411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 53
Posted by Ryan Latimer on 07.23.2007
Happy Trails...
Pleasant first of the week, 411 Politico readers, and welcome to another edition of Fact or Fiction. I'm your host Ryan Latimer, and I'll be sure to leave the light on for Brandon Crow when he takes over the reigns of this rickety old sled. Oil is on the second shelf in the corner.
Yeah I know, I'll miss everyone, too, but I man's got to do what a yadda yadda yadda, tearful melodramatic spiel no one really reads and likely doesn't care about, I puke, the end. I was planning on handing over the keys next week, but I quickly realized that the calendar was not in an agreeable mood for such a thing: this weekend I'm hitting the road from my humble abode in Michigan - America's oven mitt - and heading down to the Sunshine State of Florida - America's happy stick - for my new job. It will take at least two days to get there and my move-in date is at the tail-end of this month, so obviously doing a 54th edition of FOF will be quite difficult, and I don't like any of you enough to dive for the ball. As they say on the street: "my bad." If it makes Jason feel any better, he can fire me.
But you know what? This column isn't about me no matter how much I go out of my way to make it so; it's about amateur political debate! I'll say my goodbyes at the end. Reader Week continues with Krunchy Law (no doubt a name given at birth by a mother who either hated him or simply enjoyed cereal and Sam Waterston) and Chris Connolly duking it out on such issues as the rise/fall of Al Qaeda, the return of Don Imus, Michael Moore vs. CNN, and Rudy G's aspirations to Make the World a Better Place. Folks, make me proud. Even if I do return to 411 in some capacity one day, this will be my last article for at least the near future. If it sucks, no one will come to my MySpace blog and listen to me ramble about bad movies and cheesy life advice. Think of the MySpace blog.
And go…
1) There have been recent dueling reports, statistics and opinions regarding the current status of terror group Al Qaeda, with some parties insisting the organization has become stronger and more prevalent during the last few years and others claiming the opposite. Al Qaeda has indeed become stronger and wider since 9/11, and the war in Iraq has only fueled its fire.
Chris Connolly: FICTION - I think the reason that the people think Al Qaeda has become more far reaching is because we find out every week or month that there are cells out there plotting attacks. But one can also look at this as we are going to great lengths to root out these cells and stop their plans. If they were stronger then they would be pulling off more attacks on innocent people and winning battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which they are doing. 99% of the time they engage in a firefight with our troops they lose BIG TIME. The only real success they are having is with planting IED's or roadside bombs. I think we all agree that there is a need to figure out a better way to deal with those, and the tide is starting to turn on that front because local people are fed up with the terrorists and pointing out to our forces where the bombs are and who is planting them.
As for their terror attacks on innocent people, they have pulled off 2 major ones since 9/11, the London and Madrid bombings. Other than that, they have been foiled many times by either intelligence agencies or local police who really have done stellar jobs keeping a watch out, especially in the UK. Our people here have also done an excellent job of taking these murderers down before they can do any damage. We are also killing and capturing another high level Al Qaeda leader every few months, which has to be really disrupting their planning and execution of future attacks.
Let's be realistic here: even if we left Iraq today and apologized to the radical Islamic movement, it would not change their desire to kill anyone who doesn't believe the way they do. This war is just a continuation of the fight that has raged for centuries between civilized people and radical Islam. The only way to stop them is to take the fight to them until the last one assumes room temperature.
Krunchy: FICTION - First off, good luck Ryan on your life after 411. It's not every day that someone volunteers to be shot into space to demolish a killer asteroid, especially someone with Irritable Bowel Syndrome. So be careful out there, and Godspeed. Just don't try to marry Bruce Willis' kids though; you don't really want Ashton Kutcher as an in-law, do you?
Either answer is probably going to be a good guess, Unless we can come across a Al Qaeda yearbook to see how big of a graduating class they have (Class of 07 prom song is "Far Away" by Nickelback) how could you tell? My main thinking on this is that Terrorist Groups are much better off when they are a loose grouping of yahoo's running around blowing shit up. When you are organized enough to have a deck of playing cards with all your top leaders listed (ummm, we know ALL bad guys work together) your group is probably too large and unwieldy.
