America Flunks Mid Term IQ Test

I am disappointed in the outcome of the midterm US elections. I believe the Republicans were responsible for the economic meltdown and the screw ups (not to mention pure evil) in the war on terror. I think Barack Obama has almost miraculously staved off a world wide economic meltdown, and is doing what I believe is an amazingly good job to ease tensions in the middle east. But obviously these problems would have been easier to solve without all the mistakes of the Neo-cons.

Now it seems Americans have tired of Obama and want the Republicans back in power. So I am going to indulge in one of my rare rants.

For many years following WW2, the rest of the world saw America as the smart, rich, powerful, saviour. It was the place where cars were manufactured, and where people were free. America became the banker to the world, and the U.S. dollar was it's international standard currency. American generosity saved many other economies, including their former enemies.

This rosy image lasted more or less intact until the Bush years and 9/11 where everything changed, and America seemed to lose it's mind.

America's response to 9/11 was to make a mockery of international cooperation, to ramp up a security campaign fuelled by paranoid fear, and to engage in two unsuccessful wars. The rest of the "free world" was generally in shock at this change of personality, which happened overnight.

Suddenly America was seen from the outside as a backward, religious fundamentalist, violent and racist country. America now looked just like the typical power mad aggressor, the torturer, the invader and occupier. Worse yet, America was seen as being incompetent, and greedy.

In 2008, the rest of the world was again shocked to find out that America had mismanaged the world's economy, passing off enough bad debt to bring down every other economy on the planet.

But all that was quickly forgotten when Obama became president. All over the world, people (including me) desperately wanted to believe the nightmare was over, and America had finally come to its senses. The rest of the world started working to rebuild their economies, and to adjust to the new economic realities.

But last night was another rude shock. The reactionary Americans are still there. Maybe Obama's election was just a temporary reprieve. Americans apparently were not able to comprehend that economic recovery would take time, and that things would never again be as good as they were before 9/11. They were angry, and decided that they needed the Republicans back in power because Obama had not solved all their problems.

The only bright spot in my mind was that Christine O'Donnell, who said "I am not a witch" was not elected. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying I want the witches in power. But I might have been a little more comfortable if she had said "There is no such thing as witchcraft". The truth is she cannot say that because according to her religion (fundamentalist Christianity), witches exist, and derive their black magic powers from Satan. She simply was saying, in a politically correct way, that she herself does not use Satan's evil magic, and that if given the chance, she would work to rid the world of the real witches.

I don't think it matters who gets in power now in the US, I think the golden age is over. Jobs are not going to come back from overseas, and the American social structure and physical infrastructure is crumbling. It is still going to take unity, intelligence, hard work, and courage for America to build up a solid economy again. Unfortunately, from the look of this midterm election, disunity, and supersitition seem to be the wave of the future. The rest of the world better start looking for another hero to lead the way.

Picture: cover of Newsweek 2008

Canada's Position in the United Nations

Canada, for the first time, lost a bid for a temporary seat on the U.N. Security Council. In my mind, the reason is pretty obvious. We have a pro-war, anti-environmental government that has lost international good will by being more pro-Israeli than the U.S.A., and has no more respect for the UN than the Bush regime.

But I was surprised to find out that our Prime Minister, Harper, was blaming the Liberal opposition leader Michael Ignatieff for the embarrassment. Where can I get an explanation of the view from the right wing conservatives? I decided the "National Post" would be good. Here is the first one I found.

"Matt Gurney: Canadian Arab Federation casts its vote against Canada"

Right in the title, it's the Canadian Arabs to blame. Apparently they cast their vote against us. I wonder how that's possible, as they don't even have official recognition as a country. I understand that this is just "exaggeration" on the part of some opinionated columnist. But not everybody understands, like me, that this is impossible. It's typical for The National Post to put misleading headlines, spreading conservative ideas among people who do not read the whole article to make up their own minds.

The first thing I read in the column is that there was no actual vote, Canada actually withdrew from the final ballot. I guess the conservatives didn't want to be embarrassed, and figured they were going to lose anyway.

Even this writer admitted that Ignatieff's statements did not lose us the seat:

"..the UN may be hopeless, but it doesn’t take its cue from the Liberal Party of Canada"

Notice the statement "the UN may be hopeless" in the quote, almost like this opinion about the UN does not need to be debated. Conservatives apparently think it is now an established scientific fact that the UN is hopeless.

Hopeless means 1. having or offering no hope 2. impossible to analyse or solve 3. unable to learn, function, etc. 4. Informal without skill or ability

When you say "the UN may be hopeless, but..", you are not open to a rebuttal (Reminder, the Queen of England last summer visited the UN and said it was an institution of hope). If this person had said "I believe that the UN is without hope." it would at least imply a willingness to recognize that this is a personal opinion.

With this kind of attitude and these speech patterns, which I believe are representative of the conservative mindset, would you not expect Canada's conservative government to bow out before the final ballot?

Here is what this conservative commentator thinks lost us the seat:

"...not signing away our economy to appease the greenies cannot be tolerated. How dare we be so right-wing and, like, totally American. Ugh. How can the UN even look at us? Please, guys, don’t vote for us. Pro-Israel, pro-free-trade Westerners have no place in the United Nations until they grovel and apologize for every sin, real or imagined, ever committed by a white guy anywhere."

So apparently it's also the greenies and the anti-white guys who share some of the blame. That's what I thought too, but worded differently.

The real problem is that Canada deserves a seat on the UNSC, but not until we get a government that represents the Canadian people. Today, Canada has an extreme right wing, pro-war, pro-Republican, anti environmental, and religious fundamentalist governing party that has grabbed on and held power through our flawed electoral system, and our equally flawed checks and balances (one word "prorogation"). And until we get our government back, we should not be taking up space on the UN Security Council. Let Portugal have the seat. They represent Canadian opinion as well as the Conservative Party of Canada does.

Newt Gingrich's Comments on Obama Make More Sense Turned Around

Recently there was a blatantly racist comment on Obama by Newt Gingrich. Check this website "obamareleaseyourrecords.com" Gingrich described Obama's behaviour as Kenyan. Racist theory says that having one drop of black blood in you will make you an inferior being, and hamper your ability to think rationally. Racists believe only pure white blood will make you a rational intelligent human.

OK that's all I want to say about why his remarks are racist. Now to get down to my purpose here, which is to show how it makes more sense to turn around this propaganda against the people Gingrich supports.

