Beyond Opinion

Well, I saw the movie tonight. A friend said that tickets could be bought and so I did so. The movie played to a packed house, and was met by applause after the movie, the first time I had ever seen that after a movie. The most heart-rending parts of the movie were the Iraqi woman who screamed about the sorrow that Americans caused her family and beseeching God to wreak vengeance on them, then asking where God was anyway, and the American woman who was beside herself because her son died in Iraq while serving in our Army.

I have heard it said that the film is a polemic, or a propaganda film. That it probably is, but no more than the average ad on TV or the average campaign ad in the newspaper. Most of what Moore says is either true or it can't be verified one way or the other. However, he puts the truths together in ways that fit the patterns that he wants to show. At least this is the impression that I get of it so far. I would like to find more details behind some of the events in the movie. There was one false statement in the movie. Moore said that Iraq had not attacked the US in its history. Then he went on to say that no American ever died in the hands of the Iraqis. That is not true. On 1987 May 17, an Iraqi fighter fired two Exocet missiles into the USS Stark in the Persian Gulf, killing 37 crew members.

More on Moore later. I give the movie three stars.

Yesterday I talked about Column 4 of my Periodic Table of the Presidents, the Gap Presidents. I found it difficult to talk about them because they did not have that much in common, but what they had in common is that they filled a gap between the Golden Age Presidents (Column 3) and the next column.

Today I shall talk about Column 5 (no, not the fifth column!) of the table. These are the Expansive Presidents, and these Presidents did have something in common. They wanted to expand the region of extent of America somehow. They are Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, and Richard Nixon. The first thing to notice about these is that they are not in sequence! The Periodic Table does not explain everything about Presidents, any more than the Periodic Table of the Elements explain everything about chemistry. For example, elements 6, 7, 8, and 9; in other words, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and fluorine, are a crumbly black substance (or a beautifully clear gem), a somewhat inert gas, a reactive gas, and a highly reactive gas. They form a sequence in order. But look what happens when we combine these with hydrogen. We get methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen fluoride. Water is really out of place here, a liquid amongst gases. Goes to show that simple tables like these can't explain everything.

And neither can my Presidents table. They are out of order. These presidents really resemble each other, and our nation is huge and powerful in part because of them. These Presidents are the characteristic Presidents of a Second Turning. Here are their descriptions:

Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) right away took an activist stand when he became President. He brought in the merit system as opposed to the spoils system, and he expanded our land by ways which I would not approve of now. Sharpknife (as he was known to Native Americans) first supported the Cherokees againsta the Choctaws, then he forced the entire tribe out of Echotaland (parts of Georgia, Tennessee, and North Carolina) into Oklahoma in the "Trail of Tears", causing the death of a large number along the way. He also centralized the government in many ways, doing away with many Era of Good Feelings features.

Grover Cleveland (1885-1889 and 1893-1897) was the only President in our history to serve two non-consecutive terms. He was an exceptionally strong President, favoring huge tariffs on foreign goods to support US industry, especially in the South. The South responded with huge, in some places 80-20%, majorities in his favor in the 1888 Presidential election against Benjamin Harrison, giving him a popular majority. However, he lost several northern states by slim margins, giving Harrison the electoral majority. But he came back against Harrison in 1892 and this time took both the electoral and popular vote, helped by the addition of six new states during Harrison's term. He was the original Veto President, sort of like the Veto Monster (Bill Clinton), hitting 300 bills with his veto.

Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1908) continued in Cleveland's tradition, speaking softly while carrying a big stick. He sought to expand US influence in the world by the threat of intervention whenever troublemakers surfaced in the world. He expanded the role of US President in the world and also expanded US influence as well.

Richard Nixon (1969-1974) started out in the same tradition. He imposed wage and price controls, and dealt with overseas enemies by making things "perfectly clear". He expanded US influence by opening up Communist China to the world. China was later to become one of the places where the Dot Com boom of the 1990s was led. However, he ruined it all by ordering the bugging of Democratic Headquarters at Watergate, and then lying about it and stopping investigations into it. The resulting scandal forced him to resign in 1974. This negated his otherwise good record in the world, which also included bringing the Vietnam War to a close, albeit too slowly.

