Click to play Video
Originally published June 19th, 2008 by Richard Okelberry
In a recent History Channel documentary Tom Brokaw took the opportunity to compare the Vietnam War to the current conflict in Iraq. The documentary titled “1968 with Tom Brokaw” calls on Tommy Smothers of the Smothers Brothers television series and John Stewart of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show to talk about what’s different from then to now. Both basically blame the media for not showing what’s really going on in Iraq and imply that if people were to see the Iraq War portrayed on TV the way Vietnam was, people would be more incensed to oppose it.
Unfortunately for Tom, Tommy and John, there are truly few comparisons that can be drawn between Vietnam and the Iraq War to support their cause. First, Vietnam was an ugly war fought against and well supplied and organized army in the jungles. The Iraq War has become an exercise in urban combat against radical terrorist groups and tribal militias. If there is any similarity to be drawn between this war and Vietnam, the strongest would be the fact that as in Vietnam, politicians have been willing to use any failure to undermine our troops and their mission. The fact that once again people are willing to call for the immediate withdrawal of troops, regardless of the effect on the civilian population and general security in Iraq also seems to sound eerily familiar.
John Stewart claims that “we don’t have any idea about what’s going on, on the ground,” in Iraq. I would suggest that perhaps he is right, but to the opposite degree that he would suggest. Everyday in the media people are being regularly told by politicians and talking heads that the Iraq war is in shambles and that we need to bring the troops home as soon as possible. The idea that we are failing in Iraq has become so popular that even past supporters of the war are regularly defecting. Of course these anti-war opinions are at odds with current casualty rates.
While during the Vietnam conflict an average of 12 U.S. servicemen lost their lives per day, the Iraq war has proven to have the lowest casualty rates in modern history at 2 deaths per day. I believe that this difference in casualties is a better indicator or why we don’t see all the blood and guts that was televised during Vietnam. While there will always be those that like John Stewart that willingly cling to conspiracy theories in order to support their world view, I will rely on the truth about the overwhelming success of our troops as supported by the facts. Given a solid plan and the support of us and our representatives our troops are able to accomplish the most amazing things, with or without TV cameras there.
Originally published June 17th, 2008, by Richard Okelberry
While doing my traditional early morning blog stomp across the net, I noticed a slightly different online ad. Unlike its flashing, buzzing and moving competitors’ this static ad simply said “Dick Cheney says: Thanks!” Below a photo of the Vice President the ad proceeded to ask, “Did your phone help elect Bush/Cheney? AT&T’s PAC did.” I was intrigued to say the least. The ad is sponsored by a cell phone company called CREDO Mobile. Considering that this is the first advertising campaign I have ever seen that uses hatred for Bush to sell a product, I had to find out more.
One click and I’m on the CREDO Mobile web site where a snazzy ad writer is berating me saying, “We all make mistakes. But who knew your phone choice was a political decision?” Holy cow! Has my phone been making political decisions without me? The advertising goes on to explain that AT&T was a maximum contributor to the Bush/Cheney campaign and advises me that by switching to CREDO Mobile I can use a mobile phone service that has helped contribute $60 million to “Progressive causes” instead. Among others these “Progressive causes” include the ACLU, Greenpeace, Planned Parenthood, The National Gay and Lesbian task Force and Iraq War Wrong Way (a group with ties to MoveOn.org that advocates the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.)
CREDO’s San Francisco parent company, Working Assets is the brain child of Michael Kieschnick. Apparently Mr. Kieschnick’s inspiration for his company came after seeing an advertisement where American Express pledged to donate a portion of their profits to the Statue of Liberty restoration fund back in the 80’s. While most would agree that there is a big difference between donating money to a common cause versus a divisive one, Kieschnick’s business model is certainly intriguing. While the concept of market position (the process of positioning your product relative to your competition in the consumers mind) has been a staple of advertisers for years, Working Assets willingness to use controversial political topics while supporting even more controversial groups to win the hearts and minds for their consumers is certainly a new tack.
While it is certain that dividing their customers into constituencies will ensure that they will never achieve the type of market share that is enjoyed by the big name mobile phone providers, Mr. Kieschnick’s move to capitalize on political standings presents a few questions about the future of brand loyalties and how they may affect future social dynamics. Already cell phone users can opt for political ring tones to declare their allegiances publically like a ringing bumper sticker. Are we now entering a new age where the very cloths you wear and the products you buy will help define not just your personal tastes but your political leanings as well?
