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.

Posted under Cultural Battles, Global Warming, Politics by Will Gries on Sunday, October 14th 2007; 6:32 pm

Comments (2)

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.

Posted under Language Wars, Philosophy, Politics by Will Gries on Thursday, September 20th 2007; 8:29 pm

Comments (0)

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?

Posted under Language Wars, Terrorism, War on Terror by Will Gries on Monday, July 9th 2007; 11:39 am

Comments (0)

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”

Posted under Cultural Battles, Iraq War, Philosophy, Politics, War on Terror by Will Gries on Thursday, June 28th 2007; 10:14 pm

Comments (0)

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.

Posted under Cultural Battles, Legal, Other, Politics, Terrorism by Will Gries on Sunday, April 29th 2007; 3:44 pm

Comments (0)

In the wake of the VA Tech tragedy; we have seen how easy it was for the shooter to buy his mass-murder weapon. It hurts us that somebody so mentally disturbed can even touch a gun not to mention use it. Perhaps, if guns weren’t legal then we could easily avoid such a tragedy in the future. Right?

Wrong. It is as simple as the say ‘Guns don’t kill people, people kill people’. This simple phrase sums it up nicely: The gun doesn’t actually kill anyone, it just enables people to kill in a different way. People killed long before guns and people would still kill after they are (if they ever) taken away. Nut-job killers will just have to find a new way to kill people.

Now for a history lesson. The framers intended for us to have guns; they even say so in the second amendment. Why? Well, our country wouldn’t have ever started if it wasn’t for the fact that Americans had guns to fight the British with. We would still be British if it wasn’t for those guns. Furthermore, our founders believed that it was our right to abolish governments that stood in the way of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. They say so in the Declaration of Independence: “…that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” It becomes very clear that they want us to have guns for our own good; to over throw our government when it begins to oppress.

Let’s consider this for a second. We outlaw guns right now… no citizens have them, however our military and police forces do. Right now, we can consider these forces friendly but what happens in 150 years when the government begins to oppress Americans. Perhaps they even harm us. We have no way to overthrow the government as the founders wanted and we have no way to protect ourselves from our government. Sounds like a terrible situation to me.

If we outlaw guns, will criminals (law breakers) stop using them? NO, of course not: they are law breakers and WILL break the law. They just will have to get their guns from Mexico or other sources which presents two big problems for America. One, we won’t have any record of these guns. When a criminal uses them in a murder, we won’t be able to identify the gun killed the victim and the person who actually committed the crime. And two, criminals will still have guns however law abiding Americans won’t have the right to have a gun for protection. What I mean to say is that currently, criminals have to play it safe not know if the person they are about to rob has a handgun in her jacket or a gun in his shoe. They have to guess and hope; they don’t have the guarantee of safety. Make them certain of what they are doing and they will be almost unstoppable.

What happens to all the guns currently in possession? Lots of professional and amateur hunters spend quite a lot of money on guns. Are we just to force these people to throw away items that they paid quite a bit of money for? What about those people who have guns passed down as family heirlooms? Are we to expect them to throw away something that has been in their family possession for ages?

What happens to the deer population? It is already exploding, I’d hate to see what would happen if we took away all the hunters that are keeping them in check. Our society would experience more car crashes with deer meaning higher costs (insurance) and more fatal accidents.

What would we do with the people that we put of a job? Many, many people make a living off of things relating to the gun industry. Are we really willing to allow these people to lose their jobs?

After examining the issue (and hopefully covering everything), I think that it is pretty safe to say that completely removing guns from our society would be a harmful thing. It would be expensive, it would be economically harming, it would have a small effect on crime, and it would put in a bad place if we ever need to have a change of regime right here in our own country.

Posted under Cultural Battles, Legal, News, Politics by Will Gries on Friday, April 20th 2007; 9:34 pm

Comments (0)

It just gets old after awhile. In our society, we barely go three months without hearing at least something about racism. Somebody was racist or somebody accused somebody of being racist. Right now, it is beat up Don Imus day. As far as I am concerned this isn’t the first and won’t be the last ‘Let’s have a discussion on racism’ moment.

Sure, Don Imus’ remarks were uncalled for. What he said on the air was absolutely ridiculous. It was insulting for all of the rest of us to listen to. But was it really necessary to fire him?  No, let the free market do that.  Lets face it; NBC and CBS WANT public attention. It gets their companies money and that is what is needed in our open market place. So why did they fire the guy that gets them the money?

The simple answer: Americans are willing to ‘People of color’ to say insulting things about their own race (see almost ever song ever made) but not willing to let white Americans say the same thing. Ironically, the only reason why rappers can afford to say these things is because Americans buy their albums. As long as we are willing to buy music that insults Blacks, Whites, Women, etc; they will be willing to make it.

If we have reached a point in our history where we have decided that it is time to end racism, we need to stop feeding the people who fuel it. Stop listening to the Imus’ of the world; stop buying hateful rap. Stop making race something to be talked about.

Of course, this applies to diversity on the whole. You go anywhere that ‘celebrates diversity’ and take a look around. You can see information on Black culture, Asian culture, Indian culture but you will never see anything on European Culture. Similarly, you can see stuff on Islam and Hindu religions but you will never encounter stuff on Christianity or, in some cases, even Judaism.

