Monday 17 December 2007

What part of "lockbox" don't you understand?

It’s been seven years since Al Gore ran for president. Most of us wished he had won then, but now it is truly his (last) time to win us over once and for all.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Al Gore on Saturday Night Live, 13 May 2006
“Parallel Universe—if Al Gore was elected in 2000”


In 2000, the United States made a huge mistake and elected George W. Bush as our president. His opponent, former Vice President Al Gore, was the obvious choice and has since then moved on without us. He’s the face of climate change awareness and is leading a crusade to save the earth. Every once and a while, I wonder what it would have been like if Al Gore was president…

Would 9/11 have happened?
Would an unnecessary war in the Middle East have been launched?
Would his “lockbox” idea have worked? (to save money from the surplus)
Would we still have a surplus?

Saturday Night Live cast Al Gore to conduct a skit of what the world would have been like if he was president in 2006 after his documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was released and he was stepping back into the public spotlight. It reminded me, at least, of what we missed out on. I can only hope other SNL watchers that night became nostalgic (and hopeful) like I did.

I sometimes wonder if Bush was fated to be president for eight years. Al Gore lost when it seemed like the whole country was on his side. Was it fate for Bush to ruin the world and Gore to come back in and save us? Strangely enough, I believe that’s the correct way to think about it. Gore returned to mainstream politics two years before the next presidential election after years of us not knowing what he was up to. Why did he bring up the dire need to save the environment in 2006 and not 2001? Maybe people are right—‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is a 93 minute long presidential campaign commercial. And what a successful campaign run it has been so far.

Whether Gore thought this through or not, he’s back in our minds and the US is itching for him to announce his candidacy. We've more than realized what a huge mistake we made in 2000, thank you very much! Maybe he'll be like Bobby Kennedy and put his bid in a few days before the first primary; which in 2008 it's in Iowa on 13 January. If Gore doesn’t run for president in 2008, he most likely never will and most importantly—we wouldn’t want him to.

Basically, this is how I see it: if he doesn’t want to help lead our country towards a better path NOW then there will be no use for him after the 2008 election. The media has been concentrating on the Democratic candidates as opposed to the Republicans, which is installing hope that a Democrat is going to win. Assuming a Democrat does take office in 2008, I doubt they’ll ruin everything like Bush did. We wouldn’t need Al Gore to come in and clean house after Mr. or Mrs. Democrat is president for four to eight years. The candidates are capable of installing at least half of Gore’s ideals on their own, so there’d really be no use for him to come into office after the next president’s term is over.

This is Gore’s final hour and I believe he’d win by an overwhelming majority. How can any Republican candidate compare to Gore? They’ve all flip-flopped on their political stances in the last few months, said really terrible and embarrassing things that have been detrimental to their campaigns, and none of them have that sparkle in their eye and a comforting smile like Gore does.

What makes me so sure about Gore’s ability to win the presidency is the fact the attitude of the country has changed. In 2006, US voters showed they were angry at the current administration (regime!) by electing an overwhelming number of Democrats into Congress. And the only person who seems to understand the anger we had in November 2006 and right now is Al Gore. People are increasingly rallying behind him and the messages he’s sent through his documentary and books. In all honesty, though, his words would be much more powerful if he was the leader of the United States.

It's always comes down to "shoulda, coulda, woulda" when it comes to US politics. No matter how hard I wish we were sucked into a time continuum and transferred back to 2000 so we can make up for our mistake, it just won't happen. But now Gore can finally win us over with the new and improved Gore, version 2.008. He's won most of us over as the modest spokesperson of climate change. He's made some of us giggle with glee with some of the things he's said about Bush. He's no longer the guy who tried too hard to get the youth population to vote for him. He's the guy that will draw in voters of all ages with his messages on saving the earth. He's finally looking at the bigger picture! I think only Gore can save us (and this is the only chance he'll get to do it). We have to make up for a majority of voters electing Bush to office (twice) somehow!!!

Friday 14 December 2007

The super-country that won't save the world

The United States seems to hate U.N. sanctified agreements. Not only have they rejected the Kyoto Protocol (we're the last industrialized country to not sign it) but they've now refused to sign the new emissions agreement drafted at the Bali climate conference this week. China--who will one day soon pass the US in the greenhouse gases they produce--said the fight against climate change won't work until the US gets on board. How ironic.