Here is his quote:

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asks. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”

The statement makes no sense, because Obama was raised by white grandparents, and was not taught about anti-colonial ideas by his father. Here is the reverse, where the assumption is that Obama is rational, and it is the Republicans who are batsh*t crazy:

“What if [The Republicans] are so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand southern Slave-owning Racists behavior, can you begin to piece together [their actions]? That is the most accurate, predictive model for their behavior.”

Second quote:

“I think he worked very hard at being a person who is normal, reasonable, moderate, bipartisan, transparent, accommodating — none of which was true,” Gingrich continues. “In the Alinksy tradition, he was being the person he needed to be in order to achieve the position he needed to achieve . . . He was authentically dishonest.”

And reversed:

“I think [the Republicans] worked very hard at being a party that is normal, reasonable, moderate, bipartisan, transparent, accommodating — none of which was true, In the Nixon tradition, they were being the party they needed to be in order to achieve the position they needed to achieve . . . they were authentically dishonest.”

Notice first how easy it is to turn it around, and how it even ends up making more sense that way.

Picture: From the same website. "Obamareleaseyourrecords" By the way, it's not really about where he was born, and everybody should know it. The Republicans are just not allowed to say it's because he is partly black, because racism is unpopular with undecided voters.

T-Shirts That Annoy Me

I have not been to the USA since they tightened border security to require passports. So I don't know if people actually wear t-shirts like this. But apparently somebody thinks they want to and is willing to make a buck off it.

Also on this web page: "If you ask me to press 1 for English I hang up!" With slogans like this you really should have the English language spell checker on before you upload your page. For example: "Ah, it's so much fun being right, isn't it? A histerical t-shirt for conservative right wingers. Only found here at conservative-t-shirts.com"

Apparently some conservatives think it annoys Liberals to work hard and live free. I don't get it, except as a not so subtle propaganda statement that liberals always live off welfare, while conservatives always seem to get the hard-working jobs. If you're hard at work stamping out dumb t-shirts all day long, well, just go ahead and knock yourself out. Why should I even care? And why should you care how hard I work at my job, unless you're my boss.

But if you're a CEO raking in 30 million a year in a defence or oil industry, wearing that t-shirt, yes, that kind of annoys me. Start by paying your fair share of taxes! How can people take that much money, while the government sinks into debt paying for wars that in turn make profits for defence industries and oil corporations.

Now how do you annoy a Conservative? Be born anything but white or Christian. Pay your fair share of taxes.


Here's another shirt: "White, straight, Republican, male (How else can I piss you off today)

Obviously, by also being an Evangelical Fundamentalist. Actually the most annoying part of this is that it is apparently a Canadian website. We can't even vote for the Republican party in Canada. And furthermore she is apparently a straight white male? Yes, that actually is beginning to piss me off. I thought she/he was female.

Wait a minute, is he/she even white? Is this Canadian organization cranking out the conservative t-shirts with a shop full of illegal migrant workers where nobody even speaks English? By the way, it might be photoshopped, but if so I didn't do it.

More Propaganda: Mosque at Ground Zero

This report or editorial came from Philip Elliot (AP), 3 hours ago, about how the Republicans are attacking Obama on being insensitive.

The issue, of course is about propaganda. Obama has the best message, and that message, on a level playing field could damage the image of the Republicans, and hurt their chances in the next election. The problem is, that the media playing field is not level. In spite of the incessant propaganda telling us the media has a left wing bias, most of the media actually lean toward the Republicans. Fox News, the most watched 24 hour news channel is saturated with anti Obama propaganda.

In spite of Obama having clearly the better message, the Republicans are probably going to batter him in this round of the propaganda war.

Here is the Issue: A Muslim cultural centre has rented or bought a place two blocks from "Ground Zero" in New York.

Here is Obama's message: People of any religion are free to have meetings anywhere in the USA.

Here is the Republican Message: Obama is insulting the families of those killed in 9/11 by having a mosque built at ground zero.

If the media was unbiased, Obama should win this one. The Republican story has two glaring errors. It's not a mosque, and it's not at ground zero. Obama has a very strong point about freedom of religion, and another strong point that America has no grudge against Muslims, just against terrorists (of any religion actually).

But with a biased media, this story has the power to hurt Obama. After Fox News repeats their story for a while, echoed by the rest of the mainstream media, Obama is going to look like an out-of touch elitist who does not understand the emotional needs of real Americans.

If The Democrats try to fight back accusing the Republicans of racism, discrimination, lying and distorting facts, they are going to come off looking even more like losers.

I don't know how the left wing can win this propaganda battle, with Fox News standing guard against any reasonable Democratic arguments, but the Democrats need to send out this a strong reminder to America.

How about this message for example? "The real traitors to America are those who undermine its freedom. Liberty for all or liberty for none. You would think the Republicans, who claim to believe in "Land of the free, home of the brave", would be the most happy to have an Islamic cultural centre in New York."

The idea is to make the Republicans sound small minded and petty. Here are some specific messages to fight back on:

------------------------------
"It's not a question of whether or not they have a right to build it," Portman said. "It's a question of whether or not they should."

Answer: So it OK to have the right to do something in the USA, just as long as you don't actually try doing it. That is hypocritical.
-----------------------------

"Mr. President, ground zero is the wrong place for a mosque." Rick Scott

Answer: You win, we will not allow anyone to build a mosque at ground zero. Would you like to decide on the place? How about a block from ground zero? two blocks? a hundred miles? A thousand? Are you looking to have an Islamic centre in your home state?
---------------------------------------------------------

"Well I think it's another example of him playing the role of law professor. ... We can have a great debate about the legal arguments. But it's not about that," Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said in an interview Monday on Fox News.

Answer: So what is it about, Governor, if it not about law? Instead of the law, how about a group of angered citizens who band together to drive the Islamists out of town? Maybe this veiled reference to lynch mobs is too blatant. So word it a better, more subtle way, but this issue has to be fought, and fought hard if America is to survive as a free country.

-----------------------------------------------------------

In spite of the far better message of the Democrats, they simply cannot get their message relayed by the mainstream media. If there ever was a proof that there is no liberal bias in the mainstream media any more, this is it. If freedom of religion and rule of law get beaten by a couple of outright lies and religious bigotry, I say the mainstream media has now officially become a right wing propaganda machine.

Picture: Harper's Weekly Sept 5, 1868. Editorial Cartoon from back in a time when the American press was more balanced.

