So this is totally off my normal train of topic but I just learned that a couple of bigfoot hunters supposedly have found the body of bigfoot, or the body of a really really big gorilla, in the Georgian mountains. I’m not really sure what to believe. They are currently doing all kinds of testing on the body.

For obvious reasons, the details are being kept pretty quiet at this point. All we know is that the body was 8 feet 8 inches tall and covered with reddish-brown hair. The face has human as well as ape like features.

Read the full story here

I wanted to follow up on another post in which a commenter/reader decided to scathe me for liking Obama (which I don’t) simply because I happened to see his point on the tire inflation issue (and just about completely avoided the issue all together).

So, let’s take a deeper look at this. As I said in my last post:

Offshore drilling facts (as stated by President Bush):

If we open up offshore drilling we can start producing 200,000 barrels a day by 2030.

Our current demand is 2 million per day

Those 200,00 barrels that would be produced in 20 years will mostly go to other countries.

Gasoline conservation facts (of which Obama is being ridiculed for):

Properly inflating your tires can save 3% on gas

Reducing idling time (turning your car off if it is idling for a long time, i.e. at the drive through, when you run into the store, sit at the bank drive through) can save 5%

Eliminating unnecessary acceleration can save you almost 20% in gas consumption

Regular car maintenance such as tune up, changing filters, changing the oil can save 4%

So that means that in 10-20 years (a time frame given by many experts in the oil/gas industry that not many seem to dispute) the oil companies (international oil companies) can get about 10% of our current oil demand of about 2 million barrels/day (we all know that will most likely increase though) from offshore drilling. But that’s 10% of our current oil demand. Remember that this oil is owned by international oil companies so therefore, the oil contributes to the global oil demand. This is a far smaller percentage comparatively.

When you translate that into money your talking about maybe a dollar saved per barrel which is only pennies when your talking about gallons of gas. So in 10-20 years (most say by the year 2030) we will be saving a few pennies on gas if we open up offshore drilling today.

Now, let’s look at the benefits of taking personal responsibility for the amount of gas we consume. If we do little things that cost very little and mostly no money at all like properly inflating our tires, changing filters, getting tune-ups, not letting your engine run for long periods at idle, not accelerating too fast (which only save a few seconds time wise when your trying to get somewhere in a hurry) that is about a 20-30% savings on gas (talking about miles per gallon) for the average person. (There’s a whole list of others things to do such as going down long hills on neutral, rolling the windows up at fast speeds, reducing the weight in your car, being in the right gear (even in automatics which most people forget about), and planning your trip more efficiently when running errands.)

I’m not a math wizard or a scientist but I’m smart enough to know that when you compare the two scenario’s it’s obvious that we will save a heck of a lot more money by conserving oil instead of finding an excuse, like offshore drilling, to keep consuming the same amount and even more oil than we currently do.

In Brazil, 90% of their fuel is sugar cane derived ethanol. And it cost half as much. They have plenty of domestic oil to make up for the difference meaning they absolutely have no need for foreign oil. Plus, with all those flex-fuel cars on the road their air is much, much cleaner. I think we should look to them as an example.

This is very, very disturbing. Once again, a clever diversion has been staged for a greater agenda–an act of war against Iran while everyone pays attention to the Olympics and the Russian-Georgian conflict (also a clever way to keep the attention of Russia focused on Georgia while it’s ally is moved in on.) It’s all becoming very clear…

Massive US Naval Armada Heads For Iran Operation Brimstone ended only one week ago. This was the joint US/UK/French naval war games in the Atlantic Ocean preparing for a naval blockade of Iran and the likely resulting war in the Persian Gulf area. The massive war games included a US Navy supercarrier battle group, an US Navy expeditionary carrier battle group, a Royal Navy carrier battle group, a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine plus a large number of US Navy cruisers, destroyers and frigates playing the “enemy force”.

The lead American ship in these war games, the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN71) and its Carrier Strike Group Two (CCSG-2) are now headed towards Iran along with the USS Ronald Reagon (CVN76) and its Carrier Strike Group Seven (CCSG-7) coming from Japan.

A strategic diversion has been created for Russia. The Republic of Georgia, with US backing, is actively preparing for war on South Ossetia. The South Ossetia capital has been shelled and a large Georgian tank force has been heading towards the border. Russia has stated that it will not sit by and allow the Georgians to attack South Ossetia. The Russians are great chess players and this game may not turn out so well for the neo-cons.

Kuwait has activated its “Emergency War Plan” as it and other Gulf nations prepare for the likelihood of a major regional war in the Middle East involving weapons of mass destruction.