Tomorrow: Column 6, the Supportive Presidents.

It took me a while to write this on the next row in the Periodic Table of the Presidents. Notice I now say "row". Normally the chemical table of the elements is presented as a landscape, with the levels being rows, and the groups of similar elements being columns. In my Presidents table, I have it in portrait view, with the groups of similar presidents as rows, and the periods of history as columns. I do this so that it will fit well on a computer screen. If I did it like the chemical elements, it would be either scrunched up too much, or it would spread over the end of the screen on the right.

The Gap Presidents are John Quincy Adams, Chester Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, and Lyndon Johnson. (Garfield did not serve long enough to be included.) Yes, they are out of order, skipping Grover Cleveland. The table does not predict everything - see my next chapter on Expansive Presidents. These presidents are not particularly noteworthy, and they are not among those we remember most often as presidents. They were presidents at or near the beginning of a Second Turning of American history, and so they can act somewhat nonplussed about the social unrest that comes with a Second Turning. Here are my impressions of these presidents.

I don't remember John Quincy Adams very much from history texts, but I do note that he did not win a majority of the electoral votes, and he did not come in first - Andrew Jackson. Since there was no majority, all the candidates went to the House, and then Henry Clay threw his support to Adams, causing Adams to get elected. It was during John Quincy Adams' term that the Era of Good Feelings ended. An opposition party (Whig) developed, and there was quite a bit of bickering among politicians of the day.

Chester Arthur may not have expected to become President. He became such through an assassin's bullet. His administration was adequate, but he did not do much during his term to become memorable, and he was turned down by his own party for the nomination at the end of his term: the Republicans nominated James Blaine. He seemed to have been a party man and cooperated with the party bosses of the day.

Benjamin Harrison is the President coming in between the two terms of Cleveland. He is out of place here, and should have come before Cleveland. He got to the Presidency here because of the quirk in our electoral process called the Electoral College. He worked everything himself instead of delegating. He was opposed to the gold and silver standard, and made the case for gold only. Six states joined the Union during his Presidency, nearly bringing the country to its present appearance. Typical of Gap presidents, he has been described as "cold", "boring" and lacking in the type of leadership the US Presidency requires.

I do remember Lyndon Johnson from my college days. He took over the Presidency when Golden Age President Kennedy was assassinated, and he defeated Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964. His administration was notable for a number of things, including The Great Society, but it is his bogging this country down in the Vietnam War for which he will be remembered.

Next: The Expansive Presidents, who display the leadership skills and the action that Gap presidents generally lacked.

I hear tonight that there has been another beheading in the Middle East. This time it is a US Marine held by insurgents in Iraq. The history of these kidnappings is that eventually the hostage gets executed. It happens every single time. There is only so far that this can go. If, when one is captured, one is certain to get beheaded, then it follows that anything goes as far as the hostage's behavior is concerned, even actions that risk one's life. For it's like United's Flight 93 on 2001 September 11. When the passengers heard that planes were being smashed into the World Trade Center, they figured they were going to get smashed, too, and so they rebelled against the hijacker crew. "Let's Roll". I call this Let's Roll Syndrome. Sooner or later, some insurgent or hostage-taking group is going to get attacked by a wrathful hostage and seriously injured or killed. A few times of this and hopefully this hostage and beheading game will end. And so it shall be. There are better ways of dealing with anger than that.

And so the Periodic Presidents series continues with the third column: Golden Age Presidents. The Presidents in this category are James Madison, James Monroe, Rutherford B. Hayes, and John F Kennedy. These are the characteristic Presidents of the First Turning of Strauss and Howe. These Presidents presided over an America that for the most part was at peace, where the outlook is optimistic, and which seem to be a utopia or golden age for this country as a whole. Sometimes this age comes with a name: The Era of Good Feelings or Camelot. Here the Periodic Presidents classification system gets a little distorted. Camelot lasted less than three years, but the Era of Good Feelings lasted two whole Presidential terms of two different Presidents: Madison and Monroe, a total of 16 years. One reason for this is that while most Crisis periods last up to 20 years, the Civil War was only four years long. There is some question as to whether Madison was a National Hero president instead, but he does not fit the mold as easily as Jefferson. These are the Presidents:

James Madison was President from 1809-1817. During his term, opposition to the prevalent Democrat-Republicans faded away, and the age, although feeling good with a good deal of societal structure in a new democracy, seemed stale and not moving anywhere. There was the War of 1812, which was a pointless war that resembled the Revolution to some extent. It was not popular with all groups in the society at that time.