We Really Need Election Reform in Canada

Stockwell Day put his foot in his mouth again. As a minister in Canada's ruling Conservative Party, he want us to build more prisons. But the press was making fun of him for his reasoning that, although crime stats are down, "Unreported crime" is up.

Conservatives are very big on crime, and as I recall a few years back, at a press conference with our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, TV personality Geri Hall was subdued and led away in handcuffs. (Geri Hall is a comedian on the fake news show "This hour has 22 Minutes", which Conservatives apparently don't think is very funny.)

"Law and Order" is an issue that Conservatives take very seriously, and they use the issue to win votes. "More Jails" is a popular theme with conservative voters.

I don't want to get into a debate whether or not we need extra jails to lock up reporters for telling Harper they love him in press conferences, to me the real problem is that Canada is a "liberal" country being run by a Conservative government. In other words, Canada is mostly about freedom of religion, but we have a Christian fundamentalist government. Canadians mostly want peace, but we have a pro-war government. Canadians want the government to help run the economy, but we have a government that believes in "Laissez Faire" economics and the invisible hand of the free market. Canadians want a government that takes a lead internationally on human rights, but we get a government that abdicates support for international justice. Canadians want a government that protects the environment, but we get a government that obstructs international efforts to combat global warming.

How did we get into this ridiculous stranglehold that the Conservatives have over us? It is because our voting system is archaic. So, the unified Conservative party, with only 32% of the vote,  uses our archaic voting rules to defeat four disunified left wing parties. (and calls it treason when the opposition parties attempt to form a coalition).

Most democratic countries have ways of dealing with this, by using a runoff election between the top two parties after the first ballot. The UK and the USA (and Canada) do not have a runoff system, but the US is basically a two-party state, so rarely has the problem of runoffs (notable exception in 2000). And in the UK, there is a tradition of coalition governments that apparently we are losing, or have lost in Canada.

Recently, the province of Ontario had a referendum on election reform, which was soundly defeated. Why? I think it was because the new (and complicated) system required over 40 additional members of the provincial legislature, that was unpopular with all sides.

The easiest solution would be to have an automatic runoff system, based on a two choice ballot. When you vote, you can put your first choice, and your second choice right away, on the same trip to the polls. Then the vote tabulating computers can work out not only who the top two candidates are, but within seconds of the final count, could also tell us who wins the runoff. That way we eliminate the long and expensive second round vote, and have something resembling a second round runoff.

Best of all, it would give us the kind of government that represents most Canadians, instead of this travesty of Canada as a right wing militaristic police state (albeit a nice one) run by religious fundamentalists.

Photo June 26, 2010. (AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis)
http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100629/100629_fence_mislead_secret_law/20100629/

Bikers' Guide to Porta Potties

Things are obviously changing in the world of Portapotties. This is a subject dear to my heart, being a male over 50, who likes to go for motorcycle rides.

I just heard from the Conservative grapevine that Chelsea Clinton's wedding has portapotties so luxurious it may mean the end of civilization as we know it. The idea that the Clintons are going to rent fancy portapotties with piped in music and ceramic bowls is getting conservatives boiling mad.

http://www.tmz.com/2010/07/26/chelsea-clinton-wedding-fancy-porta-potties-bill-clinton/

"Unlike everyone else on the planet, Chelsea Clinton's wedding guests won't need gas masks to do their business in a porta-potty -- because Bill's daughter is renting the swankiest outhouses in town. The portable latrines have actual porcelain toilets that flush, stereo music and hot running water -- oh yeah, and they're HUGE."

I don't know about everyone else on the planet, but just visit Port Dover, the biker capital of Ontario, and check out the portapotties across the street from the BB Gas Bar. The only difference I can see between the Clinton's rented johns and Port Dover is the piped in stereo music and the colour of the walls.

http://www.wellscargocog.com/comfortelite.html

There may be another reason that conservatives are out of touch with the latest technology in portable toilets. Because they are driving around in half million dollar motor homes with self contained toilets, and they never have to search for a place to go.

A word to conservatives: The world is changing outside your motorhomes, and you are missing it. We poor people with no motor homes of our own no longer need gas masks to go to the bathroom. You should turn off Rush Limbaugh and get outside for a bit. The "luxury" portapotties in Port Dover are free, so drop by for a visit, although they are especially welcome if you have ridden a motorcycle over 2 hours to get there. There is also a permanent washroom building on the next road over, in front of Willie's Foot Long Hot Dogs. It's also free, but note that these facilities are seasonal. If you are in Port Dover out of season, and don't have a motorhome to pee in, you can always grab a coffee at Tim Hortons. No gas mask required.


Picture: http://www.norsic.com/hamptonian.html

Snookigate for Dummies

While Americans fret that their guns are being taken away and the economy is in the crapper, there is always enough time for another Obama related scandal: this time Snooki-gate.

If you heard about this anywhere else, here are his actual words, because many people make up their own words to heighten the scandal:

In response to a question about whether Snooki would be a good mayor of Wasilla Alaska.

Obama "I gotta admit, I don't know who Snooki is."

Of course nobody says it is a scandal to not know who Snooki is, as she is a TV reality show character. And it is not a scandal to say you don't know whether she would be a good mayor of Wasilla.

The real scandal was the fact that Obama was lying about his knowledge of Snooki, or at the very least, engaging in a cover-up of this knowledge. Earlier this year, at the press dinner, he actually told a joke that specifically mentioned Snooki once by name. Of course, it may be that he didn't know who Snooki was even when he told the joke. But at this point, it has become a full blown scandal, as you can tell from the "-gate" added at the end of the word "Snooki". So we want to know what he knew, and when he knew it, about Snooki. Was he really so smug and arrogant that he told a joke about Snooki without even being briefed on (and memorizing) who she was? Does he hire speechwriters for his gags, or does he sit down in front of a TV for several weeks to catch the flavour of the current TV shows and then write his own humorous pop-culture material?

A guy who was blasted for putting mustard (not ketchup) on his hamburger a year ago, should be a lot more careful about what he says on national TV!

OK Ok, so I am being facetious. I must also be getting less tolerant in my old age. My real opinion is that the people who talk about this as though it was an example of Obama lying are idiots. I'm sorry there's just no other word to adequately describe it unless you allow me to also call them racist idiots.