Also, if this trend continues might we one day see ads by CREDO’s competition declaring that every call with a CREDO phone kills another unborn child? While we can say with most certainly that AT&T donating money to Bush/Chaney had less to do with political ideals and more to do with simply gaining access to the Presidency, support by certain industries for political organizations is nothing new. As an example; firearm manufacturers have long supported the National Rifleman’s Association. What seems to have changed with CREDO Mobile is the way that they are now willing to wave their political leanings and connections like a banner at a protest rally. I imagine it will not be long before we see politicians themselves appearing in commercials for companies who make their fortunes by dividing consumers into camps that hold not just similar political views but preferences for the beer, potato chips and hotdogs they will consume during the Super Bowl. It would certainly be strange days to see people throwing items at the TV during the commercial breaks rather than the game itself. Just make sure you don’t get invited to the wrong football party and if your going to the game make sure your ticket doesn’t just reflect “home” or “Visitor” but maybe “Liberal” or “Conservative” as well.
Originally Published January 16th, 2008 by Richard Okelberry
Around the world communities are struggling with the idea of incorporating renewable energy sources into the energy packages that they purchase for their citizens. Pressure to convert to “clean” energy is being applied from both worried citizens and activists. Because many concerned people are now willing to pay a little more for their power, switching to clean wind or solar energy instead of coal or nuke power may seem like a no-brainer. Some states even allow citizens to mark a box on their power bill requesting that only renewable power be bought on their behalf. Unfortunately, these states have neglected the fact that if everyone in that state where to check the “Clean Energy Only” box on their statement the entire state would go black every calm evening.
- Possible energy storage system for Green Energies.
A farce is being perpetrated on the populous concerning “clean energy” because it fails to address the fact that energy on the scale needed to run even a small town, cannot be stored for any period of time. Most people think that the power company simply stores up electricity in big batteries for later use. On the contrary, power must be produced on-demand. This mean, when Joe Blow environmentalist plugs in his electric car at night, he is sending a signal to the power station to throw some more coal on the fire because, “I want to drive my non-polluting car in the morning.”
The inability to store generated power has always been a problem. Fortunately, there may be a solution to this problem in the near future. Hydrogen has long been touted as the fuel of the future but few have explored the fact that it may be the perfect storage vessel for unused or surplus energy. In essence, we could divert any extra or unused solar or wind power into a hydrogen storage system. While the laws of thermodynamics tell us that there would be some power loss from separating hydrogen and oxygen from water, there would still be a net gain because we would be capturing at least some of the lost or unused power.
This process can best be illustrated by imagining a large wind and solar farm along a coastline (see figure.) As the power is created it is sent to a device that uses the process of Electrolysis. This is essentially the process of sending electricity through water causing the bonds between the Hydrogen and the Oxygen in the water to be broken (2H2O + ENERGY = 2H2 + O2.) Ultimately, the most difficult part of the process would have to do with storing the Hydrogen in a stable fashion. Fortunately, scientists have conquered this problem and regularly store massive amounts of hydrogen for use with the Space Shuttle. Finally, whenever there is a demand for power and renewable resources are not co-operating we simply recombine the Hydrogen and Oxygen in an exothermic reaction, thereby releasing plenty of energy to turn a generator and keep the lights on in your home.
Now for the downsides; at present, this process is terribly inefficient. However, I imagine that with even a fraction of the resources given to the ethanol industry by the government, these systems could be made both safe and efficient. Finally wind and solar power would become a true player in the world’s energy market. Until then, both will be just a pipe dream and a touch feely overpriced, inconsistent alternative to “REAL” power. Also remember that the steam released into the atmosphere is actually considered a greenhouse gas.