James Monroe followed him from 1817-1825. He is most noted for the Monroe Doctrine, America's way of asserting independence for itself and in fact for the entire hemisphere. It stated that there shall be no interference from the Eastern Hemisphere with any country in the Western Hemisphere. The Era of Good Feelings continued during his term, and by his second term, he had only token opposition to being re-elected.

Rutherford B. Hayes (1877-1881) presided over a Golden Age, but a rather sterile one dominated by the acquisition of the buck. He was a man of high integrity, as was his opponent Samuel Tilden, but although Tilden had both popular and electoral majorities, the Republicans found a way through manipulating the Southern states to get Hayes elected. In return, Hayes pulled the troops out of the South, which must have been a relief from these states. It may have been a Golden Age in that peace returned, but along with peace came Jim Crow, something another period of time would have to correct.

John F. Kennedy (1961-1963) was one of the most charismatic presidents in history. He presided over an Age of great hope: for human conquest of space, for racial equality, and for numerous other things. He also presided over a crisis that could have resulted in nuclear war, in 1962 over Cuba. He was popular with people and with women, and there are stories about his extramarital doings. His presidency was labeled Camelot, an image which may have been enhanced by his assassination in 1963.

The next Presidents, in column 4, are the Gap Presidents. These Presidents stand at the border of the Second Turnings of American history, and seem to fill the gap between the high of the First Turning and the social tumult of the Second.

I now have the complete Periodic Table available by clicking on this link. It is not a finished work by any means. I am not certain of the placing of some of these Presidents, especially those that presided during Second Turnings, but I feel this comes close to what the Table should look like.

I heard today that they were raising the tolls on I-895 in Richmond from $1.50 to $2.00 effective 2004 July 1. This toll is expensive enough as it stands now. The $1.50 toll is the reason why the traffic has been so thin on it. People continue to take I-295 or I-95 to get to the airport. Now they are increasing the tolls? That will drive more people away. No. That is not the way to increase traffic on the road. The way is to cut tolls, increasing traffic to make up for the cut. The highway department maintains instead that every 25 cent increase in the toll costs 5 percent of the traffic. But that still yields a profit: $1.75 * 0.95 = $1.66, which is greater than $1.50.

I think we can do something about this. People should simply resolve to use I-895 less. Don't take I-895. Take the other ways to Norfolk and Richmond Airport. How much of a cut will hurt? Since this is a 4/3 raise (or 33%), a cutback of 3/2 will cost them 11 cents on each dollar. So every third time that I want to use I-895, I won't, and I will use another route instead. I know that at times I-895 is quicker and the views are spectacular, but this is how we get the tolls lowered or eliminated. Don't use I-895, or at least, reduce your use of I-895 by at least one-third. Maybe they will listen and will cut the tolls instead.

The next column in my periodic table of the Presidents is Column 2, National Heroes. In this column go Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight Eisenhower. The common property of these Presidents is that they were major operational heroes during the Crisis, and because of their popularity, they were elected presidents. They sort of made good presidents, but their record as President can't compare with their record as National Hero during the Crisis.

Thomas Jefferson differs from the others in that he was an abstract idea hero, rather than a military hero. Thomas Jefferson, in my opinion, is the third greatest person ever to have lived, trailing only Buddha and Copernicus. He penned many of the ideas of the democratic form of government, which was eventually to have an effect on governments everywhere. A majority of the Constitutions of nations on this planet are now based on the US Constitution, which was the result of the application of Thomas Jefferson's ideas. He was one of our better presidents, having bought the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon and doubled US territory. However, it is his ideas that we will remember him for.

Gen. Ulysses S. Grant was a fine general in the Civil War, eventually defeating the Confederates with its charismatic leader Gen. Robert E. Lee. However, as President, he wasn't so good. He was honest, but allowed unscrupulous things to go on in his government, especially his second term. He is now generally rated as one of the worst of the Presidents because of these scandals. Once again, we remember Grant as a Civil War general rather than as a President.