It's all splinter groups now that would probably fall under the Al Qaeda umbrella-ella-ella eh eh eh, but seriously, have you ever tried to order 1 pizza for 4-5 people? Ahmed has acid reflux so he can't have pepperoni; Mohammed is a vegetarian; and I can't believe that Ali Khalid likes anchovies. Muslim fanatics have about as many different factions as Baptists.
Long answer made shortish, "There are more terrorists, but they are less organized, and not under the official support of Al Qaeda. It's sectarian violence of a nationalistic nature along religious lines in Iraq."
1 for 1
2) The Rev. Al Sharpton, who spearheaded firing of radio shock jock Don Imus a few months ago, said he wouldn't object if the radio personality returned to the airwaves, saying he "has a right to make a living." Sharpton is being hypocritical and should have never took it upon himself to insist Imus be fired in the first place.
Chris Connolly: FACT - I am not condoning what Imus said, but I don't think he should have lost his job. I think it was a dumb statement made by an old man who thinks just because 50 Cent says things like that it's ok for him to as well. What really burns me up about this is that he is the one who really kept the pressure on to get rid of Imus, and if he hadn't done so Imus probably wouldn't have gotten canned. But Al Sharpton is a race baiting poverty pimp who loves to start trouble, and the kind of trouble he starts is the kind where riots break out and innocent people get hurt and killed. I think it is time Al finds a job other than harassing people who say stupid things or things he thinks are "racist". Come to think of it, has he ever held a real job?
Krunchy: FICTION - Al Sharpton has made a career out of hypocrisy, and it's in his nature to be self-promoting. When the powers that be caved in so early and fired Imus, I think it really hit Sharpton hard, since he was ready to foam at the mouth for weeks about it and it stole his thunder. With Imus back, Sharpton will get his spotlight again, which is what he cares more about than Imus' intent. You watch, PETA will be pissed if all of Michael Vick's endorsement deals end within the week. They'll be crying in their tofurkey.
1 for 2
3) Filmmaker Michael Moore went on a verbal tirade against CNN during a recent appearance on Wolf Blitzer to promote his latest film Sicko. Moore accused CNN and Blitzer of being dishonest about the facts in his movie and also chastised the network for "not doing its job" regarding coverage on the war in Iraq. Moore was in the right to go off on CNN.
Chris Connolly: FICTION - I saw the interview he had with Moore on the internet and I felt sorry for Wolf. Blitzer tried to interview him about the movie but he kept on ranting and raving about the war and how "Dr. Gooopta" was out there ripping his movie to shreds. All Dr. Gupta did was raise a few valid questions about things Moore presented in his movie, and since Moore put these assertions out there, it is perfectly within Dr. Gupta's right as a medical correspondent to question the validity of those assertions. As for the war reporting, I can remember flipping back and forth during the initial invasion of Iraq between Fox and CNN and seeing dramatically different coverage. CNN had guys like Wesley Clark on there talking about how the invasion was stalling and things weren't going according to plan, even though US troops rolled right through the Iraqi army. CNN has been at the forefront of being critical of any missteps since the invasion of Iraq, so I really don't know what Moore's problem is there.
I think the bottom line is that Moore should know that because of who he is and the style of "documentary" he puts out he should be prepared to answer questions about the things he presents as facts, rather than going into hysterics.
Krunchy: FACT - Haven't seen the film, but since I don't have Health Insurance, I think I've lived it quite well, thank you very much. When I worked in the Mental Health field in Mass, the answer to people that were losing dental coverage in group homes was "ok, we'll just yank out their teeth and give them dentures so we won't have to worry about the cost of oral surgery later when the coverage runs out." Socialized medicine isn't quite the answer he makes it out to be, but you have to give him credit for bringing it up at a time where it could be a debate issue. Moore knows how to promote his films, and himself, better than anyone else out there. Blitzer and CNN basically said "So-and-So said that you are a liar … your response?" and when Moore backed up his facts, they went to "but all the companies that put commercials on our station to promote 4 hour erections said you are wrong!" and "You're a fatty fat fat, aren't YOU being a fatty fat fat wrecking the insurance system because you are an enormous dude that will need angioplasty every time Britney or Lindsey goes to rehab!" You can say what you want about Michael Moore, but he has a pretty good grasp of his facts as he presents them. Can you name a lawsuit he has lost? I can't and I'm sure you can't either. If he did, it'd be ALL over the news. The media is up in arms because Moore excoriates ALL sides of the political spectrum in this movie.
