How not to get shot in the face on the London subway

Here's an article I'm working on for the GuardDawg's first issue. Even though I've graduated and moved some 600 miles away, I was informed that I wasn't allowed to stop writing for them. And since I've spent the last two months kinda holding my tongue and having my ideas watered down, I was happy to oblige them.

So here's a draft of my first contribution:

It's George W. Bush's fault. It's Tony Blair's fault. This only happened because of the Iraq war -- these, as well as any number of other justifications, have been hurled from the left both at home and abroad in the aftermath of the attacks in London on July 7th.

Curiously, these detractors seem to forget that there was no war in Iraq when 19 radical Muslims flew planes into American landmarks taking more than 3,000 lives. George W. Bush had not even been elected when two al Qaeda operatives bombed the USS Cole that was ported in Yemen, killing 17 American sailors. The same holds true for the 1998 attacks on American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, in which hundreds of people were killed, as well as the 1996 attacks on the Khobar Towers, and the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. I think you get the point. The Iraq war did not cause the attacks in London -- it merely provided a convenient scapegoat.

Terrorists might be several things -- evil, barbaric, fanatical, lacking in hygiene -- but they're not stupid. In fact, they’re brilliant public relations strategists and quite politically savvy. They understand the huge unpopularity of the war in Iraq, especially in Europe, and they witnessed the resolve of the Spanish people crumble after similar attacks in Spain. Terrorists seek to undermine the goals of the War on Terror by using the liberal factions of Western nations’ citizenry to their benefit -- ‘useful idiots,’ if you will. They’ll exploit those who share their hatred of America and the West.

It's probably cliché at this point to say that we're at war with terrorists, but its redundancy in the media does not affect its standing in the truth. In as much as liberals in this country and abroad would prefer that terrorism be handled with olive branches, criminal trials and mutual understanding, these things only
amount to prevention of future terrorism, and do little to disarm the current horde of disgruntled Muslims hell-bent on meeting Allah and spending eternity with their six dozen virgins.

These fanatics are immune to reason, and trying to reach an agreement with them is utterly useless. They often claim that they would rather die than surrender to the 'infidels,' and we should be happy to oblige them.

During his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, former president Clinton claimed that 'we cannot possibly kill, jail or occupy all our potential adversaries.' Jail and occupy? Probably not. But kill? Now there's a possibility we can work with.

But war isn't without its innocent victims. Consider the case of Jean-Charles de Menezes. Menezes was a Brazilian national living in London and working as an electrician. On July 22, he was walking from his home toward a London subway station. His apartment had been under surveillance since the day before, when a second wave of attacks on the London subway were attempted but unsuccessful.

The scenario was suspicious from the start. A dark-skinned man (let's be honest — the first wave of attacks wasn't perpetrated by pale-faced Britons) who was under surveillance was moving toward a subway station. To make matters more complicated, he was wearing a heavy coat — quite strange for the middle of July.

As police approached him, Menezes disregarded their orders, and eventually started running from them. In what was likely the worst nightmare of the British police, Menezes was running towards the subway train. Police followed him onto the train, shouted for the passengers to get down, and two officers pounced on him while another shot him in the head seven times.

The protocol used by the police officers was entirely justified and they acted heroically. Londoners would be singing their praises if not for one exception — Menezes was an innocent man. He was in no way connected to the attempted bombings from the day before.

Such an event is indeed tragic, and ideally would have never happened. But as it is, Menezes was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, and was behaving the wrong way. His visa was also expired and was thus in the country illegally.

As tragic as this event was, however, it should be seen as nothing more than collateral damage in an ongoing war. That is not to trivialize the death of Mr. Menezes or any other innocent casualties in this conflict. But this is exactly the kind of mistake on which our critics thrive.

Even though police followed protocol and acted as they should have, there is always the chance of 'false positives,' and this can lead to future, more deadly mistakes. The next time a suspicious man is running to a subway car, there will be a shade of doubt, even fear, in the minds of police officers. What if he's another innocent person? How is this going to play in the media? These are exactly the kind of hesitations that terrorists exploit, because while the police are weighing their public relations, the bomber has already let out his 'Allah akbar' and detonated.

This isn't to suggest that police should make it a habit to put seven slugs in the head of every suspicious-looking citizen. But they should be allowed to trust their instincts and follow their protocol without fear of demonization in the media.

And here's a little advice to average citizens everywhere -- don't wear heavy coats in the middle of summer, don't run from police, obey their commands, and for God's sake, if you do run from them, don't run onto a subway car. It just might save your life.

Darwin vs. God, Friedman vs. Keynes

First of all, I'd like to say that I got my 2,000th visitor earlier today...or at least the 2,000th since I've been keeping track. So that's pretty cool. Anyway.

I don't claim to know enough about either evolution or creation to know which one is right, but I was reading recently that more and more scientists were starting to question Darwin's theory. Which I suppose is perfectly reasonable, as that is what scientists are supposed to do. Life on this planet, or any other for that matter, is far too complex to simply be explained by random mutation and natural selection.

The human eye is far too complex and different from a maple leaf, in my opinion, for them both to have evolved from the same single cell. Likewise, reproductive habits (like natural selection) don't seem to account for the various species of animals, or the various species of asexual organisms. While the theory has merit, it also has some pretty major short comings.

