Thursday, May 13, 2004

A Reader Requested Opinion

In a post yesterday, I linked to a Kurt Vonnegut piece titled “Cold Turkey," wherein Vonnegut alluded to, among other things, an American addiction to fossil fuels.  After reading the post, a reader inquired, via the comments section, if I would dismiss the essence of an article by its title.  Specifically, the reader provided a link to an article with the title “Bush-Cheney Energy Strategy: Procuring the Rest of the World’s Oil." I replied that I could not dismiss the article, until I had at least read the article.  Well, I’ve read the article, and here’s what I think.

The first sentence of the article in question follows.

"When first assuming office in early 2001, President George W. Bush’s top foreign policy priority was not to prevent terrorism or to curb the spread of weapons of mass destruction--or any of the other goals he espoused later that year following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Rather, it was to increase the flow of petroleum from suppliers abroad to U.S. markets."

When I read the above sentence, I Googled up this phrase: “Bush’s top foreign policy in 2001.” Here is the result. The first option Google provides, leads to a CNN transcript, from January 14, 2001, which includes questions and comments from CNN employees Brian Nelson and Kate Snow, and comments from David Albright, Donald Rumsfield, William Cohen, Sandy Berger, and Mark Strauss.  Within that transcript, there is one question about oil, posed by Brian Nelson and answered by Mark Strauss, but the remainder of the transcript covers concerns about Iraq, a mention of Israel and Palestine and the MidEast in general, and missile defense also warrants a mention.

Now, don’t think this means I accept whatever a politician, or talking head, spews through the media pipe.  Far from it.  But I do think it means that right out of the gate, the article in question is a bit farfetched.  For example, the article attempts to bolster the weakness of the first sentence, above, by quoting Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham.

"America faces a major energy supply crisis over the next two decades,” Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham told a National Energy Summit on March 19, 2001. “The failure to meet this challenge will threaten our nation’s economic prosperity, compromise our national security, and literally alter the way we lead our lives."

Granted, there is some truth to Abraham’s statement, but once you weed out the buzzing scare words, such as “major,” “crisis,” “threaten,” “alter the way we lead our lives,” I would hardly use the statement as supporting documentation for the article’s assumption that for Bush and Cheney it’s all about the oil.

The article continues on by attempting to bind many initiatives, such as conservation and U.S. foreign oil interests, to their initial assumption.  Areas discussed include the Persian Gulf, West Africa, Latin America, and the Caspian Sea Basin.  In each reference, I think the piece stretches what has been said by the government, to fit their overwrought assumption.

With that said, let me say that what I did read, increased my knowledge of the United States’ energy concerns.  Though I would not go so far as to say that the knowledge I gained led me to the conclusion which the article lobbies for, which is that Bush and Cheney have attempted to tie the United States’ energy requirements, to the United States’ security needs.  But that’s just my opinion.

As an aside, here is a link to the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) Board of Directors & Collaborators, their word not mine, who helped sponsor the article under discussion here and published by the Foreign Policy in Focus think tank.

Read the article, with a grain of salt, but think it through for yourself, and then go fill up your SUV or car with gas.

Posted by John Venlet on 05/13 at 09:03 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

For the Ladies

"Have we all gone mad? Is this really what women today want? Do we need to be protected by the big man himself, the U.S. Government? Or are we women enough to take responsibility, step out from behind the man, and put up or shut up?"

The above is the concluding comment of Ally, who blogs at Who Moved My Truth. The statement is taken from a post is titled “Boiling Point" and its catalyst was a visit to the National Association of Women’s website.

Via the Anal Philosopher.

Posted by John Venlet on 05/13 at 06:50 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Where's the World's Expressions of Despair Over India's Fence?

We’ve all heard of the Great Wall of China, I hope, built to keep out the invading barbarian hordes.  The Berlin Wall, built to keep freedom at bay and ensure a slave populace for the commies.  And of course, most individuals are aware of the stink being raised about Israel’s fence, built to hamper Palestinian incursions into Israel.  But did you know that India is building a fence also, along the Pakistan border and Bangledesh border?

On the Pakistan fence.

"The fence is part of India’s ambitious project to seal its entire 1,800-mile border with Pakistan. Even as India embarks on a peace process with its rival this summer, the massive effort has come to illustrate the deep suspicion, hostility and paranoia that have bedeviled relations between the nuclear neighbors for more than half a century."

On the Bangledesh fence.