1 for 3
4) On a recent visit to Iowa, the leading ethanol-producing state, Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani called for more ethanol plants and new nuclear reactors, oil refineries and transmission lines. The 2008 candidate argued he can lead the country away from reliance on foreign oil with increases in ethanol production and nuclear power. This talk is standard from what citizens have heard for decades, and Giuliani's assertions are no different as we will see no change in US energy policy.
Chris Connolly: PUSH - I am going to say FACT and FICTION on this one. First off, I am going to disclose that I am a Thompson Guy, but if he doesn't get in I am going for Rudy. Anyway, here's why: it is a FACT that we are not going to see any real change in energy policy because everyone is too scared of the "not in my back yard" and environmental groups in this country to drill for our own oil, either in Alaska or off of any of our coastlines, or even just build more refineries. Since that awful movie "China Syndrome" came out, everyone is too scared to build a nuclear plant. So a real turnover in leadership in Congress is going to have to happen for these things to come about. The only real change that has happened is more ethanol plants, but no one seems to want to realize that the stuff is driving up the price of commodities to where the UN can't even afford to do the only thing it does well, which is feed people in 3rd world countries.
It's FICTION though because he is not saying what every major candidate has said before. No one has really forcefully come out during a campaign and said "look guys, hybrids and conservation are great and all, but we have real energy needs we need to address". He is right in that in order for this economy to keep growing, we are going to have to upgrade our power grids and use the technology that has been gathering dust for no good reason to supply that energy until we can develop something better down the line. I thnk if anyone could convince Congress and the country as a whole to do this it would be Giuliani.
Krunchy: FACT - Jimmy Carter was giving this line of reasoning back in 1976, although it does seem to be have more potential then it did even 10 years ago. I think it would take another Democrat president for it to really blossom though. I personally don't think we should be looking at a fuel replacement that is so reliant on agriculture, where U.S. is mostly using corn, although sugar cane makes the best ethanol (apparently they are also working on a way to extract ethanol from chicken shit. Really!). One bad growing season, and the nation could be crippled; petroleum at least has a quantifiable amount available, and it takes more energy to make ethanol than the power it produces by quite a margin. It'd be real short-sighted to depend on a fuel that has so many variables. I think we should be looking for the best way to store/generate power with a hybrid cell where you are still using petroleum but in lesser amounts in cars, and nuclear power could be the answer for our other power needs.
As far as Rudy goes, where is the love for New Hampshire? I haven't seen anyone pander to them by saying they want to make cars run on Maple Syrup? Perhaps it's because then we'd be dependant on Canada, which we are already dependant on for celebrities. I wouldn't want to be beholden to Prime Minister Avril Lavigne for our fuel needs. With every fill-up you get a free crueler from Tim Horton's. Mmm, that's what it is all aboot (yeah, I went there, I have nooooo shame!)
1 for 4
And that's it, folks. In all seriousness, thanks to everyone who ever clicked on a Ryan Latimer 411 column or article in the last 6 years, and yes, it's been that long. I've taken hiatuses and switched positions throughout the years, but I've been on these grounds since the turn of the century when I began as a video game staff reviewer in 2001. My first game review was Twisted Metal Black for the PS2. Since then I've worked as a Movies/TV columnist, Movies/TV news columnist, Movies/TV film critic, Politics contributing writer, Politics columnist, and finally, Politics Fact or Fiction host.
I think, for at least now, I've done enough. Time for someone else to get a little mic time. My last article will run tomorrow, an interview with Evan Maloney of Indoctrinate U that I highly recommend for your politics lovers. Ah, heck, do it for me anyway. As the old cliche goes, better to go out with bang than a whimper.
STAY CURRENT