And one more thing, for you guys who claim that Obama should have better things to do when the country is in the crapper: Your country is not really in the crapper just yet, but it is not far from it due to the unusually high percentage of complete idiots in the population. Unless all those Internet comments are by the same person.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svk7ZJjVTHY

Picture: Snooki. So President Obama, in case you're reading this, you can get an idea of who she is. She is a girl who says she is from New Jersey (the dumbest state in the union according to some) but she is not. So she says she is from New Jersey I guess to make it funnier when she acts like an idiot. And most of the rest of the "reality" show cast do the same except one girl who really is from New Jersey. The show is called "Jersey Shore" I think. Check it out. I'm not sure of the time or the channel, so have a secret service guy look it up for you. Then you can figure out for yourself if she would be a good mayor of Wasilla. Stay safe, thanks for reading my blog.

Different Opinions on the G20 Summit Riot

In the wake of the G20 summit held in Toronto, there are conflicting headlines in the newspapers, concerning the police actions. I am going to pick four papers from Toronto and contrast their stories, mainly looking at the titles rather than the content. I got the titles from looking at each paper's web page this morning and clicking on the story I saw about the summit controversy,

The Toronto Star:
"Outraged protesters rally against police"
[sub title] "Female protesters strip searched by male officers, detainee says"

The National Post
"Police work was ‘commendable,’ Mayor says"

The Globe and Mail
"Police chief offers no apologies for G20 tactics"

The Toronto Sun
"Anarchists were 'stupid' — Blair" [explanation required: Blair is the police chief]


There is a theory in spreading propaganda that you can get your readers to think a certain way by your choice of title, so I chose only the title rather than get bogged down in the content of the article, which you can read if you want to, by clicking on the links. But don't be surprised if the content does not exactly convey the same message as the title, that's part of the technique.

If this theory is correct, each paper will pick a title to get the readers to think along the lines dictated by its overall editorial approach.

I think it is agreed that the Toronto Star is a liberal, if not left-leaning paper. So their title seems to match their left wing slant, and appears to sympathise with the left wing protesters.

I am pretty sure most people know the "National Post" is a right wing paper, and by definition, would be on the side of the riot police. I am making the assumption that conservatives and right wingers are in favour of "The Man", the police, who are working for the governments and/or the corporations.

The "Globe and Mail" is the most widely respected paper in Toronto, and considered more neutral than the previous two. And the message of the headline, I feel, is somewhat in between the left and right wing views. Their headline manages to simultaneously suggest that apologies were in order, and that none were needed. Maybe you also noticed, the only title that did not quote someone.

The "Toronto Sun" is a tabloid, and tries to appeal to the average working class guy, as you can tell by the scantily clad Sunshine Girls in every paper. Their intended audience is looking for a simple, easily understood opinion.

Incidentally, I am not trying to promote the "Globe and Mail", although I suppose it might look like that from this post. I subscribe to none of these papers, I do not even live in Toronto, and I do not work for the Globe and Mail company. If you feel my assumptions about the Globe and Mail (or any of the other papers) are misguided, your comments are welcome.

Trash Journalism, Mixing Gossip and Propaganda

There has always been trash journalism. The difference is that today, there is more opportunity than ever before in human history, to spread false or misleading stories. This is done for a variety of reasons, and to make money is not the only one. Many people take delight in spreading fear, hysteria, or crackpot theories without any hope for compensation. The motivations can be many and varied. Sometimes just the desire to ruin someone else's life is enough motivation.

Just today, three stories I came across help illustrate that trash journalism is much more than just the Fox News Network. Perhaps I should refer to it as "gossip journalism", as "trash journalism" sounds so negative. And in some cases I am not totally negative about it. Here is the first example. Rolling Stone magazine published an article called "Runaway General" that got General Stanley McChrystal fired. In one sense, I would call this trash journalism because on a very basic level, it was trap set by a reporter, to gain the confidence of the staff. Later, he created a report that made them look disrespectful of their Commander in Chief and lots of other people. Whether they were disrespectful or not is not the question for me. They allowed the reporter to talk to them, and apparently approved the article, and were fired because of the tone of the article. In the final analysis, the story was the story. Like I said, not necessarily trash, not necessarily false or misleading, but not really great journalism either. Just banter that was put into print.

The second example is out of The National Enquirer. A 55 year old masseuse, employed (or contracted) by a hotel Al Gore stayed at four years ago, and reported Al had sexually harassed her. National Enquirer printed the story with a front page picture.

National Enquirer is one of those magazines you see at the grocery store checkout. The others are Star, Globe, OK, "Weekly World News" and many other titles. Quite honestly, I group these grocery store papers in one of two categories. Those that are true, but gossipy and unimportant, and the others that would be of colossal importance, if they were true. The National Inquirer was the first I know of to report on Charles and Diana breaking up. And of several similar personal and or sexual stories, like Canadian motorcycle racer Mike Duff wanting a sex change operation. A surprising number of these stories ended up being scoops for the National Enquirer, and later were proven to be based on fact.

The other stories would be of monumental importance if true, but have never panned out. Most of the other magazines specialize in that other type of story, such as "Obama appoints extra terrestrial alien to be Secretary of Space". Or "Pet Dog born with head of Elvis", showing the obviously photoshopped picture of Elvis Presley's face on a puppy. Yes, if it was true it would be of great scientific importance, but these stories never yet have proven true.

In reading about "The National Enquirer" in Wikipedia, I came across this interesting allegation I have never heard before:

"Founded in 1926 as The New York Evening Enquirer, Sunday afternoon newspaper distributed throughout the city. It was founded by anti-Semite William Griffin in 1926 and became a voice for isolationism and fascist propaganda in the 1930s and 1940s.[2]"

Obviously, the National Enquirer has changed hands since then, and is not in the business of Nazi propaganda any more (I don't think).

The third and last, for now, is from a website on the internet. I'm not sure how current that link will stay, due to the design of the website, but here is how the article starts off with this unfounded and probably false statement:

"EXTREME ALERT-MOVE YOUR FAMILIES NOW!: Inside sources have informed me that Full scale Gulf Coast evacuations are expected to begin in next couple of weeks--With Methane now surfacing and Bubbling in Florida waters the potential for a Methane Explosion of unimaginable devastation now comes into focus Further Law Enforcement Sources are being Advised of "ESCALATING VENT DETERIORATION" Two Definitions were provided to me--First "VENT" DEFINITION-"The opening in a volcano from which gas and molten rock erupt" and "ESCALATES"- DEFINITION GIVEN-"To expand step by step as from a limited or local conflict into a General NUCLEAR WAR"--to become unmanageable--You don't need a rocket science degree to read between the lines. Ten Years ago after the Papua New Guinea Earthquake in which "Burnt to a Crisp" bodies were pulled from the Fiery Seas-Stan Deyo and I did multiple Radio programs together over the years, warning of the Methane Hydrate Problems off our Coasts that could turn into "Seas Of Fire". "

Two links are provided in this section, I suppose to provide background scientific information.