Gen. Dwight David Eisenhower was the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe, and as such was responsible for the defeat of the Nazis and the restoration of a war-battered Europe. His careful planning of D-Day turned that invasion into a success that won the war a year later, creating a generation of heroes. This made him so popular that he was elected President in 1952. He was okay as a President, with one major failure: the U-2 crisis, and he forcefully dealt with Khrushchev's rants during the early days of the Cold War. But we will always remember him for what he did during the war rather than as President.

These Presidents had to deal with wars that were echoes of the Crisis. The Plains Indians Wars were an echo of the Civil War, and the Korean War echoed World War II. The War of 1812 came in Madison's term, and I wonder if James Madison should also be included as a National Hero President. However, Madison's hero status was much less than Jefferson's.

Tomorrow: The Golden Age Presidents of the Era of Good Feelings and Camelot.

Today I heard that author Ray Bradbury, author of The Martian Chronicles and Fahrenheit 451, expressed disappointment at Michael Moore because Mr. Moore called his documentary on Planeattack Fahrenheit 9/11. Mr. Bradbury wants Mr. Moore to apologize and to rename the movie, and to "give me back my book and movie."

I don't see why Ray Bradbury should object. Yes, he has the right to object to the title and to tell him to rename it. However, the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 has the same theme as Fahrenheit 451, so that the Moore movie is something like a continuation of the Bradbury movie. I understand that a new movie of Fahrenheit 451 is coming out soon. In my opinion, sales of the book and the movie by Bradbury will be increased sharply because of the media attention to Fahrenheit 9/11. The two Fahrenheits coming to theaters could be a one-two punch to the Bush administration that could lead to Kerry's victory in November.

Another objection to Moore's title is the "9/11". This makes a negative symbol out of a date, and so would be objectionable to anyone associated with the date, September 11, especially those who have that date as their birthday. That is why I now choose to call those horrible attacks in 2001 Planeattack instead of 9/11 or September 11. However, in a movie title like this, I think it works out fine. Movies are an art form, and so patterns are more important than fact or actual representation. So I don't object either to the "Fahrenheit" or the "9/11" parts of the title.

However, Mr. Bradbury wants a new title. If push comes to shove, I have a new title. 9/11 84. I sent this email to Michael Moore's news team today. I hope they go with the original title, but if he can't, I hope he considers 9/11 84. Here is my letter:

Dear Michael Moore and friends on the news staff,

I heard today that Ray Bradbury, author of "Fahrenheit 451", from which your film "Fahrenheit 9/11" gets its name, wants you to apologize for using an adaptation of the name of his book and for you to rename the movie to something else. I am not sure why he is doing this, because the themes of both are similar: a government that suppresses freedom of some sort, be it books or otherwise. It seems to me that the attention that "Fahrenheit 9/11" gets will boost sales of "Fahrenheit 451"; at least, it brings attention to "Fahrenheit 451".

Nevertheless, if you have to change the name, here is my suggestion: "9/11 84", or perhaps "9/11/84". This relates the movie to George Orwell's book, with its doubletalk, lying as truth (as in "Freedom is Slavery"), and the omnipresence of Big Brother. It is also in the same tone, sounds sort of like "1984" (nineteen eighty-four vs nine eleven eighty-four), and is catchy and short. And a request to rename it might be much less likely, since George Orwell died in 1949.

Jim

With this blog I begin a new series on the Presidents of the United States. This was sparked by someone telling me that our present President Bush resembles Hoover. I realized that he did. He was the President before a Crisis Period in our history, something called a Fourth Turning by Strauss and Howe. I then realized that there was quite a bit of similarity, and further I could set up similarities among the Presidents throughout our history, coming up with something that looks like a Periodic Table, as though the Presidents were elements. Certain Presidents, such as Hoover and Bush (43), lie in the same column of the Periodic Table, and so are similar to each other. I shall give my impressions of the Presidents in each of the 12 columns of this Periodic Table, and shall at some time exhibit the table as well. This table is based on the Generational Turnings of Strauss and Howe, so that each of the four Turnings has about 3-4 Presidents associated with it in each of the rows of the table, which Strauss and Howe call saecula. Note that four Presidents don't fall into my table because they did not serve long enough: William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and James Garfield.

