spots, such as farmlands or factories, penetrate those closest to the source (farm and factory workers) as well as those downstream (consumers and residents). The law once again places California on the cutting edge, or reaffirms its reputation as a land granola-crunching loonies, depending on your opinion.

:::::::::blinks twice::::::::::

Pakistan warns N. Korea against nukes

Good for Islamabad! It is nice to see somebody standing up to N Korea other than us and Japan. I realize that this may be a token gesture meant to mollify the US in the face Pakistan's alleged nuclear cooperation with N. Korea in the first place, but I'll take my token gestures for the camera where I can.

N Korea is one giant Mos Eisley Cantina. It is filled with the kind of scum and villainy that is partly responsible for all of the danger in the world. In N Korea you have a central government that is engaged in training terrorism and running drugs. You have a military machine being built up while its people starve to death. In other words, the mob runs N Korea and like any other mob it desires to expand and incorporate its neighbors into its domain.

That being said, neither China nor Russia really have the gumption or desire to seriously end this mob rule on the Korean penninsula just as Iran and Syria have no serious desire to aid in the ending of terrorism. In both cases, N Korean and Hezbollah, they do the dirty work of their benefactors. We all know this, or at least should know this by now. What is surprising to me here, and my whole reason for posting this, is that Pakistan, generally a nation caught between a rock and a hard place, tends not to side with the US outside of issues dealing with Afghanistan and sometimes India. While they aren't exactly saying we should nuke N Korea, the fact that they even admonished Pyongyang in the first place is surprise enough for me.

Pakistan on Wednesday urged North Korea to abandon plans to carry out a nuclear test, saying introducing atomic weapons to the Korean Peninsula would destabilize the region.

Pakistan and North Korea have long been suspected of missile cooperation and in 2004 a top Pakistani scientist confessed to leaking sensitive nuclear technology to North Korea.

"The announcement by the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea regarding its intention to conduct a nuclear weapons test is a matter of deep concern for Pakistan," the Foreign Ministry said.

"We urge the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to desist from introducing nuclear weapons in the Korean Peninsula which would be highly destabilizing for the region," said the statement.

Islamabad urged Pyongyang to "seriously engage" in efforts aimed at keeping the Korean Peninsula region free of nuclear weapons.

On Tuesday, North Korea triggered a global alarm when it said it would conduct a nuclear test sometime in the future to bolster its self-defense, saying it was compelled to because of an "extreme threat of a nuclear war and sanctions and pressure" from the United States.

In 2004, Abdul Qadeer Khan, considered to be the father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program confessed to leaking nuclear technology to North Korea, as well as Iran and Libya. Pakistani officials denied any government involvement in the nuclear technology transfers.

Khan has been pardoned despite his confession because he is regarded as a national hero but he has been living under virtual house arrest at his home in Islamabad.

Last month, Khan underwent surgery for prostate cancer at a hospital in the southern city of Karachi where he is recuperating at his sister's home.

Sudan: We Saved Europeans. Why Not Africans?

The answer to this is quite simple, despite UN memberships, lofty ideals, and plum trade deals, the world cares not about Africans. Whether people are willing to admit or not, there exists beneath the surface the belief that some day all the black Africans will murder one another and leave Africa vacant to be raped by the developed world. If you think I'm being over dramatic, just look at its history as compared to Latin America or East Asia. Look at the way people write about violence in those places versus Africa. Not even their oil can deflect racism and death wishes like it does in the Middle East. West Africa is certainly not Saudi Arabia, no matter how much oil is found there.

With Darfur set to be hit by a second wave of genocide, world leaders are shifting into diplomatic high gear. The government of Sudan flatly rejects deployment of a 22,000-strong U.N. force, knowing it would be much more effective than the African Union's, even if augmented by additional personnel as is now planned.

Some 450,000 innocent human beings are already dead, and more than 2.5 million have fled their homes. Now Sudan is launching a major offensive in Darfur. After three years of fruitless negotiation and feckless rhetoric, it's time to go beyond unenforced U.N. resolutions to a new kind of resolution: the firm resolve to act.