"The sensitive stretches along the 4,894-kilometer (3,034-mile) India-Bangladesh border have been fenced,” said S.I.S. Ahmed, a senior official of the Border Security Force deployed on the Bangladesh border.

“It is nearly 35 percent of the total stretch and the remaining portion will be completed by 2007,” Ahmed said.

Though I hate to display my ignorance, this is the first I’ve heard about India’s fence.  I wonder why it doesn’t rate the same condemnation that Israel’s fence does?

Link via Razib, at Gene Expression, who links to a radio segment on India’s fence building along the Bangledesh border.

Posted by John Venlet on 05/13 at 05:35 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Card Carriers

Do you remember the term “card-carrying communist?” I do, but not because I was alive when the hearings were held by McCarthy.  The term came to mind this morning when I read a post by Radley Balko titled “Mayors, Millions, Malevolence." In Balko’s post, he provides a link to the United States Conference of Mayors dues page.

I’m not certain if the mayor of Grand Rapids is a member of this august group of card carriers, but I would not doubt it, considering Mayor Heartwell’s penchance for feeling. If indeed he is a card-carrying member, it costs the city about $10,877.00.  It is not money well spent.

Posted by John Venlet on 05/13 at 04:04 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

A Little Art History

I’m rather ignorant of the art world.  Sure, I know the names, and some works by sight, of various famous personages from this world, but I must profess I have never heard of French painter Theodore Ge’ricault.  One of Ge’ricault’s more famous pieces is Scene of Shipwreck. A gargantuan painting, 16 feet by 23 feet 6 inches, the painting portrays a rather pitiful event in French history.

The history which inspired the painting is an interesting read, and, for myself at least, inspires a desire to view the actual painting.

Thanks to Russell Whitaker, at Survival Arts, for the link to this tutorial.

Posted by John Venlet on 05/13 at 03:47 AM
(3) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

And There's Always Individual Sovereign Homebrew

What do beer advertisements, on teevee, tell us about the democratic process?  If you’re interested in knowing, Shonk, at Selling Waves, who has been watching a lot of hockey and basketball, and I would guess selecting his own beer, has posted a few thoughts on the subject.  The post is titled “President of Beers." From the post.

"The point is, in the beer market everybody can make the choices that make them happiest, whereas in politics the supreme lack of choices and the winner-take-all reality means that virtually everybody comes away dissatisfied. This, I think, is what makes the Miller ads work: the notion of holding a beer election in the same way we hold presidential elections is so patently absurd that we can’t help but chuckle a bit at the ads."

I’ll take a shot of Stoli with my beer.

Posted by John Venlet on 05/13 at 03:34 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Paid in Full

A reader offered Billy Beck a penny for his thoughts on the Nick Berg events in Iraq.  Billy has obliging complied, and his thoughts are worth more than the penny offered, in a post titled “To Start At The Beginning."

A couple of excerpts.

"At the hands of posing savages, putting on a show with some innocent person’s life, Nick Berg died screaming. At what? The only conceivable answer to me, having listened to it, would be the utter horror of being deliberately killed in such a primitive way by things looking like human beings, and what a complete contradiction of his life experience that might have represented.

Monsters really are real, after all."

Followed by this further into the post.

"It’s really important for everyone to realize that there are monsters alive in the world who would step right through the front door and dice them up right there on their couches, just like they did to Nick Berg, if they had an angle on the thing. That means that they’re going to sneak around with larger schemes in mind, which they’ll pop on us now & then, with the very same blood-curdling deliberation of a knife working its way through the shock of never having felt anything that catastrophically invasive of one’s own body just before the lights go out."

Posted by John Venlet on 05/13 at 03:15 AM
(4) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Ante Up

Poker’s star is, seemingly, still rising.  Like a hand of jacks or better to open, progressive, with none of the players holding the requisite jacks or better in the first three deals.  Even my sons, who attend a private parochial school are into the game.  Their small time winnings spurring them on to online poker games too.

Justin Peters has written a piece about the rising popularity of poker which has been published by Washington Monthly. It’s titled “Jack of Smarts."

Per Peters’ piece, here are a few of the reasons more individuals are anteing up.

"Strategy-oriented, individualistic, and embedded in a nice masculine mythology, poker is the perfect game for the revenge-of-the-nerds generation looking to square their intelligence with their inner maleness."

Deal me in.

Via Arts & Letters Daily.

Posted by John Venlet on 05/13 at 02:55 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages