Michael McConnell is Captain Obvious.

THANKYOU CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!
The head of the United States Intelligence Agency says that Al-Queda, Hezbollah, North Korea and Iran pose major threats to the US. Really??? NO WAY? I never knew or thought that these nations and organizations were dangerous, let alone posed a threat to our country.
Then he moves on and says "Iraq is moving in a negative direction" wait, what did he say? Iraq of all places, its not doing so well and it's in fact moving in a "negative direction"? Well what does that mean? Have we run into some problems over there?
He even says that N. Korea and Iran possibly have WMD's or have the abilities to make them. OH MY GOD! That's inconceivable, impossible, incomprehensible.
"We assess that Iran seeks to develop nuclear weapons and has shown greater interest in drawing out the negotiations rather than reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution," he said.
Wow, this man is in charge of our intelligence community and he sounds like a broken record. We already know this stuff. Not one thing he said was news, or noteworthy, why because he is pointing out the obvious. Was he left in the dark, did he think we were left in the dark? Why is he reporting things that everyone already knows?
I don't understand how this man, Michael McConnell, is the head of the intelligence community and makes such an unintelligent statement.
It was brought to my attention that it may be in the interest of National Security for them not to tell us anything new, but why tell us anything if we have already heard it at all. If it serves National Security, maybe we should just not hear anything at all about it, wait, isn't that kinda like what ostriches do when something bad happens, stick their heads underground. Is that any different?

Treasonus or Not?

DID THIS MAN COMMIT TREASON TOO?

Mr. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is in the final stages of his courtroom battle over whether or not he lied... if the lie was a lie and who the lie effected. He was charged with one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of making false statements, and two counts of perjury. He was Dick Chenney's Chief of Staff from 2001 until October 2006, but we can throw loyalties out the window at this point. Cheney was going to be the first VP ever to sit on the stand, but that didnt happen. Apparently they felt it would not work well for the defendant when the cross examination of the Vp was to take place. Also, each one of the counts takes a $250,000 price tag, so the bottom line is... (drumb roll please) 1.25 million Dollars.
A little background before the case:
Scooter Libby composed a report with Neoconservative Wolf Blitzer, this report outlined global US military supremecy, "The draft DPG called for massive increases in defense spending, the assertion of lone superpower status, the prevention of the emergence of any regional competitors, the use of preventive—or preemptive—force, and the idea of forsaking multilateralism if it didn't suit U.S. interests (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1271).
It was not until mid-2005, however, that Libby found himself subject to widespread media attention, when his name increasingly appeared in news stories about the leak of Plame's identity (U.S. News and World Report, October 31, 2005).
Where does Treason fit in?
A spy's name, an American spy, was released to the public. But, this act of treason is going un punished, then again, she is suing the government for the premature end of her career. Maybe, because now other people who she dealt with in the past may want to kill her?
What do you think?

Skeptical View of Current Events, Gun Boat Diplomacy Again!

I was reading the Economist the other day, and the cover had a picture of a B-2 bomber with the caption "Next Stop, Iran?" I'm curious as to what the point of sending a bomber to Iran would be. The US government has stated that they do not want to enter a conflict with Iran, however, it seems to be ominous (if thats the right word)... Moreover, they, (the government) have stated that the nuclear facility in Iran ought to be shut down, but how do they plan on getting that done? We can't blow it up, that would be wrong, we can ask them diplomaticly, but no one will listen, all we can do is threaten them and that does not seem like too bright of an idea.
We are in the process of bribing North Korea with fuel oil in order for thier surrender of their Nuclear capabilities, we invaded Iraq because we thought they had WMD's, but Iran? Iran has the capabilities and most likely has the bomb, but can we afford a conflict? "WE ARE not planning for a war with Iran." So said Robert Gates, America's new defence secretary, on February 2nd.
This nation is in debt, we are running out of supplies (there is a 3 year backup on vehicle repairs out of Iraq, and we simply do not have the work force in this country to fix them). In the Gulf, we have aircraft carriers, and I can only imagine that G-Dub, thinks he is the reincarnation of Teddy Roosevelt. he might just be thinking "If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not do what I want, I will blow him off the face of the earth?" Doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous? Or am I just reading things wrong? Did I miss something?
I have no idea what the hell he is thinking, put simply, we are already spread too thin, we have soldiers all over the place and unless we reinstate the draft, we will never have enough people enlisted in our armed forces.
Is it just some sort of anti Iran propaganda in order to insite anger and hostility? I don't know, but I fear the results could be disasterous.

Update
Jflog-
I don't think reinstating the draft is a good thing, but several other countries have mandatory military service :

• 2.1 Austria
• 2.2 Belarus
• 2.3 Bermuda
• 2.4 Brazil
• 2.5 Bulgaria
• 2.6 Chile
• 2.7 China (PRC)
• 2.8 Croatia
• 2.9 Cyprus
• 2.10 Denmark
• 2.11 Egypt
• 2.12 Eritrea
• 2.13 Finland
• 2.14 Germany
• 2.15 Greece
• 2.16 Iran
• 2.17 Israel
• 2.18 Korea, South
• 2.19 Lebanon
• 2.20 Malaysia
• 2.21 Mexico
• 2.22 Norway
• 2.23 Poland
• 2.24 Russia
• 2.25 Serbia
• 2.26 Singapore
• 2.27 Sweden
• 2.28 Switzerland
• 2.29 Taiwan (ROC)
• 2.30 Turkey
• 2.31 Ukraine
• (I am not sure how true this list is (courtesy of wikipedia)).