Why is the US dragging its heels about signing this agreement? If you looked at what's going on in the US itself to help deter the crisis of climate change, you'd see a different picture. For instance, the Senate passed a bill yesterday to increase fuel-economy in vehicles to 35 MPG as a minimum and increase the usage of ethanol gasoline to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022. Local governments are even putting their two-cents in by initiating better recycling programs, campaigning for better public transport/carpool/biking programs, as well as other things. Of course, we all know that increasing fuel-economy of cars and recycling alone isn't going to fix the delicate climate situation.

We need to jump on board with the U.N's new agreement to lower emissions by 25 to 40 percent by 2020. The Kyoto Protocol has signed on to follow the agreement, but the US refuses to sign. According to MSNBC:

"The Kyoto Protocol nations have accepted that goal, and the numbers were written into early versions of the Bali conference’s final document — not as a binding target, but as a suggestion in the preamble. The text also called for “comparability of efforts” — that is, U.S. cuts comparable to those of other industrial nations.

The U.S. delegation immediately opposed any inclusion of such numbers, complaining they would tend to “drive the negotiations in one direction,” as U.S. negotiator Harlan Watson put it."

OH SHUT UP Mr. Watson!! Whiny baby. I know it's a US negotiator's job to whine in honour of President Bush every time we're sent to deal with the U.N... But come on. If we keep sending representatives in that are going in with a mission to kill negotiations then we might as well not go at all. Let the rest of the world decide how they're going to save the climate and we can just go back to being the abomination of the West.

As if by magic, Al Gore (who said the US is responsible for blocking progress during his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Norway yesterday) and leaders at the conference are trying to trudge on without the US's full cooperation. And as if they were affected by this magic, the US has come back to the table to compromise on the agreement; however, they came back with their duke's up. It's their way or the highway... (It's the US motto, don't you know?)

A little over an hour ago, the president of the conference, Indonesian Environment Minister Rachmat Witoelar, announced they've changed the goals to cutting emissions by half by 2050 and that America will participate on a voluntary basis.

Voluntary? WHAT THE HELL? Might as well just say we did and didn't. I don't think the US understands how big of a roadblock they are to the fight against climate change. No one wants to see that because it's all oil-loving, tree-fearing, bible-thumbing, buddies of Bush that are representing our country at these conferences and we're all suffering from their limited view on the world. And not just the US is suffering, the whole world is suffering.

It's hard to believe that after all the shit this country has done to the world, the international community still respects our opinion on something as detrimental as fighting global warming. And we're not giving them the satisfaction either! How rude. We can't go on, thinking we represent the world if we won't grow-up and actually play a role in the international community.

I want to save the world, thank you very much. It's embarrassing to be from a country that won't participate in agreements from an organisation we helped put together. It's embarrassing we won't clean up after the mess we helped create. Oh wait, we're doing that right now in the Middle East too. Jeez. We're such polluters of a multiple breed.

Wednesday 12 December 2007

Mr President, Reyjavik is on the phone for you (and other tidbits)

1. I think this has got to be the best political story I've read all year:

"Icelandic teen prank calls White House
Teen says he pretended to be Iceland's president, scheduled call with Bush"

I bet his parents will be pissed when the get the phone bill, eh? Apparently the 16 year old mastermind behind this seemingly simple plan was transferred around the White House switchboards (wow the staff at the White House are just as wasteful and idiotic as the main man in the Oval Office) until he reached the desk of the President's secretary and successfully scheduled a phone conversation that was to take place today. Unfortunately, the Icelandic police were tipped off and the boy was apprehended. Poor sod.

I just wish I had thought of this myself. Of course, I could only complete the process if I had enough time on my hands and was still I minor (to get sympathy points for being underage, of course). Maybe I could still do this? I can call and say I'm Angela Merkel, maybe? I need to work on my German accent first though. And I need a German phone number... That can be arranged. But now that it's been tried, I'd rather not do it. How embarrassing would it be if someone else tried? I actually wouldn't be surprised if someone else does try. This time around though, they'd get stop because now they know. Proof we're a reactive, not proactive society...


