Eminem for Kerry
Posted October 26th, 2004 @ 01:40pm by Erik J. Barzeski
"Let the president answer on higher anarchy/Strap him with an AK-47, let him go fight his own war/Let him impress daddy that way … No more blood for oil," Eminem says in the single "Mosh."
Guess what? We could immediately pull out of our war against Al Quaeda, Saddam Hussein, and blood would still be spilled over oil. It's international big business and it's controlled by unsavory types. Derrr. How about alternative energy sources? Neither candidate has spoken much on that. Bush, OilBoy himself, will never seriously do anything about it, and Kerry's too busy lying and saying "I'm not Bush, vote for me" to consider the option.
Electoral-vote.com currently has Bush up 285 to 247. I'll say it again, as I've said it before: though many people are voting for Kerry simply because "he's not Bush," I am voting for Bush because he's not Kerry!
Bush/Cheney '04 Inc. is running a radio spot here in NW PA in which a son and his dad have a conversation about Kerry being a "hunter." It's quite comical. I'm not voting for Bush because of guns, but it's one of the reasons I'm not voting for Kerry.
And I really don't give a shit what Eminem thinks. I doubt that very many of the folks he can influence are going to vote (or are old enough to do so).
Donate Life
Posted 26 Oct 2004 at 3:09pm #
Not to pop your little bubble but Kerry HAS spoken extensively on alternative sources of energy. Traditionally Republicans talk about increasing supply (drilling in Alaska for example) while Democrats talk about decreasing demand (closing the SUV average mpg loophole etc) and this election is not deviating far from that norm.
The Iraq war IS Bush's energy poilicy unfortunately. This war is very much about securing a friendly source of high quality oil (Kuwaiti oil is high in sulfer while Saudi Arabia is, um, delicate). New demand for oil from China will and has started to stress the market. If the price of oil goes too high, then alternative sources of energy start to make real econmic sense, Americans start to buy smaller cars demand reduces naturally. This would be a disaster long term for the boys who put W and Dick in power.
No big surprised here, unless you still think Iraq was about WMD, evil doers, and/or flag waving.
Phil
Posted 26 Oct 2004 at 3:59pm #
When it comes to "Alternative Energy Sources" we are focusing our attention on utilizing Hydrogen instead of Gasoline in vehicles. What they are leaving out (last I heard) is that our only effective process for producing Hydrogen suitable to be used as fuel still employs Crude Oil and then somehow distills the Hydrogen from it. In other words: our alternative energy sources programs aren't going to free us from oil any time soon.
As far as going into Iraq is concerned, these guys have wanted do exactly that since 1997, and they weren't about to let any silly weapons of mass destruction or terrorist organizations stand in the way.. er.... give them an excuse.. err.. shit.
Posted 26 Oct 2004 at 6:53pm #
At least we can all go out and buy automatic weapons now....much cheaper in USA
Posted 26 Oct 2004 at 8:44pm #
Yeah! We can go buy automatic weapons for cheap now! Automatic weapons had nothing to do with the so called "Assault Weapons Ban". Don't believe the crap you hear from John Kerry or the Brady Campaign about the ban.
Posted 26 Oct 2004 at 9:09pm #
Automatic weapons have been illegal - and remain so - since about 1938 or something like that. d0le was too nice to say it, but DUH.
Posted 27 Oct 2004 at 7:00am #
Erik, I know you don't like to get into political debate on your blog but it seems like you ignored the other very intelligent posts made to your comments. It also seems that individual states are taking the innitiative on alternative power. I remember hearing conversation on the radio about Massachussets plans to cut need for traditional forms creating energy by 20% using such things as wind farms.
Posted 27 Oct 2004 at 11:52pm #
So just because some blood would still be spilled over oil means we shouldn't try to lessen the amount of blood spilled over it?
Also, it doesn't matter if you care what Eminem thinks or not. As much as I don't like the guy and most other popular "musicians", they have just as much right to express what they think as you do. Should I write about this post on my blog and then say "but I don't give a shit what Erik thinks."
Protests songs are made. Some are good (For What It's Worth) and some are bad like this one.
Posted 28 Oct 2004 at 8:50am #
Hey Jeff, what you don't understand is that duh yes, you're supposed to do that. In fact, it's your right to do it. Just as it's Eminem's right to say whatever his PR folks tell him to say, it's my right to call him an idiot. And your right too.
Duh.
If you fail to get that, then you're simply not bringing all of your marbles to the table. I take my right to speak my mind (especially on my own blog) as a given. You seem to think I've given myself some privilege.
We - and by that I do not mean you, as a Canadian, are trying to lessen the blood spilled.
Posted 28 Oct 2004 at 9:53am #
OK personally, I think this whole blood for oil thing is a bit silly. I think that when people simplfy the Iraq issue to just "because they wan the Oil" that they are not looking at the whole picture. However, if we're working under the presumption that blood is being spilled over oil then I do not think that rushing into war in Iraq prematurely is lessening the blood spilled over this issue.
How is the United States trying to lessen the blood spilled? Going into an unnecessary war doesn't seem to be the right way to go about it. Perhaps they should spend all that money to lobby the Saudis to respect human rights instead.
Posted 28 Oct 2004 at 10:26am #
Those who don't understand the idea of going to war to save lives in the long run aren't thinking of the long run at all. They're looking at the "here and now." Two people may die now to save ten lives in the future. Or it may not work, but that's the plan and the idea.
