Project for the New American Century is dead

In Wall-Street-Bank fashion, The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is effectively finished (Except it has been extinct for 2 years now).

If you're unaware of what PNAC is, from their website: "The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle"

I've always got a kick out of the order of their "fundamental propositions". Military strength first, then diplomacy, then moral principle. Doesn't that just about sum up the Bush Administration's 8-year record?

Anyway, back to the point. PNAC is basically the group of neo-Conservatives that has driven Bush's foreign policy with their long-term global imperial goals or as they say "American leadership". PNAC is arguably synonymous with "the Bush Doctrine".

On January 26, 1998, PNAC wrote a letter to Bill Clinton to tell him that American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding and that Saddam Hussein should be removed from power because "we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War".

"It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard"

This letter was signed by (among others), Richard L. Armitage (former Foreign policy advisor to Bush), Elliott Abrams (former Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy under Bush), John Bolton (An architect of the Iraq War), Richard Perle (former Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee under Bush), Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz (former Deputy Secretary of Defense under Bush).

The most recent article I can find on PNAC's website is dated December 11, 2006, shortly after the Democrats were voted into power in the mid-term election. There haven't been any articles posted on PNAC's website that pertain to the Iraq war since September 13, 2005 (Approximately around the same time the Iraq war started to spiral in the wrong direction).

After being very busy publishing articles from 1997 to 2005, when the war in Iraq went downhill, the plans to further American imperialism were also diminished. These men whom had a vision in 1998 to replace Saddam with a US-friendly government in an effort to protect Israel and protect a "significant portion of the world’s supply of oil" had given up their hopes. Most (If not all) of the original signers of the letter are no longer in the government, their vision has been lost, the economy is plummeting, and with Bush ending his term, a significant era is about to end.

I'm proud to have lived through this era, and I'm proud that these men didn't succeed in their mission. Who knows how high they were aiming and what they were looking to achieve in the end.

But whatever it was, it is scary as hell.

Summer 2008 Video

Yesterday I finished creating my Summer 2008 video. Every year for the past 4 years I've been creating a video showing the highlights of my summer. I always try to spend as much time as I can outdoors in the summer and after making the video, I quickly realized how much time I've spent on water this year.

I used my Sony DSC-T1 camera to record the videos, but I think it has long surpassed its lifespan of being a capable camera. I bought it in January 2005 so it has served me well, but it's time to move on. Especially with the amazing capability of other cameras on the market right now. Expect a much better-quality video next summer.

Apologies for the length of the video (Almost 7 minutes), the Coldplay song I used (Lovers in Japan: Reign of Love) is 2 songs in 1.

Thanks to Han and everyone else for making this a great summer!



Here's the link to the video on YouTube

Sarah Palin: History 101

Sarah Palin's interview with CBS's Katie Couric yesterday clearly demonstrates her lack of understanding of world issues. McCain has been hiding Palin from the media since her acceptance of the GOP VP spot last month. Palin has likely been locked up in a hotel room studying history and current world issues and practising answering media interview questions.

In inviting Palin as his running-mate, I think McCain made a tragic blunder that will likely ultimately cost him the Presidency. Palin clearly knew very little about world issues before accepting the position, and you can only learn so much in a mere 3 months.

When asked by Couric how Alaska's proximity to Russia and Canada somehow gives her Foreign Policy experience, she adamantly defended this claim on the basis that "as Putin rears his head and enters the airspace of the United States", they are in Alaska, as well as Alaska having trade relations with Russia. I still don't see how that translates into foreign policy experience but anyone with half a brain would know that she's trying to up-sell herself. Can you blame her?

When asked about her comment that she would "never second guess Israel" if Israel attacked Iran, she stumbled then resorted to FOX News tactics by saying that Iran is obviously the bad one between the two because Iran wants Israel "wiped off the face of the earth". She also used the phrase "war on terror" several times, and when talking about spreading democracy, she said: "specifically, we will make every effort possible to help spread democracy for those who desire freedom, independence, tolerance, respect for equality. That is the whole goal here in fighting terrorism also. It's not just to keep the people safe, but to be able to usher in democratic values and ideals around the world".