It just happens that I have a sister in law living in Sarasota Florida, and so somehow one of Mary Ann's cousins came across this website and asked her if she thought it was the real thing, in which case a warning might be in order.

As far as I'm concerned, it's quite one thing to believe Al Gore sexually harassed a masseuse, and quite another to tell your sister in law to pack her bags and flee her home, based on a website story with no reputation of credibility.

By the way, if you do actually follow either of those links in the website, you will find that the first one is about a carbon dioxide explosion, not a methane explosion, and you should not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out those two are different. The second link, you can decide for yourself whether it is relevant.

Apparently it is true that there are localized high concentrations of methane gas dissolved in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, presumably due to the oil spill. Another link was provided here: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65L6IA20100622 In case you do not know, Reuters is more credible than SteveQuayle.com. Knowing how credible a source is comes with much experience, I guess.

What do we do about this spread of gossipy trash journalism? It seems that it is getting worse instead of getting better. I might as well admit that I don't have a clue yet, except to (1) search various reputable sources, including Snopes.com (2) stay in school when you have the chance and do your homework (3) Don't evacuate your house until you email another family member or friend for a second opinion. (4) try actually reading the whole thing, sometimes it's a joke or there is some context to consider.

Firing McChrystal was Necessary, Unfortunately

McChrystal does not seem to have much respect for the Commander in Chief. Not only must he be fired, but there is a requirement for court martial too, in the military code of conduct. I don't know if this will happen though.

Here is a comment from Jay on the CTV website:

"Everyone knows the war in Afghanistan is a new and unique challenge, that no politician is going to know anything about. How would like you it if some politician showed up and told you how to do your job, especially when they know absolutely nothing about it?"

Let me explain here to Jay and others why the Commander in Chief is at the top of the military chain of command.

The goal of the US military is not only a victory in Afghanistan. Winning in Afghanistan is a fairly low priority. This higher priority is a broader, long term international peace and security.

President of the USA is the person that must understand the bigger picture. Right now, I am going to let you in on a top level military secret, just so you can understand that Obama is the one who is in charge, and McChrystal is the smaller fish who messed up big time.

Afghanistan is not a major threat to the USA any more, as Al Quaeda has left for Pakistan. Iran is a big threat, and is trying to get nuclear weapons. Pakistan already has them, but has a major internal problem with religious fanatics and Al Quaeda. There is a real war going on under cover in Pakistan. US Drones are being used, mostly on the quiet, and the Pakistani Army is trying to hunt down Al Quaeda fighters, and they need the support of the USA to keep them from crossing the border into Afghanistan. In the mean time, the Russians and Chinese need to be kept on board, which Obama has managed to do, also pretty much on the quiet through diplomacy.

You will not hear a discussion of top level strategy like this from Obama, because it would be counter productive to advertise it. But he has the right to expect his top generals will follow orders and act respectfully towards him, and assume he has a bigger world strategy that they are small part of. McChrystal was not smart enough, or did not have enough respect for Barak Obama to believe that the Commander in Chief had good reasons for doing what he did.

The only reason I can get away with writing this is because I have no credibility on the world stage. But if you give it some thought, you will at least see that Afghanistan is not the be-all and end-all. General McChrystal apparently thought he was the one deciding the entire US foreign policy.

And even better, if all the know-nothings in the USA, including Fox News could stop their constant disrespectful criticism on Obama, and let him get on with the very important job of making the world a safer place in the wake of the last fool in the white house who let it all fall apart. Unfortunately, we seem to have two Americas living in one country - the Conservative south wanting a holy war and the end of the world, and the liberal north wanting world peace. I am thankful the decent people are in charge for a while, but McChrystal definitely needs to go away, he and all his advisors are apparently on the conservative (anti-Obama) side, and his understanding of Afghanistan is weak at best. Obama needs a General that will trust the judgment of the Commander in Chief, or at least take orders and keep his mouth shut, as required by the military code of conduct.

And for those of you who say McChrystal was fired for telling the truth, what part of "Joe Bite Me" is the truth? He was being disrespectful, and that is all. And that is not permitted in the military.

Picture: CENTCOM Map. You can clearly see that Afghanistan is not the only country in this area of the world. Hopefully Petraeus has a bigger world view than McChrystal.

If This is Obama's Katrina, What was Bush's Oil Spill?

In spite of many anti-Obama people calling the oil spill "Obama's Katrina", there are a lot of differences, and I am going to go over them right now.

This is an article I read this morning.

The conclusion is that both Bush and Obama had about the same amount of responsibility for their problems, and commitment to their problems, and both had difficulty with the public perception of their response.

Where I think this article shows its bias is in somehow forgetting the real impetus for the criticism over Katrina.

Rory Cooper thinks it was all about Bush overflying New Orleans.

"He flew over the crisis, because he thought landing would pre-occupy recovery workers, divert resources and clog up air space. Little did he know that this rational decision would be the impetus for his “Katrina.” In hindsight, everyone admits he should have landed in Baton Rouge to affirm on the ground support. "

I don't see it like that, and Rory Cooper forgets to mention the real impetus for the loss of faith in Bush, which was the comment "Heckuva job, Brownie", which seemed a complete denial of the people dying in New Orleans due to slow response from the government.

So now I have that out of the way, let's look at the context. George W. Bush had several other greater calamities, one of which was 9/11. Since the oil spill is now the U.S.'s biggest disaster under Obama, it may be more logical to call it Obama's 9/11. I just want to remind everyone that Katrina was not the first (or even second) big disaster for Bush, and that Bush's disasters involved more loss of life and much more incompetence from the White House. As far as I know, no loss of life has resulted from Obama being slow to respond to the oil spill. All the people who died on the oil rig were killed instantly, and response time was not an issue.

After 9/11, there was an inquiry about the administration's role in ignoring the warning signs. And there was the memo saying "Al Quaeda planning to strike in America". But the final result was that Bush was forgiven for not preventing 9/11, and the American people rallied behind him, and counted on him to organize a response. The Bush response was to attack Iraq, which had not caused 9/11, but support for Bush still remained quite high among the American voters, regardless of the incompetence.