Do I support animal testing? Yeah. If your mother was deathly sick and could be cured if you personally killed a thousand rats, would you do it? Same general idea. Sometimes you have to spill some blood now to save some in the future.
Oil, terrorism, it's all related. How do you think terrorists fund themselves? Or how do you think governments - Saddam - funds his weapons and terrorist type activities?
We, like it or not, need oil in this country/continent. There aren't many places to get it. Yeah, I hope that changes, but it ain't gonna in the next two weeks, months, years, or probably even decades.
Posted 29 Oct 2004 at 2:54am #
Where to start.
According to Environmental Attorney Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, senior counsel for the National Resources Defense Fund if we raise the MPG of all our cars by 7.5 MPG, it would completely relieve our dependency on foreign oil, and we wouldn't need to drill new wells either. It is the failure of this government and it's citizens that people are driving around in HUMMERS and other SUV's that are getting less than 20 MPG. My '86 BMW gets 27MPG city, and 30-33 MPG highway. If everyone was getting similar performance out of their vehicles, gas prices would be much lower and the people in the middle east wouldn't have us by the short and curlies.
You're all basing your opinions off of a fallacious 'ends justify the means' argument. Ignoring for the moment that no WMD's were ever recovered from Iraq consider this:
If I walk down the street, walk up to a random man, and shoot him in the face, am I guilty of murder in some degree? What if that man turned out to be wanted for murder too? Does that make my crime any less significant?
No! I still killed someone in cold blood. This argument that 'Oh, but Saddam is a bad man, so it's okay that the President lied to us and started a war w/ Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy anyway and now he's gone!' is simply sickening. President Bush has pulled the same tricks we swore we'd never be fooled by again back in the 60's with LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin.
Erik, since you support Bush and you support the war then why don't you sack up and join the armed services? There are a lot of soldiers over there who are having their tours extended and extended because there aren't enough people willing to fight this unjust war. Support your opinion with some action.
It's pretty easy to sit there and babble off some bass-ackwords comments about 'going to war to save lives' but what about the people like yourself who support the war with their words and their vote but won't support it with their life? You probably support drilling in Alaska and starting again off the shore of California, but I bet you don't want to look at the oil rigs do you.
Hollow words.
Erik, I think *you* are the one who doesn't understand. Bush is running his campaign on fear, ignorance and greed. Don't be one of the sheep.
How about a response to some of the real arguments on here?
Posted 29 Oct 2004 at 11:54am #
According to an attorney, we'd have no reliance on foreign oil? Sounds like some attorney trying to make a name for himself. My car gets over 30 MPG.
The difference there is that you're not authorized to kill someone. Clearly, a military force is. And your Congress allowed everything to happen, having read the same intelligence reports as Bush. One man cannot do whatever he wants: the only reason half of Congress (the Democrats) are turning away now is so that they can curry favor with those who oppose war.
I don't support the war with my life? Guess what: your candidate supported the war too. I "probably" don't support things, and "you bet" I don't want to look at something? Give me a break: you're making a judgment on me without even knowing where I stand on those (and seemingly all other) issues? Sorry - that doesn't work. You haven't won an argument, and your words are the ones that appear hollow since you're basing them on what I might believe, or what you think I might believe.
Kerry is doing the same exact thing. I don't like either one of 'em for doing it, and I've said as much.
The time for debate is over. I've voted, and if you haven't, you should soon as well.
Posted 29 Oct 2004 at 12:35pm #
A military force is "authorized" by their country to go out and kill someone. Yes, that is true. However that argument hardly holds up on ethical grounds. By that logic Iraq's military would have been "authorized" to use military action against other countries. But of course when this happens it is labeled as agression, but when your country does it, it is for the greater good. I don't deny that Saddam's government was very bad and he didn't deserve to be removed. However, we have the international community and the UN to "authorize" our military decisions and keep them in check. If the US can launch any pre-emptive war they want based on faulty intelligence, then why can't any country?
I think that Saddam was a bad guy and I think that the US government made bad decisions about the war. This is why we need a form of international moderation. Without it we get countries launching their own self-rightous pre-emptive wars all over the place. Of course your government snubed the UN and ignored the opinions of most of it's allies. When it comes down to it, it's really not worth it to go into Iraq for such weak reasons and alienate yourself so much in the international community.
And why is the time for debate over? There's still a bunch of undecided voters out there aren't there? And if the time for debate is over then why do you keep posting political stuff like this?
Posted 29 Oct 2004 at 12:47pm #
Jeff, Saddam's forces - and those he supported - had already used force against us. We'd already been the victims of aggression. Duh. Faulty intelligence? The same intelligence the Democrats saw, the same war the Democrats approved, etc. How convenient it is to forget that they were all going along with Bush until they realized that they may have goofed and that there was political gain to be made by separating themselves from their previous decisions.
But please, perhaps you'll next suggest we should have put more sanctions on Iraq. Cuz, y'know, that works so well. And yet, wait, you're Canadian! There is no we here.
I have voted. I'm done debating. Dan's post was so incredibly dumb that it warranted a note here on my blog. Debate all you want, but wait, you're Canadian! 😛
Posted 29 Oct 2004 at 6:30pm #
[Ed: comment removed via http://nslog.com/archives/2004/10/29/politics_are_over.php%5D