The theory of Global Climate Change is the only thing that has kept Al Gore a public figure. After the 2000 election he was almost entirely forgotten, that is until An Inconvenient Truth (well, it’s convenient for him). Since that documentary, Gore is everywhere. He’s won several awards (some he deserved) but the most outrageous one given to him is the Nobel Peace Prize (shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)

Wow, the Nobel Peace Prize, what’s that? Well, in Alfred Nobe’s own words it is “[awarded] to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” Wait! which of those has Al Gore and the IPCC done? They haven’t done the most or best work for fraternity between nations, they haven’t done the most or best work for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and they done the most or best work for the establishment of peace congresses. So what exactly did they receive the award for?

According to the foundation, they received the award for “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.” WAIT! isn’t man made climate change a theory? So, not only did he receive the award for none of the criteria given but for a theory that has received criticism for failing to accurate predict climate effects?

Good to hear that the Nobel Peace Prize no longer means anything.

A friend recently recommended that I read the book 1984 by George Orwell and I was quite surprised at how much I liked it. I really didn’t like the ending of the book but up until that point I thought that it was a very good read. For whatever reason, I started to think about the concepts presenting in the book and was shocked at how much that they resembled real life.

I’m talking about the concepts of Thoughtcrime and Newspeak. For those unfamiliar with the book, Thoughtcrime is pretty much like it sounds: thoughts are deemed to be unexceptable by the standards of the “Party” or government and therefore labeled as crime. Newspeak is also like it sounds: it is the new language for all of Oceania, the country that Orwell invents for the purposes of the book (present day Western Hemisphere plus Great Britain). The language is based on English but its goal is to limit the freedom of speech for all that speak it, making a thoughtcrime impossible (because there aren’t words to describe another point of view).

So how do Thoughtcrime and Newspeak relate to real life. Certainly we have freedom of speech (and thought), right? Yes and no. We do to a point; Congress makes no law on what we can or can’t say (or think) but the court of public opinion does.

Keep a cautious eye on the five middle eastern men who board your airplane and you are having a political incorrect thought (Thoughtcrime). Or, calling a person a ‘Native American’ rather than an ‘Indian’ (Newspeak).

These are just a few of examples of the phenomenon called ‘Political Correctness’. Granted, the whole purpose of political correctness is to stop people from saying things that are mean or hurtful to a person on the basis of nationality, gender, religion, skin color, etc. I don’t think that it is a bad thing if people aren’t discriminative or hostile towards others – indeed lack of this would make the world a better place. But censoring a free person in this manner (all humans are supposed to be free) is worse than the actual “hate” that they would have said in the first place.

Getting back to the purpose of political correctness though; the whole idea is very much like Newspeak. Think, the purpose of Newspeak in the book was to make it literally impossible for somebody to think a thought that was contrary to what ‘Big Brother’ wanted that to think. Political correctness works the same way, attempting to remove words from our vocabulary that are potentially hurtful to others. If political correctness succeeds, people will have no way of insulting somebody on the basis of the aforementioned topics (not that they should, but it isn’t something that somebody should tell you not to do).

Do I think that the world will regress into the scenario described in 1984? No, the rest of the story seems utterly unrealistic to me. I just think that people would be more vocal if the their rights were taken away in the manner described by Orwell. That said, I would definitely consider this book a must read. Not only for the concepts I’ve talked about but for the other stuff as well. You’d be surprised at how many times other materials (books, movies, TV shows, even people) reference this book.

The way the terrorist events were handled over the last two weeks (or should I say fortnight) was spectacular; only one terrorist injured and eight or nine arrests. The British seem to be really on top of things. But I don’t really think that this can be attributed to the new PM, it’s credit really goes to the hard work of the British police and the MI5. I think Gordon Brown is really a softy when it comes to the issue.

As one of his first acts as PM, he ordered his government to stop using the term, “the War on Terror”, because he feared it might offend Muslims. According to the British Government, many British Muslims think that the phrase is a euphemism for a ‘War on Islam’. How silly, the war isn’t on Muslims, the war is on terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children to spread a political or religious message (doesn’t matter if they are Muslim). Furthermore (and this is especially applicable in the UK), who says radical Muslims are the only ones that are terrorists?