It's really unfortunate for the Grand Old Party that they made such a bad gamble on Palin. But in Palin's defence, she obviously didn't have time to keep up on world issues while raising 5 kids and she claims that when younger she had always worked 2 jobs. Even as late as a few weeks before McCain picked her as his running mate, she thought it unfathomable that she would actually win the spot.

Now she's in information overdrive as she tries to catch up with her rival candidates, but it's just too little too late.

Part 1:


Part 2:

Economic Roulette

In this article, the small-government proponent and Libertarian Ron Paul discusses why he thinks the government shouldn't meddle in the economy when government fiscal policies created an inflated and unsustainable housing market in the first place.

Paul thinks the free markets should face reality and let the situation sort itself out, otherwise he thinks the situation will only become even more unsustainable and executives will be encouraged to resort back to risky loans for short-term gains as they have done in the past.

Millions of people profited from the risky loans given out when the housing market was booming. In 2005 in Los Angeles, at the peak of the housing boom, I met several people who had profited from the inflated housing market. Life was good back then; regular people became millionaires. Do you think these people will give back their profits in order to save the country? It's the taxpayers that are going to bear the losses; most of whom are average working Americans who are already in their own dire financial situation as a result of the housing market, over-borrowing, lost industry, etc.

In my opinion, a government bailout is mostly going to save the wealthier Americans in the short term from further losses. So the idea seems to me that the government is using taxpayer's money to save the wealthy investors on Wall Street.

Just when we thought Bush's Presidency couldn't do any more damage, the economy comes crashing down. What a ridiculous situation. They might as well move Wall Street to Las Vegas and put taxpayer’s money down on the Roulette table to determine America's future.

The Real Sarah Palin

I wanted to learn more about what drives Sarah Palin, so what better way to learn about her than to watch a bunch of interviews with her prior to becoming John McCain's right hand hockey-Mom.

I think it's borderline comical that some Americans really think that the key to energy independence is to "tap" every inch of oil reserve they can find in order to gain "independence from Saudi Arabia". It reminds me of those "eat hamburgers and lose weight at the same time" commercials. Five years ago, all the hype in America was about losing weight without changing your eating habits and without having to exercise. Similarly, today’s hype is about becoming “energy independent” without having to change your oil consumption habits.

When responding to Larry Kudlow's question regarding both McCain and Obama's stance on preventing Alaska from being tapped, she conceded that McCain is wrong on that issue but he's "right on a whole lot of other issues thankfully". "Obama is way off-base on all that. I think uh, those politicians who don't understand that we need more domestic supply of energy flown into our hungry markets. You know they are living in la-la land and we're in a world of hurt if their agenda continues to be to lock up these safe, secure, domestic supplies of energy." [1]

Kudlow points out the criticism from both parties is that: "There's not enough to matter, it'll take too long and it won't impact the price of oil internationally or gas at the pump, how do you respond to that?" Palin responds, "Well it will impact in a positive sense the price of fuel eventually. We've gotta start somewhere. Again, we've got a domestic supply sitting there underground. The reserves are ready to be tapped. And here in Alaska, our constituents the people who live here want it drilled. So that tells you you know that we have confidence in the safety and responsibility that we'll see there in the development of ANWR."

When asked how long it will take to start pulling oil, she replied "Yeah, it's going to take at least 5 years. You know, and there are other areas in Alaska too that have the reserves that need to be tapped. Certainly offshore there's trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and billions of barrels of oil there too that needs to be tapped."

Larry Kudlow then suggested, "Why don't we just liberate and decontrol and deregulate the whole bloody energy business, whether it's oil, gas, shale, nuclear, coal, natural gas, as well as wind and solar. Why don't we just de-control, de-regulate, go for and American-first energy policy. Get independent of Saudi Arabia.. America first; create all these millions of high-paying jobs." Palin responds "Yeah absolutely, you're hitting the nail right on the head. That's what so many of us normal Americans are asking, same thing. Why aren't our candidates talking like that. Where we can secure America and we can be more independent when we talk about energy sources if we could drill domestically. Here we sent Secretary Bodman overseas the other day, and our President had to visit the Saudi's a few weeks ago to ask them to ramp up development. That's nonsense. Not when you know that we have the supplies here. You have the supplies in your sister state called Alaska. Where we're ready, willing and we're able to pump these supplies of energy, flow them into hungry markets across the US. We want it to happen. It's congress holding us back."