2. According to MSNBC, our favorite buddy Ahmadinejad has a blog! One that is rarely updated, but he has one nonetheless. (I wonder if he mentions in there why he fears history so much) Anyway, here's the exciting part--he's updated! OH WOW! He's just about as slow as President Bush... (oh diss)

I didn't read the blog, but if you're interested: ahmadinejad.ir. Simple enough! (maybe I should link him to be a buddy on my blog? what do you think?) What a great way to keep up with the world's second biggest liar-liar-with-pants-on-fire.

"His posts are less confrontational than his usual speeches and the comments are both scathing and supportive," says NBC correspondent Ali Arouzi.

And I'm sure they are. Why do I say that? I have a sneaking suspicion it's not Iran's nationalist leader but a fake. Maybe someone in his government is behind it, a party member, or some random Joe who wants to spread the word that Ahmadinejad isn't as bad as the Western media portrays him to be.

Here's why I think it's a fake. MSNBC user Greg had this to say:
"I liked reading Ahmadinejad's Message to America. After seeing this man smeared in American media when he came to visit our country, it was refreshing to see his perspective on global politics. I think he raises some quality points on the illegitimacy of on-going US foreign policy in Israel and now in Iraq. When you look at what the US has accomplished in the Middle East since 9/11, it's pretty pitiful and even embarrassing what has been done.
Even if President Bush had a blog, I wouldn't read it because it's real authors would undoubtedly be his speech-writers. There's no way to tell whether Amadinejad's entries in his blog aren't drawn up by someone else too, though they appear to be in his own words."

He's suspicious too you see... but I think whatever Greg and others read was a piece put together to make Ahmadinejad look better and to make the US look worse then it already does. As a liberal Democrat who takes offense to everything Bush has done since he was sworn into office in January 2001 and 2005, I don't need to be reminded by a person who could be certifiably insane that things are shit in the US. I don't need to be reminded that our foreign policy is shit, etc. Thanks Ahmaddy (or fake Ahmaddies), but no thanks. You keep your comments on your side of the world and I'll keep mine on my side of the world. Deal?

3. Col. Moammar Gadhafi de Libya alle à Paris

An emotional supporter of terrorism who was given the cold shoulder by the Western world in the 1980s, Libyan leader Gadhafi showed up in France this week for a six day visit with the government and President Sarkozy.

Why did Gadhafi feel the need to leave his haven and visit France? Last I heard, Libya n'aime pas la France et France n'aime pas le Libya. And last I heard Libya was just a country with oil and turmoil... soo... Why do we care?

Maybe we should care about his visit to France. He gave a speech to the French National Assembly (where he was met by a brief protest by the Socialist and a few other non-Socialists) and said he wanted wars to stop. Stop with the "cold and hot wars." I guess that makes sense?

Gadhafi probably left his country so he could strike up financial deals with the Conservative president (which they did) and that's it. I don't think he wants to be the face of diplomacy or even cares about it. He's never said anything spectacular before. He's no Jimmy Carter, that's for sure. But he did have some interesting things to say today and as I read about the speech he gave in the National Assembly, I found I was nodding my head in agreement. Which is weird because I normally don't agree with what a military-esque leader has to say.

The most significant thing he spoke of was that Israel and Palestine should form one state. I'm not sure what provoked him to say this. He was in France after all--which I don't think was a big player in the week-long Israel/Palestine peace talk-type puppet show called Annapolis. I don't think France has much alliance with those two countries because oh, I dunno, most of their Jews were wiped out during WWII and the immigrants living in France come from the Maghreb and not Palestine... It doesn't make sense. It's not like the Northern African immigrants living in France care about Palestine. If they did care, we'd know about it. Instead their kids are causing riots. (but that's another story entirely)

I like that this guy is open about a unified Palestinian-Israeli country; but who is going to go for it? The Israelis? The Palestinians? I'm going to have to say neither party. Peace talks are back on between Palestine and Israel as of today, even after Israeli tanks rolled into Gaza yesterday, and that's good enough for me. If they can live peacefully in sovereign lands, side-by-side, than I think all of our problems would be solved. Having a unified country would cause just about as much chaos that is occurring at the moment (or worse).