I’ve kind of let my position on the Iraq war slip around a bit, because frankly, I’m not really sure where I stand. This note shouldn’t be considered a position but a thought. Here are my thoughts for today:

• The battles can be won by military might and genius, but the solution to a war is always political. This is why we left Vietnam, America didn’t have a political solution. What is our political solution to Iraq? Can Iraq really be compared to Vietnam because let’s face it, the North Vietnamese didn’t really want to follow us home?
• Which is a bigger draw for potential al-Qaeda membership, those American pigs are invaded the homeland of Iraqis or those American pigs don’t have the might to stand up to us? It’s simple, once people realize the world’s only super power can’t win a war they will be lining up to join; their goal suddenly becomes more accomplishable.
• Why hasn’t Iraq succeeded like Afghanistan succeeded? Both had evil dictators (Hussein for Iraq, the Taliban for Afghanistan) so why are the results so different? Afghans have succeeded because they have a sense of national identity where Iraqis are more concerned with their ethnic identity. The three factions in Iraq only want to be identified as Shia, Sunni or Kurd and not as Iraqi.
• Who can actually say the war is lost? Militarily we are succeeding; we are bringing in the terrorists everyday. It is the political aspect where we are failing. Which side of a war is more important, military success or political success? How can we succeed political when we can’t get Iraqis to develop a national identity?
• The phrase ‘The Emperor has No Clothes’ has been used by many to describe President Bush, but who really has no clothes, the people who deny the war isn’t going perfect or the people who deny that the war is necessary?
• Why did al-Qaeda chose to attack us in the first place? We even supported their cause against the Soviets (giving them all sorts of weapons they are now using against us). How can we change the hearts and minds from thinking killing innocents is ok to thinking that life is important? How can we convince them that stability is the way to move forward? How can we convince them to be civil?
• How would our motivations change if we were attacked again tomorrow? Would the war suddenly become justified again? Why are people so quick to forget that terrorism isn’t going to go away once we pull out, we weren’t in Iraq when were attacked on 9/11!
• Why do people think that our addiction to oil has anything to do with the hatred to Americans? We are pumping money into the Middle East by buying oil from there.
• Why do Extremists want to eradicate Israel and all Jews? What is the motivation by the Extremists to hate all Jews? Why do they want to eradicate anyone who disagrees with them? Why do they deny the Holocaust when their goal is to make an even bigger one?
• How do we keep the peace and keep our people safe? How do we win against an enemy that won’t reason? How do we beat people who take advantage of our freedoms and use them to destroy us? How can we move forward?
• Why can’t we move past the stupid notion 9/11 was caused by the Government? The simplest explanation is almost always the correct one (Occam’s razor).

“United We Stand, Divided We Fall”

It is well know that the US intelligence agencies knew about 9/11 long before it happened. The reason that 9/11 was not stopped was the hefty layers of Government that surround the entire operation.

To stop the next attack we need to focus on not giving the government more power, but getting the government to use the power it already has to stop the next terrorist attack. Just adding more money and more people isn’t going to solve the problem. If we had the Department of Homeland Security back in 2001, the attack probably still would have occurred.

I think the best way to solve the problem is to cut the funds going to the Intelligence services. Cutting the funds will force them to layoff the extra people that are on the job. Less people, less problems. We need to have a plan for where we want the intelligence to go. Perhaps Homeland Security can act as a center for the whole operation. Foreign intelligence can go to the CIA, while domestic intelligence would be routed to the FBI. As far as I am concerned, the NSA can be picked apart and the appropriate pieces can be reassigned to the CIA and the FBI (perhaps Homeland Security, if we are using that as a hub).

Overall, there has to be less people involved. Government bureaucrats just make the situation worse. Perhaps the military should play a larger role in Intelligence management.

I realize that much of what I have just described is already happening (layout wise) however, they still have a surplus of people and that is dangerous as far as I am concerned.