Katrina for George Bush was not his biggest blunder, it was more like the "last straw", where people finally lost patience and said "maybe this guy is just incompetent." Bush had been forgiven for many incompetences resulting in loss of life, and strategic blunders of epic proportions. The support for Bush was all about rallying behind the "commander in chief" who was doing his best against a foreign attacker. Bush was given the benefit of the doubt in spite of obvious blunders that had the liberals screaming, and the rest of the world aghast. Bush's ill conceived plans unfolded, supposedly guided by George's gut instinct and a few words from God.

After Katrina, I think Americans had finally had enough. This was not some far-away adventure that most Americans did not know about, where reporting was censored. This was an entire American city that was lost, with pictures and first hand accounts on the news. Again through incompetence, headed up apparently by a man nicknamed "Brownie" who as Bush said was "doing a heck of a job", while the people of New Orleans were dying from lack of water, stranded on roofs.

Hurricane Katrina had a few other aspects that played against George Bush and the Republican Party. The levees had not been properly fixed, due to budgets cuts, while America was spending billions fixing up Iraq. New Orleans was full of black people, who the Republican Party was not fond of, and they wanted to clear the slums anyway. A hurricane is a climatic event, and coincidentally, George W. Bush's administration was also at that time trying to muzzle scientists and deny the threat of global warming.

By comparison, the oil spill was caused by offshore drilling, something that the Republican Party supports much more than Obama does. Even now, the Republicans are the ones saying that oil is natural, oil spills are natural, more drilling is still needed. It's not Obama saying that. Also, it was Bush's administration, entirely dominated by big oil companies, that relaxed rules and oversight on the oil rigs.

The Republicans of course are going to try and make this oil spill stick to Obama and call it Obama's Katrina. But it is nothing like the Katrina problem.

It was not Obama who had the campaign slogan "Drill, baby drill", and Obama never said "Heckuva job" to anyone about this oil spill, unless someone was really doing a heckuva job.

The only comparison between these two disasters is that they both hit Louisiana, and they are a PR problem for the sitting president. It's surprising that the conservatives have been able to run the comparison as far as this, considering who is really responsible for supporting big oil. Actually, the comparison of the oil spill to Hurricane Katrina shows us how the Republicans still don't have any sympathy for the people of New Orleans and the devastation of Hurricane Katrina.

Israel Needs Another Moshe Dayan About Now

It was surprising to me to learn that Israeli Commandos had rappelled down from helicopters and landed among the protesters on the Gaza flotilla, then the soldiers had their guns grabbed away and were beaten up. Every time I see commandos rappelling in a Hollywood movie, things go way better than than in the IDF video.

The Israelis, of course finally got the upper hand in this incident and killed nine of the boat people, and arrested the remainder.

This whole situation got me thinking about Israeli tactics in general, which have in the past have been usually well thought out compared to almost any other country. And most effective, period. Best timing best teamwork, best execution, and best final outcome. But lately, it seems they are either getting more sloppy or maybe something worse: plain stupid.

There is always a possibility that the Israeli government actually wanted to cause a melee resulting in death to some people. Or maybe they had a need to show off the rappelling skills of their commandos in a real life situation. I will put off discussing these possibilities to another time. But if they were merely trying to inspect the relief supplies to stop rocket-making materials from getting through, there were safer tactics to use than rappelling.

Typically, rappelling is used to get soldiers close to an area where they have some kind of tactical advantage, and there is no other way of getting them there. Such as the roof of a building occupied by hostage takers. But that would assume the roof is not crawling with hostile people, and that you have an element of surprise. Otherwise, you are dropping your soldiers one by one, in a vulnerable state, into an immediately dangerous situation. If there is no surprise, and no clear landing area, they can get badly hurt, even by an unarmed crowd of people.

So in hindsight, we could say the rappelling exercise was not appropriate.

And on a larger scale, the decision to stop the boats with military force is kind of inappropriate, too. Egypt controls one of Gaza's borders, and Egypt opened its border to relief supplies after the flotilla was captured. I am not sure why Egypt was cooperating in the blockade of Gaza, but it probably had something to do with the fact that Hamas would try to overthrow Egypt's government if they could get out of Gaza into Egypt. Anyway, in the face of mounting outrage over the blockade, Egypt decided to open the border, thereby putting a leak in the airtight blockade.

So not only does Israel look bad on a small scale in rappelling, but a larger scale in cracking the blockade itself, risking Egypt's cooperation by stopping one flotilla with heavy force.

Then scale it up another notch, and you have Iran laughing all the way to the UN. They support Hamas, they send Gaza rockets to be used against Israel (and fairly harmless rockets at that), then watch gleefully as Israel vents its considerable fury against innocent Palestinians in revenge for the rocket fire. Thereby Israel loses support of the international community, which can only be to Iran's benefit.

Not just the international community disapproves of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, even in the Jewish community in the USA, Israel is starting to lose favour. Once Israel was the holy grail for Jewish and Evangelical Americans, now even Jon Stewart says you can't keep on ignoring the suffering of the Palestinians.

My computer will not play the video of yesterday's Daily Show on the Internet, but others have commented in the links below.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/view/feature/Jon-Stewart-vs-Israel-1212
http://politicalcorrection.org/fpmatters/201005070003

Here is a quoted piece from MJ Rosenberg taken out of the second article

"I was a pro-Israel activist back in my days on campus. I was the leader of about 50 kids (on a campus of several thousand) who tried to convince our indifferent fellow students of the importance of Israel.

I even was given a free trip to Israel where I was taught how to combat "anti-Israel" propaganda on campus. (It was not just a week, like the Birthright trip, but two free and wonderful months.)

All my friends (or almost all) felt about Israel the way I did then. We were an embattled minority, but we knew we were right. (The occupation, still new, was infinitely less onerous then than it is now. There were no more than a few thousand settlers. And, back then, no Arab state recognized Israel's right to exist.)

Today, not one of my friends from those days feels the way we did then. It is not so much that our feeling for Israel disappeared, but that the situation changed. Even in the 1970's, none of us would have supported a settler-dominated Israeli government or the horrific Gaza war."

I always thought that though Israelis were a bit ruthless, at least they had brains. Now I'm not so sure of the latter. Where is a Moshe Dayan when you need one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_dayan

How to Stop an Oil Spill (Seriously)

As much as the oil spill bothers me, just for the environmental damage, something else is more annoying right now, and that is the conservatives asking Obama to save them from the big oil spill, and that the government, not BP should not be deciding how to cap the well.