Will world leaders continue to give the perpetrators of genocide a veto over international action to stop it? Unless something changes dramatically, the answer seems to be yes.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair proposed bribing the Sudanese with debt relief, aid and trade concessions to get them to admit U.N. peacekeepers. By contrast, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice threatened confrontation, and President Bush declared: "If the Sudanese government does not approve this peacekeeping force quickly, the United Nations must act." But neither said how. Instead, the president appointed Andrew Natsios, a former administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, as his special envoy for Darfur. An envoy's role is to negotiate, but the Sudanese have left nothing to negotiate.

Lost in the diplomatic bustle is reality: First, the U.S.-brokered peace deal for Darfur, fatally flawed from its signature, is dead. Second, Sudan has broken every pledge to every envoy to halt the killing in Darfur. Third, China is unlikely to compel Sudan to admit the United Nations -- 7 percent of its oil is at stake, and China may figure we value its help on Iran and North Korea more than on Sudan. Fourth, it's too late for sanctions; even if China miraculously relented, it would take months before their bite was felt. By then, Sudan will have completed its second wave of genocide in Darfur.

History demonstrates that there is one language Khartoum understands: the credible threat or use of force. After Sept. 11, 2001, when President Bush issued a warning to states that harbor terrorists, Sudan -- recalling the 1998 U.S. airstrike on Khartoum -- suddenly began cooperating on counterterrorism. It's time to get tough with Sudan again.

After swift diplomatic consultations, the United States should press for a U.N. resolution that issues Sudan an ultimatum: accept unconditional deployment of the U.N. force within one week or face military consequences. The resolution would authorize enforcement by U.N. member states, collectively or individually. International military pressure would continue until Sudan relented.

The United States, preferably with NATO involvement and African political support, would strike Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets. It could blockade Port Sudan, through which Sudan's oil exports flow. Then U.N. troops would deploy -- by force, if necessary, with U.S. and NATO backing.

If the United States fails to gain U.N. support, we should act without it. Impossible? No, the United States acted without U.N. blessing in 1999 in Kosovo to confront a lesser humanitarian crisis (perhaps 10,000 killed) and a more formidable adversary. Under NATO auspices, it bombed Serbian targets until Slobodan Milosevic acquiesced. Not a single American died in combat. Many nations protested that the United States violated international law, but the United Nations subsequently deployed a mission to administer Kosovo and effectively blessed NATO military action retroactively.

Unthinkable in the current context? True, the international climate is less forgiving than in 1999. Iraq and torture scandals have left many abroad doubting our motives and legitimacy. Some will reject any future U.S. military action, especially against an Islamic regime, even if it is purely to halt genocide against Muslim civilians. Sudan has also threatened that al-Qaeda will attack non-African forces in Darfur -- a real possibility since Sudan long hosted Osama bin Laden and his businesses. Yet, to allow another nation to deter the United States by threatening terrorism would set a terrible precedent. It would also be cowardly and, in the face of genocide, immoral.

Some will argue that the U.S. military cannot take on another mission. Our ground forces are stretched thin. But a bombing campaign or a naval blockade would tax the Air Force and Navy, which have relatively more capacity, and could utilize the 1,500 U.S. military personnel in nearby Djibouti.

Others will insist that, without the consent of the United Nations or a relevant regional body, we would be breaking international law. Perhaps, but the Security Council recently codified a new international norm prescribing "the responsibility to protect." It commits U.N. members to decisive action, including enforcement, when peaceful measures fail to halt genocide or crimes against humanity.

This genocide has lasted three long years. Peaceful measures have failed. The Sudanese government is poised to launch a second round. The real question is this: Will we use force to save Africans in Darfur as we did to save Europeans in Kosovo?

Iran proposes France monitors uranium enrichment

Am I the only that thinks that France is fixing to sell out the US in any possible way, as soon as possible? I mean, we keep insisting that France is our ally (and in some intelligence respects they are) and that Europe is as whole and unified as the United States. Neither of these statements are true. Europe is as divided politically as it ever was. France to this day, much like Russia, has images of itself as the premeire country of the world. Since the end of World War II France has been trying to regain its prominence in world affairs. However, between a stagnant economy (because they are Socialist) and relatively awful leadership, that goal has remained elusive.