It's interesting Gadhafi chose France as the platform for this message. Did he not think he could get away with announcing it in Libya? It's sad to say, but yes, I think so. He has to turn to the West to get some type of message out to the world. Which, that may come back to bite him in the end. I'm a little pessimistic so what can I say. For now, I'm pretty proud a leader from a North African country is supportive of peace and change as far as the Palestine-Israel thing goes. I'm not sure if he had any words to share about anything else occurring in the Middle East right now; and that's okay. He might stir up trouble if he does.

I don't understand why French politicians and citizens protested Gadhafi today, but maybe tomorrow he'll say something else that is terribly off-centre and that'll give me a reason to detest him. Right now--I can't say I don't like him. At least he's trying.

(that's all folks!)

Wednesday 5 December 2007

Another lie, another excuse...

President Bush is a busy man. First he tries to solve the issues between Israel and Palestine in a week long conference, then he's back to stirring the angry pot that is the Middle East by focusing on Iran and their supposed nuclear bomb program. What is wrong with this man?!?! (both Bush and Ahmadinejad, actually)

A report was released stating Iran's nuclear program ceased operation in 2003 until their recent experiments with nuclear power plants. The probability of them constructing a nuclear bomb is small, as the whole world is watching them, but Bush is convinced that they are able to put a bomb together faster then you can say "Bush is an idiot." The president's men believe Iran will have a bomb complete by 2010-2015; however there is no proof. But has lack of proof ever stopped Bush from fluffing his feathers out like an angry peacock before? NO, of course not. He's the president so, you know, whatever he says must be true. He went to Yale after all and barely made it out alive. He has an MBA. So he must be trustworthy!

Excuse me while I laugh my head off.

I remember when Bush was verbally attacking Iraq. He told us they had WMD, but the U.N. said they didn't. Bush said Iraq must be brought down because they have WMD and screw what the U.N. says. Then we launched a little attack that, to this day, remains a pain in our side. I have a feeling Iran is going to be another Iraq. Out of nowhere, Bush became defense about Iraq and a possible WMD program. Now he's getting defence out of nowhere about Iran and a possible nuclear program. It's like history is repeating itself and it's very unsettling.

Bush--or the US in general--is not responsible to bring resolve to the Middle East. They need to figure that out on their own. Bush is no peacekeeper or Army hero. He's just a stupid man who only thinks about himself and surrounds himself with people who are exactly like him, which then leads to giving him and his idiocy some type of clout. I don't want to go down because of Bush's mistakes. He can rant and rave all he wants about Iran and the fact that he doesn't believe the report published by the National Intelligence Estimate. He cites a document researched by the US two years ago that says Iran is constructing nuclear bombs--but where is this document? Who authored it and how did they get the information? It's not like a researcher just walked into Iran and said "Hello! I'm from the US and I'd like to conduct a report to see if you're making nuclear bombs. Do you mind if I have a look around?" If someone did that, I doubt they'd live to tell the tale.

I just don't trust this man and I hope once and for all people realize that Bush is a liar. He forges documentation and proof of an existing "problem." This has been proven time and time again over the past two years or so. The Bush Administration is one of the most corrupt governments the US has ever had. I just wish more people would realize that Bush is the problem--not Iran. Iran is only a problem because Bush said so. His big mouth has caused Iran's negative reaction to the US and the US reaction to their reaction. (make sense?)

I wish we were handling this more like the EU. Sure Ahmadinejad has cancelled meetings with the EU recently (he sure likes to build himself up and then chicken out at the last minute, doesn't he?!), but at least the EU is not opening their mouths and pointing fingers over something they really have no knowledge about. Besides the fact, why is the US so worried about a nuclear attack waged by Iran? Europe is closer. They should be the ones to worry. Oh wait. They weren't the ones who pissed them off so really, they shouldn't be the one trying to make peace. But here they are, cleaning up after Bush's messes and trying to right the wrongs. Europe is not the cleaning lady of the world, people! (Just like the US does not equal 'the world.')

Just like the news about a sudden peace conference in honour of Palestine and Israel disappeared from the news radars a week later, so will the news about Bush's poor judgement with Iran and their nuclear program. I think Bush is bored and felt like being in the spotlight. That's why all this stuff has taken centre stage the past two weeks. He's a lame duck president and should learn to live with it!

Monday 19 November 2007

Give it a rest already!

