Livin' It Up - Gore Style

Remember that old phrase about 'walking the walk' instead of just 'talking the talk'? Yea, well, apparently the self anointed Global Warming Messiah (Al Gore, for those of you not in the know) didn't learn that one. You see, when it comes to living the ultimate carbon-neutral lifestyle, Gore has a lot to say. Hell, if you've ever been unfortunate enough to see 'An Inconvenient Truth' (which, received an Oscar at yesterday's ESIC (Egregious Self-Inflation Ceremony)), as I have, you'll recall Gore continually making the point that us humans are responsible for Global Warming, and thus need to cut back on our energy consumption.

Well, that is....unless you live in a 20 bedroom, 8 bathroom Mansion outside of Nashville. Then it's ok. Naturally, Al Gore, with a hypocritical flair worthy of the great John Edwards himself, consumed some 20 times MORE power in 2006 than the average American household. Indeed, Gore's pithy dwelling consumes more of that evil industrial power in a month than most American homes do in a year.

You know, I'm beginning to think that Al Gore doesn't care about Polar Bears.

I mean, what is he going to say, in 10 years, to all those people who used to live in Florida? "I'm sorry your State is underwater, but I'm really kind of afraid of the dark, so I had to leave the all the lights on in all 20 of my bedrooms" Seriously, Al, that kind of B.S is just not going to cut it.

Of course, by the time Florida goes underwater from Global Warming; Al Gore will have had plenty of practice with Bullshit. Seriously, c'mon man! If you're going to run around doing your best Chicken Little impression you could at least act like you believed the sky was falling.

Consequently, I think it's safe to say that, for now, I can stop worrying about carbon pollution produced by my evil, gas-guzzling suburban; hell, Al Gore probably creates more carbon pollution in those 8 bathrooms.

Quite the example, eh?

***Update***

While Monsieur Gore has begun scurrying to defend himself against the onslaught of 'right-wing' criticism he's received for this story, info has surfaced showing that one of the most ginuinely eco-friendly homes in the Nation belongs to, of all people, President George W. Bush!!

Remember that point I made about 'walking the walk' instead of 'talking the talk'?

Making You Feel Safe Since 2001

Airport security, even in the Post-9/11 era, has never exactly been stellar. Sure, all kinds of new policies have been put in place, and, sure, there's been a whole slew of new Government bureaucracies and programs; but there's a difference between real security and 'feel-good' security. A lot of what we've seen Post-9/11 has been of the 'feel-good' variety, and this new security scanner is just another great example.

Apparently what it does is screen right through your clothes down to the contours of your skin to try and detect any concealed weapons or explosives you might have. As I read this, two problems immediately jumped to mind. First, this device, as you might have noticed, is being used to detect 'concealed' weapons. Here's a hint for the TSA folks, the normal, old fashioned metal detectors that we already have, don't detect guns by taking pictures. What they do is, when you pass through with a metallic item on you, they buzz. In other words, it's not the being-in-plain-sight part that makes metal detectors spot guns, it's the metal part. This metal part is noticed by a metal detector EVEN IF ITS UNDERNEATH YOUR CLOTHES!!! So, basically, you don't need a snazzy new machine to prevent concealed weapons from making it through airports - the one's you have will already do that.

The second thing that strikes me as odd about this is how dumb they assume these terrorists are. Look, are Islamic radicals nutjobs? Absolutely. But are they morons? No, because if they were, stopping them wouldn't be this much of a problem. A terrorist is not going to just bring a gun to the airport and strap it under his leg, hoping to get through security. That's what movie villains do, not real ones. The way Islamic Radicals accomplish plane hijackings is not by smashing the system to bits, but by taking advantage of it. On 9/11, those box cutters were brought onto the planes in an entirely LEGAL fashion. Remember that plot to blow up 8 planes over the Atlantic that was busted up last summer? The water bottles they were going to bring the stuff onto the planes in, were entirely legit. Indeed, as much as we'd like them to be, terrorists are not Arnold Schwarzenegger. They don't come out with guns blazing, trying to take airports by force. No, the terrorists prefer subtler, more elusive ways of getting onto a plane in order to blow it up.

Furthermore, during the trial period, the only time the new scanner will be used is if the passenger agrees to do so. Since, apparently, the terrorists, who are coming to the airport with guns hidden underneath their clothes trying to sneak through metal detectors, are going to ask to be screened by this new device. Way to go U.S Government!! That's how to get inside a terrorist's head and anticipate his next move!! Seriously, they've decided to test this device's ability to nab ruthless terrorists by seeing how much it scares the freaking old guy who forgot to take his keys out of his pocket before going through security. Simply brilliant.

Of course, this new device is not really meant to nab terrorists; for all their shortcomings, I have a feeling that most of the people running the TSA know this. What it will do, however, is make people feel safe. Scared of terrorists blowing up your plane? No worries, there's a device at the airport which can find weapons even when you try to hide them under your clothes. See? When you say it that way, it's comforting. Isn't it?

