Russia vs. the West: Round 2…

With a worldwide economic recession, fears of terrorism & violence, and a dangerous revival of 90’s fashions, one would assume that Russia could hold off on making any strategic moves to take over the world….at least for a few years. The USSR fell less than 20 years ago, and an agenda to reestablish many of their policies and ideals is already reemerging, creating worries for the west.

Russia's Gazprom

An article from BBC News, [A MUST READ] which sounds as though it was pulled from a Cold War newspaper, details the newest attempts made by the Russian energy company, Gazprom, to destabilize any control European countries may have had over their energy independence.

In what sounds like a pointed threat to the west, the deputy chairman of Gazprom said, “Only three countries can be suppliers of pipeline gas in the long-term – Russia, Iran and Qatar. So there is no other choice than to deal with these suppliers. [...] Europe should decide how to handle this situation… and if Europe doesn’t need our gas, then we will find a way of selling it differently.”

What a horribly undiplomatic and unprofessional thing to say. While most likely correct, the entirely rude manner this man uses reflects very poorly on the country that potentially (in all likelihood) controls Gazprom. Suddenly, heating one’s home becomes a politically contentious issue. If you cannot be friends/allies with this, that, or the other, you cannot heat your home.

How appealing it would be to simply turn to Qatar for energy, which now seems the only country on friendly terms with the west. Or even more appealing to tell the whole group to bugger off and BE energy independent. But that cannot be the case, sadly. Instead, Europe is at least 25% in Russia’s possession, with 7 nations entirely dependent upon it. And this is expected to increase: by 2020, Russia expects to provide 33% of Europe’s energy.

If we needed yet another reason to spend more for research into alternative energies, there it is. Energy is power.

“Joe the Plumber” off the deep end in Gaza…

I just read this article on CNN. Apparently, the now-famous “Joe the Plumber” of the 2008 Presidential election cycle is complaining (perhaps kvetching is more appropriate given his current location) about the media. He has been quoted as saying, “I think the media should have no business in it,” referring to the impending war in Gaza. He says that the media is soft-soaping the situation between Israel and Hamas, making it appear that Israel’s actions have been too extreme and unjustified. He believes, on the other hand, that these measures are reasonable and should be supported.

Let us leave the subject of Israel and Hamas.

Samuel "the insane" Wurzelbacher

Is this man insane or does he just need attention? The only reason we know of this man is because of the attention the media (and, subsequently, the Presidential nominees) paid him. Now he turns his back on the people that made him famous. The best part of this story, though, is that “Joe” was sent to Israel in a journalistic capacity. A company called Pajamas Media, a conservative media outlet, and its site pjtv.com sent this ordinary Joe to Israel to report on the Israeli viewpoint on the Gazan conflict. If the media should be excluded from covering this story, would that mean his own media coverage would be in question? Or is it only those members of the media whose views differ from Joe’s own?

The election season already verified that he is NOT a plumber or at least the ideal the nominees were waxing philosophic about (as Joe had admitted that his company made in excess of $250,000 at an Obama rally). Nor is he a “Joe”- his real name is actually Samuel. I guess we know something else he is not…smart…a journalist.

Ann Coulter on The View this morning…

Damn, I love The View. Today’s episode really confirmed that for me. The guest was Ann Coulter (lovingly-termed Cunt-er on many internet sites). The already-infamous visit will no doubt be replayed over and over again on sites like YouTube, with many comments to follow, I am sure.

I came into the episode late. Despite having gone to bed relatively early to catch up on many lost hours, I did not arise until nearly 11:15AM. Had I known that the bull-headed Coulter would be a guest on Monday’s show, I would have been sure to wake on time with a prepared breakfast in front of the couch to watch the impending battle. Nonetheless, I woke up and turned on the television and was pleased to see Barbara staring back at me. As you know, whenever Barbara is on the show, a high profile guest is likely to visiting the set. And I was excited to learn from her introduction that the prolific Coulter was about to enter.

Ann Coulter's appearance at NYU

I saw Ann Coulter as recently as last month when she spoke at NYU. Since I work within the building where her speech took place, I was able to see the entire event from a lofty position in the empty back balcony. After a lengthy introduction by the (I-cannot-believe-they-exist-at-NYU) College Republicans, Ms. Coulter appeared before the large audience hall, half-filled by those wishing to protest her entire presence on campus. I would probably count myself among that crowd. Yet, I must admit, she was more-or-less a delight to listen to. Her political humor is impeccible, and she appears very knowledgeable. When she went off script, she stumbled a bit, but always recovered well. And she is lovely to boot. If only her voice were more conifdent and less like fingernails on a chalkboard…at a decreased speed (to explain the deep register). The thing is, though, she did not say anything. Too many one-liners and an unclear/unfocused topic make her less of a political pundit and more of a political satirist. My conclusion from her visit to NYU: she is an entertainer and not a very bad one. [Here is a snippet of her NYU performance and a review less kind than my own.]