As much Glenn Beck annoys me, I made it through this interview [2] to hear what Sarah Palin had to say. Beck was speaking to Palin about her lawsuit against the Federal Government relating to adding Polar Bears to the Endangered Species Act, which she sees as an impediment to oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) Palin says: "Our fear being that extreme environmentalists will use this tool, the ESA (Endangered Species Act), to eventually just curtail or halt, or slow production of very rich resources that America needs. We need that oil, we need that gas, I'm glad you're fired up about it Glenn".

When Beck commented that Alaskans pay the most in the USA for fuel at the pumps, Palin responds: "Yeah isn't that ridiculous. We are. And Alaskans collectively, we own these resources underground. We want them to be tapped. And again, we're ready to contribute more to the US in terms of resources that can lead to a safer nation. And I say this you know while our nation is at war, while we're fighting in some sense over energy supplies. It's ridiculous; we do have the resources here."

Beck then said, "We brought Alaska into the union, if I'm not mistaken, with an eye to the future of its reserves. Why would we not tap the Alaskan reserves right now." Palin responds, "That is exactly why we became a state 50 years ago. We struck deals with the Federal government saying that we wanted to be let into the union and we'd be as self-sufficient as possible. We'd do that developing our god-given resources up there. And we would contribute to the federal government. And now though, we're not allowed to do that. The Federal Government and again the extreme environmentalists are not allowing us to uphold our end of the bargain when we became a state. We are so rich, with millions and millions and millions of barrels of oil still sitting underground. Trillions and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, clean stable supply that's not allowed to be tapped."

When pressed about whether she would accept an invitation from McCain to be his running-mate, she responds: "As for VP talk all the time, I tell ya, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me, what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I'm used to umm being very productive and working real hard and in administration. We want to make sure that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position. Especially for Alaskans and for the things we're trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the US before I can even start addressing that question." [3]

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ys4HGbiONY&feature=related
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3jnbiHAMuY
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pak-rH0dCeA&NR=1

Flip Flop Harper & Foolish Palin

The US Election race is heating up with bad-boy Karl Rove conceding that even John McCain has crossed the line in his Republican ads against Obama. Meanwhile, our Canadian Federal Election is coming up in less than a month (October 14th).

In 2006 shortly after Stephen Harper became Prime Minister, he passed a law that ensures election dates are fixed, and that the next election would be in October 2009. The law would prevent the Prime Minister (i.e. himself) from calling an election in between this fixed period.

At the time, Harper claimed (From this 2006 article on CBC):

"Fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage. They level the playing field for all parties and the rules are clear for everybody."

"Because the government could be defeated in the Commons before the end of a four-year term, "the will of a majority in Parliament will always prevail," he said.

"But fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar simply for partisan political advantage."

Now that Harper has broken his own law and done exactly what he was trying to prevent when he created the law, I'm left to wonder whether his word can even be trusted.

Meanwhile, down South, John McCain has shot himself in the foot by choosing Sarah Palin for his running mate. He was obviously trying to capitalize on the Clinton votes by taking in one Sarah Palin, but her inexperience and hard-line stance is coming back to bite him. It now appears that Palin is more attractive to the ultra religious right-wing voters than the moderates that would have supported Clinton (These are the ones McCain was most likely targeting before he made his hasty decision to take in Palin).

Both elections are sure to be interesting episodes, with the US election being one of the most important elections ever.

Watch Matt Damon share my concern over the possibility of Palin being President:

Air Conditioner Overuse

Have you ever been prompted to put on a sweater or a jacket in the middle of the summer while inside a building? Seems like a downright waste of energy doesn't it? Well it happens a lot in North America and I find it completely ridiculous.