President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and (dictator) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran met on Monday to discuss a topic they really have no claim in: the disintegration of the American dollar.

What gives them the right to even discuss the economic situation in the US? Have they even looked at their country's financial status? Probably not. Cost for simple items have sky-rocketed since Ahmadinejad took control of Iran a few years ago and if I remember correctly, Venezuela--and much of South America--have never had an economy worth writing home about.

I'm an educated person and I like to convey my thoughts on political situations in intelligent prose, but after reading the article about Chavez and Ahmadinejad chumming it up as they bash the US, I only had one choice phrase to say (it's explicit, I warn you): shut the fuck up you son of a bitches.

If they had the strongest currency in the world, then maybe we could talk. But they don't, instead they have one of the worst. (it's 2,150 Venezuelan bolivars to $1 US and 9,325 Iranian rials to $1 US--just in case you were wondering) So shut it. These two men obviously are as stupid as President Bush and wouldn't be able to understand a financial report if it fell from the sky and smashed them on the head, so really I could care less what they say. But it does offend me that they think they're better then the US and can predict the future financial situation of the country based on things they find on the internet. (if they're even smart enough to navigate it, that is)

All in all, these guys piss me off and I love to rant about them--but at the end of the day, we need to ignore them. They're just blowing steam. They want to get us upset but we won't give them the pleasure!! Let them be BFFs. Let them think they can plan a way to bash us some more or plan an attack or whatever (send hate letters to Bush, written in crayon with their left hand). It's good they have one another to talk to because I doubt the majority of their countries actually support them at all. In fact, they're probably shaking their heads right now and muttering in their respective languages, "stupid bastards." Can't say I blame them. I do the same whenever I read something about Bush in the news.

If Venezuela wants a fight, then throw Chavez in a real life boxing ring with Bush and let them go at it. I don't want a part in this. If the US military did attack Venezuela, well then a) the rest of South America would probably join in and/or b) South America would implode under the stress of yet ANOTHER episode of civil unrest. And same goes for Ahmadinejad. Heck, I'll fight the fool myself. "The Holocaust is fake," my ass. Everything that guy says is usually wrong in one way or another and he always manages to piss off 95% of the world anyway, but you don't deny something that didn't even take place in the Middle East (well, officially), haven't seen artifacts from, haven't researched, and weren't even alive for! Honestly--how stupid and selfish can people get?! This guy should be a poster child for what's wrong with the education systems in the world. (and what's wrong with the world in general)

Let's just treat them like the idiots that they are and move on. The American dollar will survive. I'll make sure it does--otherwise, the US government will have to answer to me! (I'm sick of paying this outrageous exchange rate between the UK and the US!) And if we attack Iran, oil will not rise to $200 a barrel. It'll do that on it's own thanks to the greedy businessmen. Don't be so full of yourself, Chavez, jeez.

Thursday 11 October 2007

Thinking it over

After George W. Bush was elected as president of the U.S. for the first and second time, my stomach clenched with impending doom. Was my future at stake? And if so, how badly? I will never understand how someone who can't even control his own windpipe (the choking on pretzel incident, remember that?)--let alone speak correctly--became president of the country I am sometimes proud to call my home. We've dealt with the shame for seven years and despite current attempts to pass a bill through Congress to begin impeaching this modern day Mussolini, we'll be stuck with him for another 15 months. Oh bother!

In the mean time, I get to sit here, twiddling my thumbs as one political issue after another comes into play. The issues we have to deal with gets worse every year. From 9/11 to the Blackwater scandal, everything starts and ends like a dramatic Shakespeare play. Is it fair the general American population has to suffer through this? No, of course not. That's why I, being the very smart individual that I am, left the country. I'm living in the UK for a year in order to escape the politics of America. But you know what? The political problems followed me here. No matter how hard I try to shake them off my leg, they just won't let go.

In order to deal with the drama, I've decided to start this blog. Random Myspace blogs ranting about the government is no longer the way to go. I'm an MA student in Journalism and I have to take this seriously now. I just hope I will do my fellow Democrats proud with my attempts to analyze and discuss any serious political issues at hand.

Here's to another long 15 months of Bush's presidency, the scandals still waiting to befall us, and the presidential race of 2008! CHEERS! *clink*