France continually shows the world that they are ready, willing and able to appease everyone and anyone in the Middle East so that they have a seat at the table and can shove the US out of the way. In other words, France is using the Middle East just as England uses the US to create faux prominence for itself, whatever the political costs. Bush might as well throw France, Russia, and China together as the axis of oppositional defiant appeasing countries...that is until the Muslims of France finally have a large enough riot that they end up taking over the country at which point France can join the Axis of Evil.

Iran has proposed France create a consortium to enrich uranium for Tehran's nuclear programme in an effort to end the stand off over the Islamic state's atomic ambitions, a senior Iranian official said on Tuesday.

Mohammad Saeedi, the deputy head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation, told France Info radio that his country would insist the uranium be enriched on Iranian soil, something the international community has previously rejected.

"In order to reach a solution, we've just had an idea: we propose that France create a consortium for the production in Iran of enriched uranium," Saeedi said.


"That way France, via Eurodif and Areva, would be able to monitor in a tangible way, our enrichment activities," he added, referring to two French companies that work in the nuclear sector.

The French Foreign Ministry declined to comment directly on the report, an official saying only that "what is important for us is the result of the discussions between Solana and Larijani."

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani have been holding talks in an effort to reach agreement on the nuclear issue. No deal has been reached but further talks are planned.

Charles Hufnagel, a spokesman for state-owned nuclear technology group Areva (CEPFi.PA: Quote, Profile, Research), told Reuters: "We are not aware of such a proposal and are not in any negotiations.

"Such a plan would be a political project, to be made by or on behalf of the EU Troika, but as an industrial firm we are not involved," he said.

Areva owns Eurodif, Europe's largest uranium enrichment plant.

The United States, France, Russia, China, Britain and Germany offered Iran a package of incentives in June aimed at persuading Tehran to abandon technology that could be used to make a nuclear weapon.

Iran's latest offer mirrors in some respects a Russian proposal to create an international consortium to enrich uranium for Iran's nuclear power stations outside of the country, but this was rejected by the authorities in Tehran. The U.N. Security Council has threatened to impose sanctions unless Iran suspends enrichment, a process the West says could lead to Iran making nuclear bombs.

The international community will have no choice but to impose sanctions on Iran if it fails to suspend enrichment, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Tuesday.


Iran says its nuclear activities are aimed purely at civilian electricity generation and Saeedi's comments come the day after the country said it would not suspend uranium enrichment as demanded by the West.

"Our nation is a respectable nation and will remain so. Iranian nation's path to obtain its (nuclear) right is an irreversible path," the official IRNA news agency quoted hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying.

The Fallacy of a Safe World

As the mid-term elections approach one can hear the Democrats far and wide nearly all singing from the same hymnal, “The war in Iraq has not made the world safer!” The point of a statement like this is to, among other things, imply that for those who vote Republican over national security issues, that there vote would be wasted. The Democrats are attempting to sell voters on the premise that Republicans have lost sight of the main objectives in the War on Terror and if said Democrats are voted into power then they will essentially pull the troops out of Iraq and concentrate on solely the terror cells, thus making the world a safer place.

The Democrats are serving voters a fresh plate of hooey! First off, if you really believe that any American political party can make the world a safer place then I suggest you pause reading this column and set out a plate of milk and cookies because Santa Clause should be along shortly. But seriously folks, it’s this sort of juvenile, two-dimensional thinking about geopolitics that makes me a sad panda.

I haven’t a clue what people mean when they say they want to make the world a “safe” or “safer” place. Certainly since the Manhattan Project and the advent of nuclear missiles, most would say that the world is a decidedly unsafe place. Once it became relatively easy to make war half a world away and kill millions of people with just the push of a button, any sense of safety one might have had definitely evaporated. I suppose folks were lulled into a false sense of security once the Cold War ended, in thinking that once the Soviet Union broke apart, the potential threat of nuclear war fell into the dust bin of history. Some would say that 9/11 shattered the belief that we were safe in the world post-Soviet break-up. I am here to tell you that those people just weren’t paying attention.

People seem to limit their scope of the world to only those issues, which are reported in the major mainstream or elite news outlets. Contrary to popular opinion, the Soviet Union was not our only nuclear threat in the world. China first tested their own nuclear bomb in 1964 and their most recent test was in 1996. China has threatened to use their arsenal of ballistic missiles against the US if we intervene (by law) against any attempt by China to take Taiwan by force. And just so we are clear, China too can just press a button and send any number of missiles into the West Coast of America (more if we somehow manage not to see one of their submarines off of our coasts).