Today I will start with the First Turning, with Column 1 of the table, the Outspoken Presidents. The three Presidents in this column are John Adams, Andrew Johnson, and Harry Truman.

John Adams was the second President of the United States, from 1797-1801. To me his most memorable artifact was the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were eerily similar to our Patriot Act. They sought to limit the rights of foreigners and others in this country. Fortunately they did not go much of anywhere. I have read that John Adams indeed was outspoken, hard to get along with, and obstinate in his views.

Andrew Johnson was the President that followed Lincoln (1865-1869) and had the job of overseeing the Reconstruction in the South after the Civil War. He was a Democrat with Southern leanings, but wanted to follow Lincoln's plans. The Congress at that time was dominated by radical Republicans, and they insisted on their way, which included passing the 12-14th amendments and making the South ratify these before being readmitted to the Union and having Federal troops being withdrawn. This resulted in fights, which Johnson saw fit to fight rather than strike a deal with the Congress. Eventually this led to his being impeached by Congress (for firing Secretary Staunton after Congress forbade him from doing so), and being acquitted by one vote. His obstinacy impeded progress in readmitting the former Confederate states into the Union.

Harry S. Truman was President from 1945-1953. Like his predecessors, he was outspoken and communicated his desires frankly. For example, when the Soviet Union threatened to invade Iran, he said that if they did that, we will drop the Bomb on them. They retreated. His strong positions on issues of the time led to his being regarded now as one of our better Presidents, although he did let a bit of scandal creep into his Adminstration.

That finishes Column 1, the Outspoken Presidents. Tomorrow, I will cover Column 2, the National Heroes, who were major heroes during the Crisis but not quite as good as Presidents.

Today the Supreme Court ruled that they could not sustain the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to forbid formal recitations or other things that contain "God" in them, including the Pledge of Allegiance, with its "under God". The reason is dissatisfying because it goes off on a side issue. They could not support the decision or Michael Newdow's suit on behalf of his daughter because he does not have custody of his daughter and so could not speak on her behalf. That leaves unanswered the main question, namely whether the word "God" is permitted to be a part of ceremonies at a school. Apparently Dr. Newdow broke up with his wife and lost the daughter before he could drum up a suit. That makes the suit defective.

We need a better case. The word "God" does not belong in any ceremony or any program at a public school, because not all people believe in a God, and the Constitution forbids an establishment of religion in the public arena, and the words "under God" constitute an establishment of religion, in my opinion. We need someone to sue a school system over use of "God" in the pledge. This someone needs to have custody of children who go to this school system; it would be best if both members of a couple filed the suit - this shows unity on the issue. Further, this suit must be capable of going to the highest court in the land. Therefore this couple needs to be from the San Francisco area so that the 9th Circuit Court will get the case. I can't do it. I do not have school children, or even grandchildren, and I am not from San Francisco. Someone from that metropolitan area needs to step up to the plate in this Ballgame of the Pledge and hit a home run for the First Amendment. Fortunately, I heard that there are more cases coming up.

I live south of Richmond, Virginia, and frequently go to meetings north of Richmond. On some of these I go up I-95, turn onto I-64 and then immediately get off at the next exit, which is Staples Mill Road, which is also US 33. The first thing that confronts me is a fork in the road and signs saying east, to the left and west, to the right. OK, except that this is not an east-west road. It is a north-south road. Well maybe it is east-west elsewhere. No. If you look at a map of Richmond, you will see that US 33 goes north and south with just a little bit of a northwest to southeast tilt. I got confused by this sign at first, but then remembered which way was which, and thereafter I ignored the signs. I now see that someone has written the Richmond Times-Dispatch about it, and all the newspaper's highway columnist did was to call Jeannette Coleman of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and get an answer from her that was not helpful. She said she consulted an engineer on the matter and that they were going to keep the sign the same. I emailed her about it today and she gave me essentially the same answer. No addressing the possible problem that these signs cause, no explaining why the signs are east and west instead of north and south. She just said that they weren't going to change the signs.