No one has the right answer, at least no one I know of. At the same time, who gets to decide what the right answer is? Again. This conversation will lead to more questions, that are arbitrary because they cannot be answered. This is the conundrum that our government is facing right now. It's a catch-22 any way they go about it, but I guess thats the role this country has assumed.

2 Million Dollars...

Recockulous!!!

Cartoon Network owned by Turner Broadcasting Network settled with the city of Boston for 2 million dollars. Why? Apparently having a "lightbrite" outside of your child's bedroom is an act of terrorism.
The Culprit was a character from the show "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" made up of light emitting diodes in the shape of one of the characters.
Then we find out that the same light up signs were in several other locations and states (there were more then 30 of them) and that no one else thought they were bombs, uh...WTF? (pardon my terminology there) but for lack of better words, I think the aforementioned WTF is acceptable under the circumstances). Also, the head of Cartoon Network resigned. Why? He felt responsible and wanted the network to move forward. "It's my hope that my decision allows us to put this chapter behind us." I just don't get it, some one freaked out and called in the bomb squad because they were scared by a sign. I hope the person who reported the sign never goes to Atlantic City or Las Vegas, if that were to happen, the bomb squads would have their hands full dealing with all those "Bombs" that tell you the names of hotels, casinos and so on.

Why?

When do we approach our professors and tell them they are not doing their jobs? When do we tell them that their class time is a blatant waste of time? I m currently enrolled in a Chicano Culture course that in 3 weeks has gone over roughly 4 chapters of a book, a few essays from another book and an introduction of a third book. One book "Drink Cultura" should get a new tittle in my opinion, it should be "Enema de Cultura" the book is terribly disjointed and there is nothing fulfilling about reading it. In one sense, the tittle of an essay in this compilation of essays might be called "Dear Mr. Consulate" and it is literally a bunch of letters chopped up and inserted in some random order that leaves the reader wondering whats the point?" Seriously, the letters were so terribly written and they were just bad, but the part that was even worse, worse then the horribly written letters, was the lack of cohesion. Nothing kept them together.

Another book that we are reading is called Harvest of Empires, or something to that effect, this book explores the Chicano culture as well as the roots of the Latin Americans and their histories. This book also lacks in the cohesiveness department. This book jumps more (pardon the pun) then a Mexican jumping bean. The kicker is... it is written poorly too.

Finally we have a book called "Latinos" I read a chapter, well most of a chapter, that was 6 pages long, the thing is, 5 pages in I was wondering to myself whether or not any of it made sense. I also had not gained anything out of those 5 pages so I looked ahead to see where the chapter ended... it was the next page. I slammed the book on the table in class and looked at my peers in disgust.

In recent news:
(see that, without any cohesion, the audience thinks "wow, you need a little help there don't you, you cant just jump from one topic to the next without some intermediary, something in the middle to mesh the two topics together)
Anna Nicole Smith dies at 39. Suicide? Overdose? Or was she really just ill???
Thats what the media is focusing on, not the 6 US helicopters shot down in Iraq over the last two weeks. I know CNN looked at this issue last week, but more have been shot down since then?
Also, the US has lost 12 Billion Dollars, that B-i-l-l-i-o-n dollars in cash in Iraq. How do you do that? The report from the oversight committee said it was like 36 tons of money. HOW DO YOU DO THAT? Why wasnt this money wired?

Clear Proof That My Skepticism is Founded

Rupert Murdoch Admits to Manipulating the Media
As the author of this article says "surprise surprise," and I get to say Karl Marx was right. Another article also states in that Fox News admits to spreading propaganda about the Iraq War. Karl Marx was absolutely right when he stated "What resources are available and who controls them influences (almost deterministically) the nature of the superstructure, which is made up of all the non-economic articles of society, such as legal, religious and educational systems."
To clearly express what I am trying to say, Rupert Murdoch has the money, therefore he able to control what his "news outlet" releases to the public. The other thing is, and I am not sure if I even need to write it, but who watches Fox news? People who already subscribe to his political views and the aspirations of the Republican party.
I am not a liberal, let me make that clear, I am also not a Republican. The fact of the matter is, we all ought to understand the difference between news and Fox News. We also must never believe everything we hear... or do we express our truthiness at face value? Because I believe something to be true, do I get to say it is so? DO I NEED TO RESEARCH EVERYTHING FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES? In most cases I would say it is much safer to gain multiple perspectives, however, where do we draw the line? When do we get to strip the name news off of something and call it what it is (PROPAGANDA)? If he admits to it, why not call the channel the Fox Propaganda Channel? Sure it may make the information less credible by altering the name to what it really is, but at least this way people who don't know the truth, won't get confused. Is it ethical to release something as news that really isn't news? If they are being deceptive on a regular basis, should they loose their tittle as a news outlet?
What are we to do?

Reflection

Seminars:

• The idea behind it is that we are to meet with groups of our peers in order to discuss topics based on their relevancy to the readings and class?

• Seminars are to take place for one hour on Thursday and after the seminar, a report of the topics brought out are to be given to the entire class.

What does that mean?

The class gets to talk for an hour and then reconvene for the remaining 50 minutes? It's a novel idea, but what happens when no one does their reading, or no one feels like talking about the reading? Are we really going to govern ourselves? Has the professor really entrusted us with this big of a responsibility? What happens when one person decides to talk their head off and not allow others to participate because they are to enamored with their own voice?

For a freedom of speech and responsibility course, the idea is good, but I don't know if it will hold up, for instance today, we were totally off kilter, but then again, we didn't really have a topic, so I guess it is understandable.