That is just one example of how we are not safe in this world have not been for quite some time. The Democrats have no plan to limit our exposure to another countries nuclear missiles; rather they just keep repeating the same old tired phrase that somehow if we ever catch Osama bin Laden (UBL), that will mark the end of the War on Terror.

Let me be clear about this fallacy. Even if we had committed all of our resources to eliminating the Taliban and finding UBL, not only would that have not made the world any safer, but in reality it would have been next to impossible.

I’ll deal with the former assertion first. Much like in Iraq, not too long after the US and coalition forces commenced with an attack on enemy forces, we were able to take control of the capital of Afghanistan, Kabul. As a matter of fact, for some time Hamid Karzai was sardonically referred to as the Mayor of Kabul because despite the coalitions best efforts, the reality was that greater Afghanistan was in the hands of war lords and local militias. In addition to which, shortly after the Taliban regime fell, poppy farms, the precursor to opium and heroin production, rose like a high tide. Also, you had absolutely no infrastructure to connect greater Afghanistan and thus no real way or reason for those outside of Kabul to buy into this new government. Lastly, members of the Taliban and those that supported it didn’t just disappear into the ether, they went into hiding only to regroup and attack coalition forces just as their brothers in Al Qaeda do.

Given all of the above, how exactly would the Democrats have gone about correcting those issues and make the world a safer place? Am I along with the rest of the American voters to assume that the Democrats had a plan for building Afghanistan’s infrastructure instantaneously? Did John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi have a plan to somehow woo the tribal leaders and war lords to adopt Karzai as their rightful ruler and join the infant Islamic democracy brewing in Kabul? And what about the War on Drugs? One hardly hears a peep from the Democrats about how they would have squared our current policy toward drug production and trafficking with Afghanistan’s right to farm a high demand cash crop. Maybe they would have advised the Afghani rural community to grow passion fruits like they tried in Colombia. I’m sure that would have worked just as well.

On the subject of UBL, I have yet to hear how the Democrats would have gotten anyone in Waziristan to give up a man whom many feel is on the right side of the clash between Islam and the rest of world. The Bush Administration and the Pakistani army tried to move into that area but to no avail. The bottom line their was even if we blanketed the lawless areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan, most of the people living in those regions would not have turned him in for any amount of money.

Even if UBL had been caught, nobody has shown me how that would have made he world safer. The invasion of Afghanistan fundamentally changed the structure of Al Qaeda. Instead of it being a top-down chain of command with UBL and Kalid Sheik Mohammad at the top and their soldiers at the bottom, once UBL became a fugitive, the structure transformed from vertical to horizontal. Now what we have is independent cells attempting use whatever resources are available to commit as much mayhem as humanly possible. That’s right, instead of sleeper cells waiting for word from the executive branch of Al Qaeda, all of the cells are acting autonomously in whatever way they are able to. I don’t know about you but the thought of thousands of cells all over the world with lots of bombs and no leadership doesn’t make me feel safer and I seriously doubt that the Democrats have a comprehensive plan to put that genie back into the bottle.

As I’ve said before, endless diplomacy with a group of people who have stated that there can be no peace until we are all dead or converted is a recipe for defeat and disaster. While the Bush Administration has made a ton of errors prosecuting the War on Terror, making the world “safer” was never in their ability nor was it most probably even a goal. The world is too complex for that kind of simplistic thinking. There are too many variables to consider when making an assessment on how one should make the world safer. Essentially, the way to do that is to get rid of all ICBM’s and nuclear devices. Under Clinton there was no real progress there. Neither Kerry nor any other Democrat could convincingly explain how they would go about getting members of the nuclear club to voluntarily give up their arsenals. Let us remember, even France has nukes and there are not fixing to give them up.

In short, it is fallacious thinking to believe that anyone can make the world safer. One can argue that invading Iraq was poorly timed or even poorly planned but the invasion itself has nothing what-so-ever to do with the safety of the world. Again, the world was a great big mess before Iraq and there has not been real measurable change in the fundamental structure of the world and the way it works since. In other words, don’t believe the hype, nobody, not even Hillary Clinton can make the world safer, they can only expose us to more danger.