Was Geocentric Wrong?

Here at Geocentric, Nate and I pride ourselves on being fair. Although absolute fairness may be an ideal only attainable by one without true opinions (maybe not, I don't know), the simple fact still remains that we are at least a bit more fair than many of our counterparts in the one-way news. Admittedly, it is hard to strike a balance between equal presentation of both sides when one side is something like anti-balloonism or flat earth theory, but in the interest of fairness, I present you with an article refuting a big part of what we said (and in fact how we titled) Episode 9 - Cold War II. HERE IT IS.

Above - U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin

"Why Georgia is Not Start of Cold War II" is an article in the Christian Science Monitor by staff writer Robert Marquand and was published the day after our episode aired. For those who don't feel the need to read the article, Marquand presents various contrasts between the present world context of international relations and the context that existed during the Cold War. Many of his points are well made. Also, he presents quotes by high ranking officials and various experts directly voicing opinions that we have not entered a second cold war and that the use of the phrase "cold war" could even be damaging to the situation.

Lastly, in the interest of self-defense, Marquand has provided a plethera of evidence indicating that Russia's recent actions against Georgia mentioned in THIS ARTICLE, for example, do not herald the beginning of another Cold War. However, in Episode 9 we presented the viewpoint that if another Cold War is beginning, that notion should be based on Russia's threat of nuclear attack upon Poland if it were to sign the missile defense deal with the U.S., which it did. Here is a quote from the Telegraph:

Earlier, a senior Russian general warned that Poland has made itself a nuclear target for Russia's military by hosting elements of a US anti-missile system.

"By hosting these, Poland is making itself a target. This is 100 per cent" certain, Russia's Interfax news agency quoted General Anatoly Nogovitsyn as saying.

"It becomes a target for attack. Such targets are destroyed as a first priority," Gen Nogovitsy was quoted as saying.

He added that Russia's military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them," Interfax said.

Our reasoning was that since Russia had made this threat and was subsequently defied by Poland, the "Cold War II," as we called it, is the time-span in which we now wait to find out if Russia makes good on its threat. Though Marquand does mention the fact that Russia would be "forced to react, and not only through diplomatic means," he does not mention the seriousness or specifics of the threats made, and focuses primarily on actions in Georgia and Russo-American relations in the article for his definition of "cold war."

Some Extra Comments

This week in Episode 9 - Cold War II, we mentioned a couple of images that we really wanted you to see. The first one is of windmill hating John Yancey standing with "his face contorted in anger and pain" as he is forced to endure the presence of wind turbines that he himself helped build and install even though he opposed them from the beginning. For the sake of copyrights and such, the turbine images and the previous quote all came from CNN.com.

Here we see Mr. Yancey making the classic pout face. His father signed a deal with Big Wind allowing a number of turbines on Yancey land. Though he earns something along the lines of six grand per turbine per year just to have them on his property, the fact that they are "unsightly," noisy, and cast unacceptable shadows at different times of day all outweigh the benefits. (Did I mention he helped build and install them?)

Also, just throwing this out there again, how many of you actually like the look of turbines strewn across the landscape? I personally enjoy the scenery. This photo here makes me a little melancholic, but in a good way, if that makes sense. I'm reminded of my childhood back in Indiana. We weren't farmers but we had scenery like this all around (minus the wind turbines). Looks like a calm, cool, lonely day.

The other fun photo we talked about comes to us from modern day believers in the flat Earth idea. Fascinatingly, they are still around and even host a forum style web site. Although the brotherhood of flat Earth supporters apparently does not have a cohesive set of philosophical tenets, there are a few things that must be agreed upon because of observable phenomena. For example, if one travels far enough south from any point on the "globe," one will inevitably end up in Antarctica. How might the FEers explain this? I draw your attention to exhibit A:

What we see here is that Antarctica is actually a giant ice wall that encompasses the disc, making sure the water doesn't flow off the side... or something. Since in this digital creation obtained from Foxnews.com we have more than doubled the generally accepted distance of over 6000 miles between Chile and Australia, the flight time can only be explained by an extremely fast jet stream running around the Earth's circumfrence. Why that jet stream doesn't double your return flight time, I'm not quite sure...

Another interesting point we could make here is that most of the "science" of the FEers depends heavily on conspiracy theories such as the notion that "the government" won't allow you to explore the ice wall. I think in order for you to be kept in the dark, the airlines would have to be in on the conspiracy. In that case, I wonder why airlines go bankrupt every now and again. We've all seen what the government did for Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. I suppose if my company was in on the conspiracy, I'd have some pretty good leverage to make sure the government saved me from any financial trouble I might be in.

Funny thing by the way, planes always take the shortest distance from one point to another (unless of course they're purposely avoiding the shortest distance so they can utilize a super jet stream and keep the masses in the dark). On a globe, the shortest distance from Caracas, Venezuela to Melbourne, Australia runs entirely through the southern hemisphere. However on this diagram, the shortest distance would take you right over the North Pole.

Who's really to blame?

Here's a debate worth following. As we all know, oil prices are up. Airlines have been trying to make up for revenue lost in high fuel prices by adding fuel surcharges, baggage check fees and most recently, by charging for in-flight meals on international flights. They've also flown slower and got rid of many items on the plane, in order to conserve fuel. As inconveniences continue to stack up at the consumers' expense, at what point will the airlines decide they've done enough? Recently oil prices dropped back down quite a bit, but the airlines didn't respond to that. Fees and surcharges are still high. Clearly the airlines must do something to make up for lost revenues, but must the consumer have to bear that much of the burden?

In Geocentric's Episode 4 podcast, we talked about the decision by Delta and others to sell ad space on e-tickets to make up for lost revenue. Our view is that seeing an ad (which can be turned off by the way) is a lot less painful than paying $50 to check bags. We gave kudos to Delta for that decision. What else could airlines do that would be less painful for consumers? Or are their current methods necessary and sufficient?


Airports and flights are becoming more and more frustrating. The big question is who's to blame? I present to you comments from two very opposing sides of the issue. The first is a letter signed by 12 airline executives sent to airline customers by email. They say blame should be placed on oil speculators who have driven the price of oil up and that they are just doing what is necessary. They further suggest that we, the consumers should push congress to act on the matter and stop the oil speculators. Click HERE to read the actual letter to understand their stance.

Next is a formal (but very sarcastic) rebuttal from Kimberley Strassel who writes for the Wall Street Journal. She blasts (and I mean blasts) the airlines for blaming oil speculators for the terrible service she and other customers receive at airports and on flights. I'll leave it at that because you really have to read the actual letter by clicking HERE.

So after reading both sides, who's right? Who's to blame for this mess? I'll say that when I recently traveled to Europe, I had a good experience with Continental and Czech Air, but Air France was only mediocre (not bad though). We also had no problems with TSA or extra hidden fees. Having said that, I have read airline horror stories and even witnessed a family forced to fly on separate flights while in Newark. So the problems are there, but I ask again, who's to blame?