The simplest method to solving the problem is to just stop talking about it. Or, if you are going to talk about it, give everyone equal spotlight.

Posted under Cultural Battles, Politics, Religion by Will Gries on Sunday, April 15th 2007; 6:22 pm

Comments (0)

Several clips depicting the Thai king as a monkey were posted on YouTube this past week. Apparently, the Thai Government is extremely offended and has requested that Google (Google owns YouTube) remove the video clips. They view it as an insult to the Thai people and they view it as illegal; insulting the monarchy in Thailand carries a punishment. In fact, recently a Swiss man was sentenced 10 years in prison for defacing a photograph of the King.

I find this a little crazy. Firstly, if somebody is going to play the game; that is be involved in politics whether it be as a President, King, Senator, whatever - they had better be ready to be made fun of. They shouldn’t strike back because somebody is making fun at them; in fact I would say that if they can manage to laugh at themselves they turn out better in the end.

Secondly, the Minister of Information and Technology, Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom, is on the record stating that he is a proponent of free speech but will not tolerate materials that offend the monarchy! How contradictory, this guy says he wants free speech and then kills it in the same sentence.

Of course Google made a rather surprise move to refuse aid… they aid the Chinese government in censoring results for Chinese users meaning that Chinese users only receive results approved by the Chinese government. Then again, Thailand had it right, it is all about the money. See Thailand actually only blocked YouTube and not Google so Google can still make money in Thailand plus even if Google was blocked Thailand is such a small market that it wouldn’t break Google’s back to not have it. But not having China would break Google’s back, so that is why they help with the censoring.

“Don’t Be Evil.” Wikipedia. 3 Apr. 2007. Wikipedia. 8 Apr. 2007

“More Clips Mocking Thai King Posted on YouTube.” CNet News. 6 Apr. 2007. cNet. 8 Apr. 2007 http://news.com.com/More+clips+mocking+Thai+king+posted+on+YouTube/2100-1028_3-6174042>.

“YouTube Offers to ‘Educate’ Thai Officials to End Ban Over Videos Mocking Revered King.” FOXNews. 7 Apr. 2007. FOXNews. 8 Apr. 2007

Posted under Comic Relief, Cultural Battles, News, Other, Politics by Will Gries on Monday, April 9th 2007; 3:16 pm

Comments (0)

The story behind the kidnapping of the 15 British sailors has more to it than the Iranian government is revealingly.

There is no doubt in my mind that the 15 British sailors were in Iraqi waters.  I don’t doubt the GPS data released by the British Government proving that they were in legal waters.  I also don’t doubt that they were in Iraqi waters because Iranians frequently move between Iraq and Iran kidnapping and terrorizing as they please.

I think the Iranians who kidnapped the sailors weren’t really aware of their position when they happened upon the 15.  I think they kidnapped, taking the opportunity that was given to them.  I also think that these Iranians don’t report to the President of Iran, but to the religious zealots that practically run Iran.  Now Iran has the hostages and my best guess is that they don’t really know what to do with them now.

They aren’t really of any value to them dead or alive so I don’t see why they are keeping them alive (or in custody).  It seems odd to me that they haven’t already killed them; they know that they won’t get their demands.  So far the have demanded a total British troop withdrawal from Iraq.

The only value that these saliors have the government is to keep the country united, to keep the country from falling apart (which it will eventually, all these regimes of terror will - to be replaced with new regimes of terror or otherwise).  It gives the Government some power; they can say look, here are the beginnings of the invaders.  They will try to charge the country with nationalism; a last ditch effort to keep the country from falling into a revolution.

I also think that they are keeping them to distract the World from the ongoing Nuclear development.  Granted, it will only work for so long but have you heard the media talk about the nukes since the hostage taking?

The British should find where they are keeping the hostages (easier said than done, but the British have a good espionage agency) and rescue them.  Not a Carter style rescue either (unsuccessful) but a rescue that the elite Brits are capable of.  Good Luck and God’s Speed.

Posted under Cultural Battles, News, Politics by Will Gries on Monday, April 2nd 2007; 3:01 pm

Comments (0)

It occurred to me the other day that just because a Government is big, doesn’t mean that it is bad.  Certainly one can spend a lot of money and be fiscally responsible at the same time.  It is a simple matter of not spending more than you take in and putting away money for the future.

Many Republicans (although a shrinking number) would make you believe that more programs is a bad thing.  Of course, if America wants more programs, more spending - it will come at a price:  Taxes will have to be raised.  However, I would rather see Taxes Raised and the Government be more responsible with my money then have taxes remain the same and the government spend it on things that they can’t afford.

Ironically, the Bush Administration actually made (makes) the problem worse because they’ve added more benefits to existing social programs such as Medicare.  America already can’t afford Medicare - why should we make it more expensive?

Personally, I would opt for a smaller government.  Whenever an institution gets big - it tends to have corruption problems and I think that should be avoided.  I would like to see many of these social programs slashed; Americans already spend roughly around 44% of their income on various taxes (Federal, State, Local).  I would like to see taxes down to 22% or less.

But failing that, I would like to see the Government balance their budget and not spend more than they are bringing in.  Thousands of people do it everyday, why can’t the government as well?

Posted under Cultural Battles, Politics by Will Gries on Monday, March 12th 2007; 6:44 pm

Comments (0)