February 16, 2007 - According to Achim Steiner, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program, scientists around the world need to stop looking at the issue of global warming critically and simply accept the findings of the U.N. report released in Paris on February 2, 2007. He said, “It is critical that we look at this report … as a moment where the focus of attention will shift from whether climate change is linked to human activity, whether the science is sufficient, to what on earth are we going to do about it.” While I would agree that it is important for humans to take a look at their impacts on the environment, throwing out scientific theory and the time-honored tradition of peer review certainly won’t help us in this challenge. I hope that there are still plenty of “maverick” scientists out there willing to risk their reputation and their careers in an attempt to better understand this critical issue. Even though I am far from a scientist in this field, I have several questions about the integrity of the U.N. Report.
- Earth’s Magnetosphere under attack by a Solar Flare.
First, the report seems to have a very short timeline for comparative change. The charts contained in the report only date back about 10,000 years. Consider that scientists say that the earth has been in an “Ice House Climate” for the last 30 million years and experienced its last Glacial Maximum a full 18,000 years ago. This means that the data scientists are currently using to predict the earth’s near future doesn’t even extend back to the last ice age. In the broader scheme of things it would be like taking a sample for one second and trying to make predictions for the upcoming hour. This is very difficult to do without a massive amount of variables to support your findings. Two variables that I find missing from the U.N. Report has to do with both solar activity and the earth’s rapid degradation of the magnetosphere.
For us to accept the U.N. findings about human impact on the average temperature of the earth we must first accept that the sun is a constant variable. That is, we must assume that the number one engine for heat in this dynamic system is not only consistent, but constant. Unfortunately, this seems, by recent observation, to be far from true. The sun appears to change almost daily. It usually follows an average 11-year cycle resulting in a solarmax event but has been known to stay at solarmax for a period of over one hundred years. Such an event occurred not too long ago. In fact, ice- covered Greenland got its name from the Viking, Eric the Red, who in 982 a.d. first discovered and colonized the then lush and “green” land. The average temperature of the earth at the time was far above anything that the U.N. Report tells us we can expect from global warming.
Model showing Earths magnetic in chaos before reversal.
Another strange phenomenon that scientists are watching closely is the rapid degradation of the earth’s magnetic field. This is something that occurs regularly throughout the life of the planet. In fact, many scientists believe that most of the people on the planet will, within their lifetimes, experience a point where the average magnetic compass will cease to function and simply spin wildly as the earth’s magnetic poles flip north to south. This process is projected by models to take from 100 to 1000 years and during which time the earth’s protective field will be at only approximately 10% of its original strength. Even now as the magnetosphere weakens the earth is experiencing intrusions near our upper atmosphere from super heated solar winds that are able to push dangerously close to our upper atmosphere. As the earth’s magnetic field weakens, people around the world will be dazzled by aurora lights dancing around every corner of the sky. At the same time our atmosphere will be repeatedly struck by super hot blasts of charged solar plasma that is expected to actually blow from 10% to 20% of the earth’s atmosphere into space. Most scientists now believe that is what happened to Mars as its core stopped moving and its magnetic field died. For those that doubt solar wind has any effect on global temperature think again. For some time now scientists have observed sizable drops in the earth’s temperature when sun spot numbers are low to nonexistent. Conversely, when sunspot activity is high and coronal mass ejections that form solar winds are also peaking, as it does during a solarmax event, the earth sees a dramatic rise in temperature. I find it highly consequential that the weakening of the earth’s magnetic field seemed to begin during the last century just as earth’s temperature was also documented to rise.
Model showing Earths magnetic in chaos during reversal.
Now if the correlation between greenhouse gases increasing during the same period is cause for alarm, why would we not also take a look at our increasing exposure to the solar activities as a possible cause for global temperature changes? I am not saying that humans are not having an impact on global warming. I think that the argument for preserving a livable environment by reducing airborne pollutants is a plenty strong enough argument for us to act now not later. Unfortunately, hysteria seems to have gripped the scientific community. For those of you who do not understand how the scientific community works, let me give you a little perspective. The idea that scientists sit around having logical conversations, sharing data, comparing notes and complimenting each other when brilliant yet unorthodox views are presented is completely wrong. We are talking about a group of individuals that can be as cut-throat as anyone. These individuals only release data once they can publish with their name behind it. There is truly very little collaboration that takes place between even like-minded camps. When camps oppose each other, they can get downright vicious in their criticism and will actually seek to destroy each other’s careers. A good example of this can be found in the world of physics where classical Einstein style theorists would clash with the new science of Quantum physics. The division between the two camps was so bad that they would rarely even speak to each other. That is until famed physicist Steven Hawkins was able to develop a new theory by combining the two methods. Of course he was later himself criticized for theories that he proposed along the lines of Einstein’s grand unification theory.