Conservatives are now blaming Obama for not plugging the oil spill. In trying to make the blame stick, they certainly have one thing going for them. The spill is near New Orleans, and so the charge that this is Obama's Hurricane Katrina has some credibility, for people who don't realize that this is not hurricane related.

How soon we forget "Drill, Baby, Drill" which was the Republican mantra in the election campaign.

There is another conservative dogma, that big business can do everything better than the government. It is also forgotten, while they complain that the government should be in there telling the oil companies how to cap the well. I have never believed that private enterprise was always better than government, but even I would leave this one to the people who know how the oil rigs work, and they are the oil companies.

I think that neither the Democrats or Republicans would do a good job of plugging that well, and maybe the only solution is to let the oil companies try. I don't like the idea that the oil companies are failing, and have not tested some of these emergency methods, but there is nothing worse than somebody interfering in an emergency repair effort. Doesn't everybody know that already? Let me make it more clear. If your wife was undergoing life threatening surgery, would you run into the operating room to yell at the doctors and tell them what to do and how to do it? If you answered no, you are just like me. I would not go in there myself, and I also would not send the government in there to "help out".

Even though people are getting frantic, it is best to let the experts solve the problem. Do not panic and make things even worse.

Who is to Blame for the Oil Spill?

Deepwater Horizon was a "dynamically positioned" oil platform, which is actually a floating platform controlled by computers and positioned by propellers to maintain a steady position. This is what caught fire on April 20, 2010, and sank two days later, and resulted in the oil spill currently messing up the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana.

The Deepwater Horizon drilled the deepest well ever last year, at about 10 kilometers. I'm not sure if this spilling well is the same one, because the Deepwater Horizon sank in water only 1 mile deep. At any rate, I did not even know that there was a competition going on for the deepest well ever. Now we find out.

So much for facts. Now let's get on with the mud slinging. In the absence of any conclusive evidence, many people are wondering who is to blame. Here are some of the players/suspects.

1. BP (British Petroleum) An oil company that thankfully is not Exxon or American, to take the blame.

2. Hyundai. The Korean company that made the oil rig in 2001, and also makes the Accent, a car which sells for $10,000.

3. Barack Obama, as Anti-Christ-in-Chief he must share some blame, especially after making plans to increase offshore drilling, and making statements about how safe the technology now is. Also, this is now being touted as "Obama's Katrina" by many conservatives, and also by Greenpeace.

4. Sarah Palin, was the inspiration for motto of "Drill, baby, drill" (although she was thinking of the Arctic near Alaska, but the principle is the same.)

5. Halliburton. Was doing the drilling, ex-company of Dick Cheney.

6. Environmentalists. Rush Limbaugh came up with the idea that maybe environmentalists sabotaged the rig. It was spread to Fox News by Dana Perino (Former Bush administration Press Secretary). The idea being, that since the Deepwater Horizon caught fire near to Earth Day, that the timing indicates it may be a plot by wacko environmentalists, with the goal of creating a such a disaster as to put an end to offshore drilling for all time. Although oil platform experts doubt that even Greenpeace, with their vaunted scaling capabilities would be capable of getting on to an oil rig unnoticed. But who knows? Some people think environmentalists are wackos. Some people (yes, including me) think Rush Limbaugh and his followers are wackos.

In the end, this may be a big enough disaster to do for offshore drilling what "Three Mile Island" did for nuclear reactors in the USA. At the very least it may persuade people that offshore wind turbines are not as ugly or as dangerous as they have been made out to be.

Picture: Deepwater Horizon on fire from Wikipedia

Zen and the Art of Traffic Gridlock

Most people think they know what gridlock is, but I want to go over it again because it happens to highlight one of the most important principles in civilization, and if we could solve gridlock, we could solve any human problem.

Lets start with the basics. In a crowded city, such as New York which happens to be laid out in a grid, traffic will occasionally come to a complete halt in a feedback chain reaction. Imagine a city block which has an intersection at each corner, when traffic is very heavy. Now imagine what happens at one of those intersections when the light turns red, but some cars are stuck in the intersection and cannot move forward or back. Now the cars with a green light cannot move either, because of the cars in the middle of the intersection blocking their progress. Immediately, more cars become blocked behind them, and if the line stretches back to their previous intersection, then that one also becomes blocked the same way, and the chain reaction will now occur in all four corners of the block. And with one city block completely stuck, neighbouring blocks will also get stuck the same way. That is what we call gridlock.

In principal, gridlock can happen in places other than a grid, I have seen pictures of gridlock even in a traffic roundabout, where a line of buses in the circle may block and exit to the roundabout, when they get stopped by slow traffic, and the feedback loop quickly travels back around the entire roundabout to lock it down solidly. These traffic jams are apparently very hard to break up.

The root cause of gridlock comes down to human nature. Each independent driver is trying to get through the traffic as quickly as possible. So they may make a decision which superficially may help them get a head a little further. But their decision blocks another driver, and the feedback from that eventually blocks the entire traffic flow for the whole city. The psychology of this is very interesting, because even if you explain to each driver how to act in order to ensure the free movement of traffic, they will continue to behave in such a way as to move themselves ahead of the rest, which gridlocks the traffic, where they themselves will be stuck for hours.

So if I may define the gridlock mentality as one where a person will make some small action to serve themselves. seemingly at the expense of only a few others, but the the effect on the others multiplies around in such a way that it brings down the whole system, including the original perpetrator.

The solution for gridlock is for drivers to not move ahead if doing so will block the cross flow of traffic. After all, the cross flow is not really competing with you. Those divers are not trying to get ahead of you, they are just going their own way, but need to cross your path to get there. You must not enter an intersection even on a green light, if there is no place for you on the other side. But it is hard to get everyone to understand this is the problem. In other words, moving ahead is not always wise if you want to keep moving ahead.

Politics, economics, and war also suffer from gridlock mentality. This is the kind of "self interest" that gives a temporary advantage to one person while starting the chain reaction that brings down the whole system for everyone. Think of the big banks, that get spooked by bad economic news, and withdraw their loans to protect their own interests, which shuts down those borrowers' businesses, which in turn lay off employees, who in turn withdraw their money from the banks, thus driving the banks out of business anyway. The circular chain reaction always comes back to the starting and then spreads further.