These signs need to be changed. The road is clearly a north-south road, and a motorist following a map will notice the north and southness of it and will look for north and south on the exit signs. The motorist will get confused upon seeing east and west instead and try to figure out which is the right way, distracting him or her from watching the road. The result could very well be that the motorist takes the wrong direction, or even worse yet, have an accident. VDOT needs to change the signs soon.

This morning I heard on public radio an interview with people talking about the F-word; that well known word composed of four letters that surround the phrase "future shock". I will not mention the word here for fear of causing filters from all over the place to block my blog. The announcer says it is just four little letters, essentially. We want to protect the children, say the FCC and some right-wing groups. The interviewee said that most children learned it by 7. I learned the word at 11. I think that the word should be taught to children somehow; if not by children, then by teachers. That would prevent my having learned it at age 11 through back-door means.

The argument is whether it should be allowed if it does not mean to have sex with someone. Hey, that would be an improper use of the word! Saying "f-ing brilliant", like Bono recently said, is not using the word properly. Certainly he does not mean that it was so clever, whatever it was, that one would like to have sex with someone over it. The word means sex, and it should stay that way.

I heard at the end of the conversation that the speaker said that the FCC tends to forbid something if it would offend a few readers. That's why it does not allow the f-word in any form. If that's the case, how about the word "God"? That offends me when used in a non-religious context because it implies that the speaker implies that I should believe in his God. It is a form of discrimination. It seems to me that if the FCC bans the F-word, which has no such problems, and does not forbid the G-Word; i.e., "God", then it is hypocritical.

Today came the word that Ronald Reagan had died. He died at a busy time, when the war in Iraq was going on, the Belmont was about to be run, the 60th anniversary of D-Day was occurring, meaning Bush could not just simply drop Normandy and fly back because of Reagan, the World War II Memorial inaugural had just happened, and when a transit of Venus was to occur in a few days, an event that has not happened since 1882. Deaths of Presidents as of late have been rare. In 1974, there were no ex-Presidents until Nixon resigned. Ex-Presidents continued to live, however, until by 1993 there were five ex-Presidents: Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and George HW Bush. Nixon died in 1994 and did not desire a state funeral, so the first such funeral in 30 years will be held. I expect that will be a federal holiday for many of us.

And for who are we celebrating? A font of optimism, that's who. He said it was morning again in America. He kept saying that things will turn out well. He started this by instituting a tax cut. This started the optimism and turned the stagnant stock market into a rapidly increasing fount of wealth. He was able to captivate audiences with his humor. America did turn bright again during his administration, as prosperity increased. His getting government out of people's business was part of this.

However, there was a dark side. The tax cut caused huge deficits, and they have persisted ever since he cut the taxes, except for the roaring dot-com 1990s when briefly they became a surplus. He proclaimed the Soviet Union to be an "Evil Empire", and he attacked Libya for bombing a German pub with Americans in it, killing Gadhafi's adopted son. He called five countries including Iran "terrorist" harboring countries, and it became illegal to trade with them. Despite that, his government secretly violated this law by bilking the Iranians out of huge sums of money in selling weapons to them, and then using this profit to finance the anti-government guerilla movement in Nicaragua known as the contras. This came close to becoming a major scandal but it didn't; it did not topple the Lichtman key. I have heard absolutely no mention of the Iran-Contra Scandal anywhere in the media since he died.

In my classification of Presidents, Ronald Reagan was an Expansive President. He expanded the influence of America in the world and helped grind down the limiting Soviet Union to an eventual collapse. He is similar to James Knox Polk and his Manifest Destiny, and to Woodrow Wilson and his ideas of a war to end all wars. I regard this President as the characteristic President of a Third Turning. Such a President is followed by a laid-back formal President (Coolidge, George HW Bush), a Sleazy President (Harding, Clinton), and then a Nero President (Hoover, George W. Bush). A Nero President is followed by a Crisis President, one of the greatest Presidents in our history, like Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. So I predict the next President will be one of the greatest in our history. It all started off with the Expansive President, the President that made us all feel good, Ronald Reagan. So he will be remembered.

Every year the big summer blockbusters come out, and 2004 is no exception. This year, the blockbusters include Troy, a retelling of the heroic, er, horrific war between Greece and Troy that was the subject of Homer's Iliad, and the one which could be the biggest blockbuster of them all, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. But the one that is talked about the most right now is "The Day After Tomorrow".