So when we hear someone from the U.N. tell us that we should all stop even discussing something, we should all be a little weary. To know anything we must first question, then observe, then discuss, then question again. I’m not even a scientist and I know that. I also know that while much of the US is experiencing near record low temperatures, there is hardly a sunspot to be found. In the meantime I invite a single scientist to discredit my theory that a weakening magnetosphere might be, at the very least, a contributing factor in global warming.
Sun at Solar Minimum (left) and Solar Maximum (right)
- Kirdish Child, Saddam’s handy work.
Originally published March 9, 2006 by Richard Okelberry
When I see someone with a “Support Our Troops: Bring Them Home” or “US out UN in” sign in their yard, I can’t help think to myself, “what a total idiot.” Of course while these people are total idiots, I at least respect their convictions, no matter how hypocritical it is. What I truly can’t stand, are the people that were for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, but are now turning tail and moving against the war on terror.
It appears that a large number of people don’t have the basic moral compass to stand behind what they once started. You see, every one of us who supported going into Iraq are and will forever be responsible for what happens over there. Just as the citizens that originally supported going to war against the socialists in Germany during World War II get credit for that decision, so we will get credit for ultimately bringing peace, democracy and stability to the Middle East. Now those of you who are tucking your tail between your legs and now calling for withdrawal, you are no better than those hypocritical idiots that I mentioned before.
Why do I call them hypocrites? Because, they make, at their convenience, a differentiation between the use of our national military and our domestic military to resolve conflict. When there are international atrocities and threats against our country, they want us to stay as far away from it as possible. However, they are also the first wimpy wimps to call the police if anyone even brushes up against them or looks at them in the wrong way. You see our domestic police are nothing more than another form of the military. Their primary job is to enforce our standards and laws and protect us from those that might harm us. To this end we empower them to use force, even deadly force when necessary, to complete their mandated mission.
It works like this: if these hypocrites see that someone is being raped, they call the police. The police then come and enforce the law. But when they see thousands upon thousands of people not just being raped but tortured, maimed, gassed and killed, they want us to do nothing. It’s not our business to interfere in the affairs of another nation, right? WRONG! Not only is it our business, it’s our moral obligation. Now, I know that most of you socialist liberals just cringed as your eyes passed over the word “moral.” No doubt it conjures up images in your mind of right wing evangelical Christians bent on world domination. What you don’t understand is that morality is the one thing that most peoples of the world have in common.
With the exception of the sick and deranged, most people are repulsed by images of dead babies lying on the ground, bloated from exposure to toxic gasses. Now, I will, and have from the beginning, disagree with “Weapons of Mass Destruction” as the reason for going to war in Iraq. I felt that the need to root out terrorists and bring an end to a brutal regime (that not only directly sponsored terror via payments to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine but also committed some of the worst atrocities ever seen against its own people) was reason enough. And for those of you screaming in your head that the war was just for oil, you are only partly right. Of course it was for oil. If there was no oil in Iraq, our chances, unfortunately, of being there today would be slim to none. But that is something we must all work to change. Economic interests should no longer be our motivating factor for war. However, we must not shy away from using our military to enforce international moral standards when necessary.
I hope the next time you see an idiotic peace sign in someone’s yard that you remember one thing. While these people say they are against war they are also telling us what they are for. They are for the shooting of women in the back of the head for simply wanting to learn how to read. They are for midnight abductions and rape houses. They are for the torture and murder of political and religious dissenters. They are for genocide in the form of chemical and biological warfare. They are for the draining of the world’s larges wetland so that tanks can be brought to bear against a civilian population. If you are against the use of force to prevent these things, then you are simply turning your back on the millions of victims and are ultimately responsible for letting that happen. Are there tragedies and civilian death in war? Of course there is, but now you know the alternative. Don’t be a hypocrite, stick to what you once believed in and keep your promise of a better life to all those souls so far away. If you have any doubt about how bad it was in Iraq before the war, check out the Reports section at Amnesty International.
National | rokelberry September 13, 2008 | 
Comments (0) 