This gridlock mentality applies to a military occupation, where soldiers are torturing and killing innocent civilians to get information, the negative effect of which multiplies to more civilians turning against the occupiers until they finally have to give up. A small advantage one minute, torturing and killing happily to "stay safe". But the advantage in temporary security turns millions of people against the occupiers, and the war is lost. Terrorists are always trying to find ways to enhance the "gridlock" effect against the occupying forces.

The temptation to gridlock mentality is the fatal flaw of pure free market capitalism, just as lack of incentive is the fatal flaw of communism.

Two thousand years ago, a man appeared on Earth with the solution to gridlock. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". "love your neighbour and your enemy" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Instead of listening to him, he was crucified by the very people who two thousand years later would invent gridlock and laissez faire capitalism.

One day, maybe all people will understand how their own innocent (but self serving) actions sometimes start a chain reaction that comes back to bite them in the rear end.

Pictures: A diagram of gridlock from Wikipedia, and a gridlocked traffic circle.

The Transition from Liberal to Conservative Made Easy

Another in my "made easy series", how a person transforms from a liberal to a conservative.

Winston Churchill once remarked that a young person who was a conservative had no heart and an older person who was a liberal had no intelligence.

I think, for the most part, that people do start out their lives as liberals, and with time gradually turn to being conservative. If so, that is going to mean conservative politics will dominate for a while as the baby boomers become older and one by one, turn conservative.

My own conservative "awakening" has not happened yet, but already I can begin to see the pressure mounting that would normally push me over the edge, if I only had a brain.

Let's go back to the time when people just start to form their own political point of view, possibly after high school. That's about when you get to vote for the first time, but as a young person you don't really care that much. A young person at that age accepts the world as a place that has never changed and never will. That is because, during their own short experience, the world has not changed, and by logical extension, never will. So politics has no meaning, no matter who gets in power.

Now maybe I was particularly isolated as a child, living in Baie Comeau. I did not have the opportunity to observe poverty, or wealth, as it was a strictly middle class town with both ends of the wealth spectrum missing. We had no visible minorities, our main concerns were around French vs. English or to a much lesser degree, Catholic vs. Protestant. I did not even get to see any old people. There was no senior citizens' home, and 50% of the population was under 16 years old. I first saw large numbers of old people when I moved to Sherbrooke, and took a city bus.

During a person's twenties, observations take place. You begin to notice such things as poverty, for example. During this period of time, there are a lot of major concerns that come up. My first one was a strong desire to see the world. That seemed more important than getting a car or a job.

Seeing the world as a young person is something that is likely to turn you liberal. You get so see the inequalities in life, and learn about social justice. Because you are young, you are not likely to blame third world poverty on "laziness", the way an older person might. Older people have put in thousands of days of hard work already in their lives, and often have a high opinion of themselves as a "hard worker" who earned everything they got, whether that view is justified or not. Young people are not yet thinking that way.

A younger person travelling in the world is likely to have a good opinion of foreigners, as young travellers often make friends in places that they go, and are treated well by locals. On the other hand, young people travelling abroad are often treated badly and hassled by the authorities, leading to a negative view of "THE MAN". This also undermines their classical conservative viewpoint.

Now moving ahead, to marriage, kids, and settling down. All of this usually takes place close to home. Having kids arouses protective instincts, and often this is the time that owning a house becomes an issue. At this stage, things begin to change rapidly toward conservatism. No longer do you have nothing to lose, like most liberals. You are becoming a land owner, and so you have much to lose. Now you can worry about theft, about the neighbourhood becoming a slum. That worry is the beginning of the conservative mindset. Suddenly you are concerned for the first time about how nice the lawns are, about how many and what type of weeds are springing up, not only on your own lawn, but your neighbour's lawn too. You don't fear police protection any more, you want more of it. And you are now not too far away from fearing that visible minorities might move in to your neighbourhood. This is the time that you might finally become one of those bigots that you mocked as a young person. I'm not saying it is sure to happen, but you are exposed to the pressures, and you may have neighbours around you to heighten your fears. Not only is this happening to you, but to most of your friends of the same age.

Let's go forward another decade or so. Your kids are going to school, you have a "good" job. You are worried now about how your kids are going to make out in life. They do not seem to have the same priorities as you do, about work, and money. They just want to goof off and have fun. They don't listen to your music, or dress the way you want them to dress. They don't hang out with kids that you want them to hang out with. They don't care about money, which is actually yours anyway. Now for the first time, you become aware that there is a generational gap, and now there is a generation younger than yours, and they have disturbing ideas. One of those disturbing ideas is that welfare is a viable career path. Now you begin to question for the first time, the need for welfare, unemployment insurance, and any government benefit at all (except the Canada Pension Plan, that will come later)

You are now paying a fair amount in taxes. You may start reading more, and listening to the news, to find out what is being done with all the tax money you are paying. What you want to hear, is that it is being used to hire cops and throw people in jail. Also, that it is being used to beat down foreign countries that are full of people trying to steal the wealth of rich countries like Canada. You do not really want to hear that it is being used to help immigrants "flood" into Canada, or to help equalize trade with poorer countries. All these developments are now seen as threats, if not to you, to your children who still seem unconcerned about getting a job.

So, you start reading the National Post. You find the writings of Mark Steyn in MacLeans' magazine, and they are a revelation to you. When Mark says "it's the end of our white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant way of life" you feel a kinship with him, a bond is formed. Now you are nearing the end of your transition from liberal to conservative. But there is still more.

Now that you trust Fox News, The National Post, Mark Steyn, Ann Coulter, and Pat Robertson as the true source of all knowledge, you begin to distrust science itself. After all, your own death is approaching now, and this is not the time to be mocking Chistianity. You begin to turn to God and the supernatural. And since the end is approaching, you have no time for Al Gore and his scaremongering about the "future" global warming that you will never live to see anyway. You want, and need, to keep burning those fossil fuels. Drill anywhere you can for the last bit of oil if you have to, to keep gas under a buck a litre, even if it means more oil spills (unless it is on your own cottage waterfront of course). And for heaven's sake, we don't want to see those horrible three bladed wind turbines rearing their oh-so-ugly heads somewhere on the horizon, causing cancer and doing nothing but wasting taxpayers' money.

OK now I have laid out the entire transition from naive innocent young liberal to wise, rich, old conservative. According to the demographics of the baby boom, we are going to have a lot more old people than young people for about 40 more years. I think it's going to get very conservative out there.

Picture: How conservatives imagine a liberal brain would look, if they actually had one. This image is from Conservapedia, the conservative answer to all the lies and distortions of truth in Wikipedia.