This film is a disaster flick, about what could happen if the changes that humankind is putting to the planet succeed in significantly alter Earth's climate. Scientists have been talking to us about this for years. Humankind's burning of fossil fuels is spewing carbon dioxide into the air. This carbon dioxide absorbs the Sun's heat, but does not release it again to space, causing the Earth to heat up. The record hottest years on record have been in the 21st century and in the 1990s, for instance. If the ice in the Earth melts, for instance, coastal cities worldwide will flood.

The movie shows this, showing a Statue of Liberty surrounded by water. It also shows an F5 tornado in Los Angeles, superfreezes and a "superstorm" that causes an ice age, huge earthquakes and the like. There is a tremendous amount of hype in the movie, so much that people may not get the message on global warming. It is fun to watch, maybe, but there is not much truth in it.

Furthermore, climate change apparently is not the biggest challenge confronting humanity. I conceive of many threats to humanity, such as the coming oil shortage, global warming, terrorism, possible nuclear war, the extinction of species, water shortages and so forth. I visualize this as a series of wolves threatening humanity. The move "Day after Tomorrow" cries "Wolf", and sure enough, there is such a wolf out there threatening us, but it is not the front wolf. The front wolf, the biggest imminent threat, is the running out of cheap oil, which threatens mass starvation and massive power outages throughout the planet. But yet they are crying "wolf", because they are crying "Second Wolf!" In fact, according to some experts, this second wolf will never be a substantial threat to us. I don't think they should have produced the film. I think a film should have come out this year on oil depletion, instead. Please don't cry "Second Wolf!". Thank You.

Yes, it's finally hit a dollar a gallon. No, not gasoline, which is now two dollars a gallon. Crude oil has hit a dollar a gallon, or since a barrel has 42 gallons, $42 a barrel. The reason was a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia that has gotten everyone jittery. I expect that in the near future that the price of crude will settle back down, but not back to where it was. The emotional input to the price will evaporate like gasoline on the sidewalk, leaving behind the terrorist premium on the price of oil. It is rather interesting, this price of a dollar a gallon for crude. Now one can see that the other dollar in gasoline consists of refining, transportation of the gasoline to the service station, and taxes. By the way, I still think we need a hefty increase in taxes, so that the money from the high prices goes to the US government instead of to oil companies and Saudis. The government can return it to us in lower income taxes, pay off the national debt with it, or invest it in renewable energy programs.

Also this price of $42 a gallon is interesting, as the price is "the answer to life, the universe, and everything". At least according to The Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy, it is. Or Google. Try entering "the answer to life, the universe, and everything" in Google and see what happens. I hope the answer to life, the universe and everything is not in a barrel of oil. For in my opinion, the reason why 42 is this answer is that it is the sum of the pips in a pair of dice, so that everything is just a big crap shoot.

Today I am starting a new blog. Call it Son of Blogtrek; call it My Opinion. Everything's "my" these days anyway. In any case, this is now the blog that I am going to be using to express my opinions on current events. It is here that I will express my opinions on "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, on the Bush-Kerry Presidential campaign, on movies such as Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, and just about anything else.

For example, today I will say that I have run into three articles on the upcoming oil situation. They rated 5, 6, and 9 on my 0 to 10 scale. The one that rated 5 says that we may eventually have to get our produce locally and have $100 a barrel oil. The 6 warns of things to come and makes recommendations, and the 9 bravely posits that we will have enough oil until about 2100 or so, due to huge deposits of shale oil (but look at the reality check - only 30% of it is economic, and only 80 billion barrels can be obtained now). I will comment more on this later, and I may even establish a new blog on the oil situation, because I believe that it is going to cause a major international crisis in the years ahead.

But for now, I have this new blog. I will use Blogtrek for firefly numbers, thrashers in my back yard, the Transit of Venus, the joys of SUUSI, and other matters which do not concern the heavy material of a CNN news hour. Those matters will go into this new blog, Beyond Opinion.

For it is all my opinion. And it is never the final word or opinion, for there can be no such thing as a Final Opinion, for one can always go Beyond Opinion...