This weekend is my first weekend in what seems like several months that I've had a chance to stay home the entire weekend and relax. I've been doing lots of reading for the History of Espionage course I'm enrolled in, and Han and I watched a movie last night. It feels surreal after a busy summer of kayaking, camping, vacations, events, parties, weddings, etc. I love having time to read and being back in school (part-time) is a good feeling.

Now, getting back to the concern I have with air conditioners. Instead of just preaching what I think is right, I try to practice what I think is right first. Summers in Toronto are known by Canadians across the country as extremely hot and humid (Relatively speaking of course). My building is equipped with air conditioning units in each loft, and over the last 2 summers since I got the loft, I don't think I've had to turn on the air conditioner more than a half dozen times each summer (And it was typically only during the day).

Opening windows is a much more energy efficient way to cool down. Given the logistical challenges of having a street-level loft with windows only on one wall, we had to be a little bit creative in cooling our unit down without A/C.

One approach we've found to be very effective is to open a window or two and then turn on the bathroom fans to suck in air from the outside. At night time this approach has been very successful to create a cool breeze throughout the unit while we're sleeping. Even though we only have one small upstairs window open, it was still enough to suction a sufficient amount of breeze to cool us down. (If your home isn't as open concept as ours, you'll need to leave bedroom doors open to let the wind blow through).

Another great way to avoid the A/C is to have a small fan or two in the house. They are much more energy efficient than A/C and at night time you really only need to cool down your bedroom. Why waste energy to cool your entire home when you're only in one room the whole night? Fans come in very handy on the extremely hot and humid days as well.

The last more obvious approach is I always dress down while inside (shorts and t-shirt or no shirt), and I use a thin bed sheet or sleep on top of the blankets. Similar to the winter approach of wearing more clothes to keep warm, in the summer we wear less clothes.

There are some positive side-effects to using these approaches. Outside air quality is usually much fresher and healthier than indoor air quality, and by having a breeze in your house, your clothes will dry faster (If you hang them like me). The most obvious side-effect is a lower energy bill, but I find most people use this as an excuse not to take these measures. I've heard people say "If I'm only going to save say $50 a year on my energy bill by not doing this or that, why should I bother?".

Although these things seem very obvious, most people could care less about actually practicing them. I'm hopeful that the day will come that people will do these types of things not because there is a financial incentive, but because there is an incentive to help preserve the earth's resources by reducing energy consumption and by using renewable sources of energy.

Sarah Palin for President?

This is my 600th blog! Wow these last 4 years flew by fast!

I always try to give Americans the benefit of the doubt, because I've met many bright and worldly Americans over the years. But it doesn't matter where you go; you're always going to run into people with bizarre views in a country of 300 million people. I think the difference between the US and Canada is that a lot of these quirky people with outlandish beliefs end up on the radio in America. It seems that every time I listen to talk shows in the US, I hear opinions that sometimes strike a nerve in me; whether it's pure ignorance, bigoted comments, or extremist religious views.

When I was driving to hockey last Thursday I was listening to a Buffalo NY radio station (WBEN 930). I was listening to the 2008 Republican National Convention and I was waiting to hear John McCain's speech. While waiting for John McCain I was listening to the Ron Dobson show. Dobson made a comment that I completely disagreed with (His opinion wasn't bigoted or racist, I just didn't agree with him). He was of the opinion that John McCain's running-mate Sarah Palin should perhaps be running for President while John McCain should be the Vice President. He thought this on account that Sarah Palin had more "executive" experience than John McCain because she was the Governer of by far the largest state in the USA. He also suggested that she is better qualified for President because she has more "Foreign Policy" experience than McCain because her state borders both Russia and Canada, and that she is the head of the National Guard for Alaska.

I was dumbfounded that he would actually think that she is qualified to be President with her limited experience, and his reasons were even more inexplicable to me. I actually disagreed with him so much that I called into his show to state my opinion on the matter. Normally I don't like to talk on the phone while I'm driving on the highway, but I believed that this warranted it.