Alas, real airport security won't come until we stop kidding ourselves about worthless TSA procedures. The terrorists have very flexible methods of attack; consequently, what we need are flexible methods to respond. What we need is security measures like the Israelis have, not the 500 year-old granny who makes sure the name on my Driver's Licence matches the one on my plane ticket every time I fly out of Myrtle Beach International.

And certainly not some new scanner that just, well, doesn't really do anything to make my ass any safer.

2008 Already?

In some respects, it seems a bit early to be talking about the 2008 Presidential Race; but, I've decided to do a little commentary on the race for the Republican Nomination - if only out of my dislike for some of the current front-runners.

First, let's start with one of the candidates right now: Rudy Giuliani. As much as I like Rudy, and as awesome of a record as he has on National Security, I will absolutely not vote for the guy in the primaries. In fact, if he were to be the GOP nominee, I probably just won't vote for President in '08. The reason? Guns. Rudy is easily the most liberal of all the GOP contenders on gun-control. Indeed, his views towards the 2nd Amendment are closer to the median Congressional Democrat's view than they are to a Conservative's. And seriously, if the Republicans aren't going to bother nominating a pro-2nd Amendment candidate, where does the 2nd's multitude of supporters turn? Less concerning to me, yet still problematic, are Rudy's views on abortion and gay marriage. As someone who is not terribly opposed to Gay Marriage, I consider this a non-issue - I don't mind voting for a pro-gay marriage candidate. Somewhat more concerning for me are his radically pro-choice positions (he's even pro-partial birth abortion); nonetheless, this is still not a make-or-break issue for me. However, while not particularly important to me, Gay-marriage and abortion are THE issues for a lot of social Conservatives - particularly those right here in the great State of South Carolina.

The combo of those 2 positions with the aforementioned gun one ensures that Rudy has virtually no chance to win the crucial South Carolina primary. In Presidential politics, it has often been said that: 'as South Carolina goes, so goes the South;' indeed, since the South's dramatic shift from solid blue to solid red, all of zero people have managed to win the GOP nomination without strong support from the good ol', Bible-thumpin' rednecks. Plus, what Republican has won the Party's Presidential Nomination without the support of the N.R.A? Again, a grand sum of zero. Anyone who doesn't believe in the political power of the South and its Social Conservatives need look no further than the 2000 primaries. Eventual winner George Bush was able to shatter John McCain's early momentum from a victory in the New Hampshire primary by winning the South Carolina primary. He was able to do this by simply pointing out to S.C voters that he was more socially Conservative than McCain. Bottom line: they did it to McCain in 2000, and they'll do it to Giuliani in '08. The fact of the matter is, as far as Republicans are concerned, he's better suited to be the National Security Advisor or the Secretary of Defense than the President.

Overall chance of securing GOP Nomination: 10%

Next up is the aforementioned John McCain. McCain is one of those guys who Republicans love to hate, and this may ultimately be his downfall. He's a staunch supporter of the War on Islamic Fascism, and clearly has some impeccable foreign policy credentials (see Vietnam prison cell). Furthermore, as a general rule, he's been decent on fiscal issues (although not stellar) and has seemingly learned from his mistakes in 2000 and (at least in word) become more socially Conservative. He does however have a whole variety of issues, from campaign finance to Guantanamo detainee Rights, on which Conservatives detest his views. Furthermore, McCain's greatest weakness is that, to many Republicans, he seems to be the most 'political' of all the candidates. What I mean by that is that he's the one GOP'er who appears most likely to 'say anything to get your vote.' To make matters worse, his record seems to, in fact, backup the assertion that he is the worst kind of politician. Throw in the fact that he still has some serious credibility issues with the aforementioned South Carolina social Conservatives, and his road to the nomination looks rocky at best.

I believe McCain's appeal will wear off as the primaries draw nearer; however, I wouldn't be surprised if he won one of the pre-S.C primaries like New Hampshire. Still, I expect him to fizzle.

Chance of securing the GOP Nomination: 25%

The last of the so-called front-runners is Mitt Romney, who, like his fellow candidates at the head of the pack, has some serious credibility issues to resolve with social Conservatives before the S.C primary. First of all, the guy is a Mormon; which, while unproblematic for normal people like me, is considered by many hard-core Bible Thumpers to be some kind of sin. Bottom line: it's unfair and bigoted, but this will cost him serious votes in the Baptist South. Moreover, Romney will have issues similar to those McCain had with social Conservatives in 2000; these will mainly be centered on the question of whether his pro-life and anti-gay marriage positions are sincere or just political posturing. This will be particularly acute given the widespread video footage (See Here) and published documentation of his rather liberal views on many social issues in the not-so-distant past. I haven't looked into Romney enough to know whether or not I'd personally vote for him in the primaries/Election; nevertheless, his perceived insincerity, on abortion in particular, leaves him with a serious uphill road to the GOP nomination.