That was at NYU. I know that the national spotlight provides less of a stage, where one can explain themselves and have redeeming qualities, than a storefront, forcing one to sell aphorisms and live with labels. So my prior conception of Coulter was reliant upon her storefront persona: the rude, politically incorrect conservative, who said that global warming was useful because she could have a tan longer. With no television contract or movies in the works, Coulter relies on her book sales and appearances to keep the money rolling in. And, boy, does she knows how to sell books: the bigger the controversy, the bigger her checking account. Critiquing 9-11 widows, pledging to fight for Hillary Clinton if McCain wins the primary for the Republicans, etc have all worked in the past for the wealthy Coulter.

Now what? Well, with a new book called Guilty, she thought she would stir up the daytime television pot with an appearance on the widely seen show The View. Take a look at the results.

I love how each View panelist brought a card full of questions they had for Ms. Coulter. I think they may have formally addressed one of those questions. Two if they were extremely lucky.

But who won? Let us add up the totals…

• +1 Sherri putting Ann in her place to defend Barbara
• -1 Barbara caving into Ann and reading it like Winnie the Pooh
• +1 Ann using studies to support her argument
• +1 The View ladies for not letting Ann finish her thoughts
• -1 Ann criticizing single moms, +.5 for excluding Whoopi
• +1 Joy refused to take Coulter’s shit

With 3 points to Ann’s 1.5 points, the ladies of The View win this interview/battle. But I think both win: The View in ratings; Ms. Coulter in book sales.

Somalian pirates…

I am glad to report that a Saudi Arabian tanker vessel, which holds 2 million barrels of oil, was released by Somalian pirates today, according to a BBC report. Seized about two months ago, the ship and its 25 member crew were held hostage until the ransom the captors demanded was paid. This is one of dozens of ship seizures that have occurred in the Gulf of Arden and Indian Ocean in the past year or so, causing countries such as Iran and China, among others, to send their naval fleets to the region to protect their merchant vessels. Counter attacks involving missiles and gunfire have become more common as publicity on the seizures has grown, thwarting many attempts of the pirates. Only within the last quarter of 2008 did we begin to hear any news of these attacks, as the number of captures and attempts at capture increased with the Somalian pirates making grand demands from the countries involved.

A reported money drop onto the deck of the Sirius Star

The Sirius Star reportedly received a delivery by parachute containing the $3 million ransom, presumably from the Saudi government. I realize that it is not the United States that is involved, but why are the Saudis paying off this ransom demand? The U.S. government would absolutely refuse to deal with pirate-terrorists, as I am sure they would call them, and deal with them in some other manner (most likely restricting them economically or -one hopes as a last resort- with force). And I think that is appropriate as far as these pirates are concerned. As far as I know, Somalia is still run by rival warlords, for lack of a better term, each trying to get more money and weapons to defeat the other factions. People are starving throughout the country and a drought has plagued the region, leaving them in a desperate state. That does not mean that these pirates are sharing the money they gain by holding ships hostage and feeding the country. More likely, they are obtaining more weapons, making the country impenetrable for U.N. aid workers and humanitarian groups. They are hurting their country, while exploiting the poor and hungry to justify their violence and thievery.

Let us no longer aid these warlords and pirates by giving in to their demands. I am sure they realize the increased difficulties that will come from making good on their threats and harming crew members, and I doubt they would resort to that. Let us take action when necessary: be conservative and diplomatic, yet efficient with penalties. I do not like violence and detest war and the reputation we have gained because of our wars. Yet, to prevent the further decay of Somalia and to allow aid to help these people, we must be aggressive and maintain the appropriate and mutually-beneficial, agreed-upon order.

Quickly on Sarah Palin…

Tina Fey as Sarah Palin

I just saw an article featuring an interview with former Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Apparently, she is very upset by the way she was portrayed by SNL performer Tina Fey during the 2008 election season. As the Governor of Alaska, Fey said, “I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers.” This is the main issue Palin seems to take with SNL, that her family was used for humor. Her objections went entierly unvoiced during the election, however. At the time, Palin made an appearance on SNL to score some additional votes for the GOP. Now that the election is over and lost, I suppose it makes sense to now score some pitty points to secure a future in the GOP. Hindsight is 20-20, they say. It is good to know that she did not win the election: should a potential President be relying on hindsight to act or act in the present?

She also tried to critique her interview with Katie Couric, the all American newswoman that I love, who gained a substantial increase in ratings thanks to a series of interviews with never-prepared Sarah Palin. Palin does not blame Couric specifically, but notes that it “says a great deal about our society” that people have capitalized on her inadequacies. She left that last part out, but I knew where she was going. Interestingly enough, she blames the GOP for forcing her into the interviews with Couric. The blame-game only works when you go for the enemy in politics, and Palin better watch where her governorship goes if she picks a fight with the Republicans.

All well. What is done, is done. Here is a copy of one hilarious clip from fall 2008 on SNL.