So I called in and got on the air quickly and I told Dobson that I disagreed with him for the following reasons:

• Palin has only been the Governer of Alaska for 2 years
• Despite it's size in land mass, Alaska has a very small population (The whole state has the same population as the City of Mississauga - around 600,000)
• Palin has zero foreign policy experience, and she didn't have a passport her entire life until she visited members of the Alaska National Guard in Germany and Kuwait in 2007 after she became Governer
• Prior to being Governer, Palin was the Mayor of a town of only 7,000 people (Wasilla Alaska)

He suggested that "Executive experience is executive experience". But I think Arnold Schwarzenegger would disagree if you told him that Sarah Palin's experience is equivalent to his experience of running a state of more than 30 million people. Suggesting that someone has foreign policy experience on the basis that Alaska borders Canada and Russia is also an outlandish claim.

At the end of our conversation, he commented that I'm not even from the USA... (I got the impression that he doesn't get Canadian callers very often). But as I’ve said in the past, US elections can have dramatic and long-lasting effects on the entire world, so it’s in everybody’s interests to be aware of what’s happening.

Sarah Palin is a strong lady and definitely a born leader, but she’ll need to get more under her belt before I’d agree with any claim that she’s fit to be a President. But then again, I disagree with her on many important issues, so you probably wouldn’t see me wagging any Sarah Palin banners even if she did have more experience.

Bottled Water Debate

The bottled water debate has fired up in London Ontario, and there is talk of bottled water at Toronto City Hall as well. London voted to ban the sales of water bottles in all municipal buildings to reduce waste in local landfills and help the environment.

I've been happily drinking tap water for over 6 years now, and I could never understand why people purchase cases of bottled water. According to Statistics Canada, Canada's per capita consumption of bottled water jumped from 28.4 litres in 1998 to 66 litres in 2006. Our tap water in Canadian cities is safe and healthy, so there is no reason why we need to generate waste on bottled water. Even in the year 2000 after 2500 people became ill and at least 7 people died from the contaminated water supply in Walkerton Ontario, I couldn't bring myself to buying bottles of water, so I had purchased 10 litre jugs of water instead.

There are certain times when I can justify buying bottled water; if I'm out at an event, or on the road, and I don't have any Nalgene bottles with me. But I couldn't fathom buying bottled water and drinking it at home or work. Not only does it take unnecessary energy to package and ship the bottles, recycling the plastic generates a lesser quality plastic, so the end result is the bottles are "downcycled" into lesser quality plastic products, and many bottles end up in landfills. This is still a major problem in the U.S. where recycling facilities aren't as common in some smaller cities and rural areas. Other environmentalists will also point out that recycling water bottles takes a lot of energy in itself. So when you look at the lifeline of a water bottle, it's staggering how wasteful it really is. According to National Geographic magazine, the production of each single-use water bottle requires more water in manufacturing than the bottle can hold.

At work we have a water filtration system that hooks into our tap water and provides an extra layer of filtering to make it taste even fresher. I always give people at work a hard time when I see them buying bottled water when we have a perfectly good filtering system on-site. According to this Globe and Mail article, two of the most popular brands of bottled water (Dasani and Aquafina) use water from municipal water supplies in Canada.

Whenever I go to the bathroom, I always look down at that water, and I can't believe that we are peeing into perfectly fine drinking water while some developing countries would kill to be able to drink that very same water. It's amazing how much we take for granted. Next time you pee, think about how lucky we are (for me).

Here are some interesting facts on U.S. plastic recycling from Earth911.com:

• In 2006, Americans drank about 167 bottles of water each, but only recycled an average of 23 percent. That leaves 38 billion water bottles in landfills
• Bottled water costs between $1 and $4 per gallon and 90 percent of the cost is in the bottle, lid and label
• It takes over 1.5 million barrels of oil to manufacture a year’s supply of bottled water. That’s enough oil to fuel 100,000 cars
• Eight out of 10 plastic water bottles become landfill waste
• In 2007 we spent $16 billion on bottled water. That’s more than we spent on iPods or movie tickets
• Plastic bottles take 700 years before they begin to decompose in a landfill
• If everyone in NYC gave up water bottles for one week they would save 24 million bottles from being landfilled; one month would save 112 million bottles and one year would save 1.328 billion bottles from going into the landfill