Chance at the Nomination: 17%

Next up is a guy who, so far, I seem to like pretty well, and could very well vote for in the primaries: Duncan Hunter. Obviously, his biggest problem now and for the rest of the campaign is/will be name-recognition; of which, at this point he has virtually none. Another problem that he has is that, as a member of the last few Congressional Sessions (from California), he has partaken in some of the wasteful, big-government spending that has been a staple of those Sessions. That said, he's one of the few candidates who has a stand-out record on immigration and he has the additional distinction of being pro-'fair trade' - which is nice way of saying he's against outsourcing. These two attributes, coupled with a solid conservative record on social issues, could make him a viable player in the South Carolina primary, especially given the flaws of the aforementioned front-runners. Hunter has strong positions on foreign policy and, as a Vietnam Vet whose son is serving in Iraq, will have no problem competing with other candidates in that arena. So far, I'd say he's the one 'dark horse' candidate with the best shot at the nomination (but still a dark horse). He should be able to build momentum from now until the primaries start, and it will be interesting to see how well he's able to maintain and build on that when the going gets tough.

Overall chance: 14%

The next guy on the list is my top choice right now: Tom Tancredo. He is clearly the guy on immigration, but has also been just as solid on fiscal and National Security issues. Throw in the fact that he has generally one of the best all-around Conservative records in Congress, and you got a guy who I would like to see in the White House. Of course, he faces an incredibly uphill battle to get the nomination. This will be in no small part due to his tough stance on immigration; which has unjustly earned him the 'racist' tag that the usual left-wing suspects love to dole out. If immigration again becomes the hot topic, look for his candidacy to soar, if not, well....I'll be out of a top choice.

Chance at the Nomination: 10%

Finally, I want to profile someone who hasn't yet declared an intention to run, but would rocket to the top of the polls if they did: Newt Gingrich. Every Conservative in America knows his name, and his credentials. Odds are, he'd have an easy time winning the GOP nomination. Like everyone else on the Right side of the aisle, I find Newt to be an appealing candidate, but I'd be very hesitant to vote for him in the primaries. Newt has some serious political and personal baggage (see, multiple divorces and his ouster from the position of House Speaker), which could prove a major liability in the General Election. The good news is, Newt probably knows this, and understands that he would probably be better suited to just being an advocate for the same principles he's always stood for. Honestly, I'm not sure how to asses Newt's overall candidacy for 2008, except to say that he truly is the ultimate wild-card on the Republican side. Indeed, if any candidate were to get full-scale support from Newt, they would instantly become the man to beat.

Overall odds (if he decides to run) for the Nomination: 45%

Lastly, I'm just going to note that the 'other' candidates, mainly guys like Sam Brownback, Chuck Hagel, and Mike Huckabee, are absolutely horrible - for a wide variety of reasons. Thankfully, none of them really have a prayer to win the nomination so I won't bother telling you why I think they're so bad.

(Their collective chance at the Nomination: 1%)

Free Health Care!! (Just Don't Worry About the Taxes)

The race for the 2008 Democratic Nomination is already in full swing; so much so that the candidates aren't even trying to hold back their Socialist instincts. Hillary has the best outburst to date, as this past weekend she boldly stated that she wanted to "take [Oil Companies'] profits and [put] them into a strategic energy fund." Yikes, she wasn't even shy about it! She's going to take your f-ing money (because a company's profits, remember, go to its shareholders) and put it in a Government fund! And you will comply! One can only begin to imagine what other proposals Hillary has in store for us; but you can bet that one of them is her Socialized Medicine package. In desiring the Utopian 'Health Care for all' Senator Clinton is hardly alone. Indeed, none other than the ever-pandering John Edwards has come busting out of the gates brandishing the sword of sweeping Health Care socialization.

To his credit, Edwards, in a highly unusual move for him, has been somewhat honest and forthcoming about his Health Care proposals. On Sunday's Meet the Press, sandwiched in between his unfounded claims about the decaying state of American Health Care and the usual 'help the Middle Class' nonsense, the Sleezball extraordinaire admitted that "we'll have to raise taxes" to pay for his wonderful, 'free' Health Care plan.

The first thing that pops to my mind when contemplating the various things Edwards said Yesterday is the contradiction of his plea to "help middle-class families with [Health Care] costs" and his tax hike. Who exactly do higher taxes hurt the most? The wealthy can generally afford them. The poor generally don't pay them. So, who's left - yup, the middle class. If the Middle Class is already struggling to pay for private health insurance, it seems a bit illogical to solve that problem by raising their taxes and further disenabling their ability to purchase the said insurance. Consequently, to me, it seems that a better idea might be simply to lower taxes.

Of course, John Edwards doesn't want to lower taxes - for any class of people. He wants to raise them and create big government spending programs. He wants to do this because he is living in a warped reality were Government is the ultimate problem solver. He thinks that increasing government interference will make things better. Indeed, he believes that his new Health Care proposals will "create competition that doesn't exist today." What he fails to understand is that the competition that 'doesn't exist' nowadays, but which he is trying to create, is, in fact, no competition; and, honestly, no competition is a form of competition I'd rather not have.

Ultimately, this is the consequence of Government intervention: the destruction of competitive markets. Problem is, a competitive Health Care market is what creates outstanding Health Care systems.

Once (or shall I say, if) Mr. Edwards figures this out - he should pass the message along to Hillary.