Full Article continues…

Washington Risks Nuclear War by Miscalculation

By F William Engdahl

11/08/08 “Market Oracle” — – The dramatic military attack by the military of the Republic of Georgia on South Ossetia in the last days has brought the world one major step closer to the ultimate horror of the Cold War era—a thermonuclear war between Russia and the United States—by miscalculation. What is playing out in the Caucasus is being reported in US media in an alarmingly misleading light, making Moscow appear the lone aggressor. The question is whether George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are encouraging the unstable Georgian President, Mikhail Saakashvili in order to force the next US President to back the NATO military agenda of the Bush Doctrine. This time Washington may have badly misjudged the possibilities, as it did in Iraq , but this time with possible nuclear consequences.

The underlying issue, as I stressed in my July 11 piece in this space, Georgien, Washington, Moskau: Atomarer geopolitischer Machtpoker , is the fact that since the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 one after another former member as well as former states of the USSR have been coaxed and in many cases bribed with false promises by Washington into joining the counter organization, NATO.

Rather than initiate discussions after the 1991 dissolution of the Warsaw Pact about a systematic dissolution of NATO, Washington has systematically converted NATO into what can only be called the military vehicle of an American global imperial rule, linked by a network of military bases from Kosovo to Poland to Turkey to Iraq and Afghanistan . In 1999, former Warsaw Pact members Hungary , Poland and the Czech Republic joined NATO. Bulgaria , Estonia , Latvia , Lithuania , Romania , and Slovakia followed suit in March 2004. Now Washington is putting immense pressure on the EU members of NATO, especially Germany and France , that they vote in December to admit Georgia and Ukraine .

The roots of the conflict

The specific conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia and Abkhazia has its roots in the following. First, the Southern Ossetes , who until 1990 formed an autonomous region of the Georgian Soviet republic, seek to unite in one state with their co-ethnics in North Ossetia , an autonomous republic of the Russian Soviet republic and now the Russian Federation . There is an historically grounded Ossete fear of violent Georgian nationalism and the experience of Georgian hatred of ethnic minorities under then Georgian leader Zviad Gamsakhurdia, which the Ossetes see again under Georgian President, Mikhel Saakashvili. Saakashvili was brought to power with US financing and US covert regime change activities in December 2003 in what was called the Rose Revolution. Now the thorns of that rose are causing blood to spill.

Full article continues…

After John McCain made false statements during an interview with Katie Couric, they decided to not only edit his response to her question but the fabricated a response by using three separate sentences from a response he made to another question. Absolutely ridiculous.

What’s sad about this is that people fall for this crap all the time. That’s why the national news is such a sham. There are several instances such as these. They are deliberately distorting facts. Instead of blasting McCain on his obvious misrepresentation of the facts and challenging him, Katie Couric went along with what the network decided to do with it. How can you call that honest journalism?

On the July 22 edition of the CBS Evening News, while airing portions of an interview she conducted that day with Sen. John McCain, anchor Katie Couric removed a part of his response in which he falsely asserted that the 2007 U.S. troop surge “began the Anbar awakening.” In fact, the so-called Anbar awakening reportedly began in September 2006, months before the surge was even announced. Couric had asked McCain, “Senator [Barack] Obama says while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shia government going after militias, and says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What’s your response to that?” But rather than airing McCain’s direct reply, including the false claim that the surge “began the Anbar awakening” — an agreement by some tribal leaders in western Iraq to accept U.S. aid and cooperate with anti-Al Qaeda operations — Couric aired comments by McCain spliced together from three separate statements he gave during the interview, one of which responded to a different question. Couric gave no indication that these comments had been edited in any manner, nor did she otherwise note McCain’s falsehood.

Go here to see portiions of the transcript

Iran Shows Its Cards
by Scott Ritter

There can no longer be any doubt about the consequences of any U.S. and/or Israeli military action against Iran. Armchair warriors, pundits and blustering politicians alike have been advocating a pre-emptive military strike against Iran for the purpose of neutralizing its nuclear-related infrastructure, as well as retarding Iran’s ability to train and equip “terrorist” forces on Iranian soil before dispatching them to Iraq or parts unknown. Some, including me, have warned of the folly of such action, and now Iran itself has demonstrated why an attack would be insane

I’ve always pointed out that no plan survives initial contact with the enemy, and furthermore one can never forget that, in war, the enemy gets to vote. On the issue of an American and/or Israeli attack on Iran, the Iranian military has demonstrated exactly how it would cast its vote. Iran recently fired off medium- and long-range missiles and rockets, in a clear demonstration of capability and intent. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, regional oil production capability and U.S. military concentrations, along with Israeli cities, would all be subjected to an Iranian military response if Iran was attacked.