My "Favorite 5" Conspiracies

Well my top 2 consiracies both involve Richard Nixon, of course the Watergate conspiracy but also the Vietnam conspiracy. I consider Vietnam a conspiracy because we are only now finding out just how wrong it was, how much was witheld, how many lies were told. I also like hearing stories about the "Illuminati" and how the most powerful people in the world are all involved in an evil cabal. Of course, I take that with a shovel of rock salt.

As far as conspiracies in my lifetime, There's Dick Cheney's deal with the devil (Haliburton's no-bid contracts,) Goeorge W. Bush's rush to war in Iraq and the lies that were told to get us there... Heck, the current administration is pretty much one big conspiracy. I pray that there is such a thing as karma and that shrub and Cheney and Karl Rove all go to federal prison where they are violently and repeatedly molested by huge sadistic convicts.

Most Likely Movie Scenario

I think because we still have no controls in place for overpopulation, because our natural resources are being depleted at an ever-increasing rate, and because our dependence on fossil fuels and global warming remain unchecked, the most likely scenario is "Soylent Green", where food and room and luxuries are scarce and controlled by the wealthy few. The income gap continues to widen, we continue to have more babies, and the worlds's resources are not infinite. Something's got to give. "Make Room! Make Room!"

Film Clip Most Likely to Become Reality

I think of the movies shown, Soylent Green is the most likely scenario to happen in the future. We're just ruining the stuff/people ratio. There are too many people when you consider the amount of stuff there is. Food, fuel, clean water, you name it. Not to mention unchecked global warming, which would serve to decrease the productivity of our food resources and make it hot enough that everybody would want to wear a bandanna to sop up the sweat. I foresee a dystopia in which reproduction becomes a priveledge that is controlled by some government body. If we don't do something to reduce the global population and the chloroflourocarbons we are introducing into the atmosphere, I can imagine death being a choice, people being a source of food, and worse.

Film Clip Most Likely to Become Reality

I think of the movies shown, Soylent Green is the most likely scenario to happen in the future. We're just ruining the stuff/people ratio. There are too many people when you consider the amount of stuff there is. Food, fuel, clean water, you name it. Not to mention unchecked global warming, which would serve to decrease the productivity of our food resources and make it hot enough that everybody would want to wear a bandanna to sop up the sweat. I foresee a dystopia in which reproduction becomes a priveledge that is controlled by some government body. If we don't do something to reduce the global population and the chloroflourocarbons we are introducing into the atmosphere, I can imagine death being a choice, people being a source of food, and worse.

Three Things I did not Know about the US Intelligence Community

There were more than three things I didn't know about US intelligence, not the least of which was the existance of the actual department of ODNI. While I had heard of John Negroponte I never realized he was actually part of an established agency. I was also unaware that there was such a great unifying force within the new (post 911) US intelligence community. I had heard about some of these things but typically scoffed at them as being some new way for the "Man" to tap my phone calls or try to find out where I'm hiding my weed. I was not aware of how active DNI has been and how many potential threats it has intercepted since its establishment. I hate to say it, but I think the new interconnectedness of the various intelligence agencies under one unifying organization may just be an actual contribution of the Shrub presidency. (Not that W. had anything to do with it aside from saying, "Yeah, that sounds like a good idear, boys.")

Are We Ugly Americans?

I think our government has taken steps to ensure that our country as a political entity is "ugly," and it is true that Americans (generally speaking) , as the largest consumer culture and one of the wealthiest nations in the world, can be a little obnoxious with it's "me me me" attitude. Particularly those with enough wealth to travel frequently. I know, as a relative "have not" that sometimes wealth can just be damned ostentatious, and I think we display that to a degree. But primarily it is out money/oil/power hungry government that is truly ugly. Killing for oil? Ugly. Promising to sign the Kyoto accord and then changing our mind? Ugly. Unilaterally attacking other countries for lies, torturing, secret prisons... Oh yeah. Ugly. Any wrong is ugly, but we have more potential for "evildoin'" because we have more power and influence to misuse globally.

Blog Question - Is Nuclear Deterrence Needed Today?

Considering nuclear technology exists, and some countries have it, I suppose I'll relent that we should have it too. The trouble is that the more that nuclear technology proliferates, as it most assuredly will, the more likely there will be some sort of nuclear attack somewhere in the world. I do think that if America took the lead in disarmament and non-proliferation we could reduce the availability of nuclear weapons throughout the world. Nuclear weapons do not serve the US very well in a strategic sense, since we don't use them (for obvious reasons,) and we have conventional weapons that can do just about anything we need to do strategically. These weapons of course also serve as a deterrent. I guess the problem with the "weapon as deterrent" philosophy is that you're assuming that your enemy is a country such as the old USSR who also has nuclear weapons and who cares about the "mutually ensured destruction" concept, and not some rogue terrorist group who just wants to inflict massive damage and doesn't care about the result, in which case our nuclear arsenal isn't much of a deterrent. So against North Korea or any other countries who have nuclear weapons I guess we do need them, but that by no means keeps us safe from some nutcase with a suitcase bomb. Which, you know, sucks.

Blog Question 2

I think all of these definitions are partly true, but it is easy to see where they fall short or overlap. I think that these are all elements of a larger and more inclusive definition of the Presidency. I agree that the President must have character, be strong, make use of the constitutional powers afforded to him/her, and that to some degree the president is a figurehead and much of what he/she does is moot. But the president sets an agenda, creates opinions and is the commander in chief. I guess what I'm getting at is that these definitions are limited and for anything to be capital T True it must be inclusive of all that is true. Now, me, I'm a skeptic but also a romantic, I honestly believe that a man of virtue and character, a Jimmy Stewart sort of prototypical person could step in and be honest and good and true and fair, all at the same time. Yes, there are hard choices to be made, but integrity can guide these decisions. If one is honest with the electorate about why one is doing what they are doing and seeks to form public opinion while being informed by public opinion, I think it can be done. Primarily, though I think it is the President's job to execute the will of the people. This should come before any personal idealogical pet subject.

Blog Question 1

I don't think Hillary Clinton is likely to have the support for 2008, she is just too devisive a figure, and I think Americans have had enough of devisiveness for a while. So, I'm hoping that maybe in 2016 Barak Obama will give it a run. If any minority is going to make it to the Presidency, I believe he has the best shot.

Test Post

This is a test post.