However, the same is true for creationism. As many arguments there are for it (intelligent design, etc.), aside from God himself floating down to Earth and revealing himself, there's no way to prove his existence (or lack thereof).

Hmm...so what we have is two theories, both with valid points, but neither that is provable. Hence the 'theory', I suppose. By definition, theories cannot be empirically proven as fact. They also can’t explain, they can only predict, but that’s pretty irrelevant in this.

This problem is strikingly similar to a problem in another scholastic subject -- economics. (Sorry to keep going back to economics, but I just finished a big piece on tax reform for work and I’ve been reading Freakonomics, so I’ve got economics on the brain.) For example, the differing theories between Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes. It’d be easier to say Karl Marx, but screw Karl Marx.

Milton Friedman is a hardcore free-market advocate. He literally wrote the book on capitalism, and believes that the best thing a government can do to help an economy is nothing at all. Markets will regulate themselves, and innovation will lead to better products at lower prices. Makes sense, right?

But then there’s John Maynard Keynes, who’s all about government spending, even when governments don’t have the money. He believes the best thing a government can do to help the economy is to pour money into it. That also makes sense, doesn’t it?

So which one of these theories is right? Well, neither really. At least absolutely. Both theories have their merit, but neither are perfect. That’s the problem with theories...they sound great on paper, but implementing them in reality is essentially and practically impossible.

With this in mind, what do most economic professors do? Choose one in favor of the other? Teach one as fact and totally disregard the other? Not any economics class I’ve ever taken. No, they teach both as they are...theories. Unprovable, but making reasonable points.

I realize this becomes infinitely more complicated when a theory calls into question literally billions of people’s faith, but it is what it is. It is not the business of the public school system to choose sides, for or against, theories that involve religious beliefs. This includes not teaching theories that might suggest the existence of God, or some other higher being.

There seems to be this undercurrent in the academic world that the idea of God, and especially the belief therein, is somehow boorish and unsophisticated. However, due to the fact that the theory of intelligent design is every bit as much of a theory as evolution, it should be given just as much focus and credence as evolution. Personally, I think this is born out of the scientific nature to not take the easy answer. Scientists are generally skeptics, and as such it’s quite difficult to accept the simple explanation of ‘God did it.’ They have a tendency to look deeper, as well they should. But when they can’t explain things themselves, they shouldn’t automatically discount the presence of a higher being. But that’s an entirely different blog post.

Ideally, both theories would be taught and given equal time, just as any other theory. Students should be taught to understand the differences in the theories, as well as their individual merits. But they should also be taught which one is correct. This is actually easier than it might seem, because at the end of the day, we simply don’t know.

What's the deal?

I've noticed a strange spike in traffic over the last couple of days. I've had more visitors in the past two days than I usually have in a week. Just curious as to what's going on. Not that I don't appreciate the increased traffic...I just have a sneaking suspicion that my liberal equivalent posted a link to my site under a heading like 'look at this tool...'

Just a thought. Anyone else got any ideas?

More fun with the crazy anti-smoking zealot

After I posted my little exchange with what I thought was a crazy anti-tobacco lady (turns out it was a crazy anti-tobacco man...I guess I just associate irrational, overly-emotional arguments with women. Ooh! Burn!)

Anyway...after I posted our little exchange, I thought it was over. Boy was I wrong. Long story short, he accuses me of lying and having brain damage from tobacco smoke, and ends up blocking my e-mail address. But making a long story short certainly doesn't make for an interesting blog post, so here's the rest of our exchange, in its entirety, ver batim.

Rational defender of individual/economic rights: Roadways are public institutions funded by tax payer dollars, and the government has every right to regulate something that it funds. Plus, people don't have much of a realistic choice of whether or not to use roads. However, businesses are private institutions. People have reasonable alternatives in regards to which restaurant to patron. Unless you advocate making smoking out right illegal everywhere, including private homes, then how can you advocate making it illegal in private businesses?


Crazy irrational anti-smoking zealot: These "private" businesses you and other tobacco people are so fond of mischaracterizing: guess what - they are open to the public and serve the public. And when they have a problem, guess who they call: the PUBLICLY-FUNDED police, fire and other government services. So, you can stop with this "private" argument. Again, stale tobacco-people rhetoric. Even in a truly private home, no one is legally allowed to abuse their children or wife or to poison others (including neighbors) with any substance, including toxic tobacco smoke. Have you also written editorials claiming that asbestos and other dangerous materials somehow have "rights" and should be allowed to injure and kill people? Then, why do to you continue to defend toxic tobacco smoke, which is deadly and has no rights?

Rational defender of individual/economic rights: Just because a restaurant is 'open to the public' does not mean that it is mandatory for the public to attend. There are several ethnic restaurants in Washington that people may attend. But if a person does not like ethnic food, they are not forced to enter. They have the choice to patron another establishment. Likewise, if a restaurant allows smoking within its walls, people are not forced to be subjected to the smoke. They can either leave or not enter in the first place.

The fact that the police and fire department are publicly funded is irrelevant because they're intended to protect both public and private interests. It has nothing to do with the economic decisions of a private business owner.

Anyone born in the last 30 years knows that smoking causes cancer. Some people choose to do it anyway. Your argument that abusing a child/spouse in a home is also irrelevant because those things are already illegal. Smoking is currently a legal practice. That being said, the government has every right to ban it in government buildings, which in most cases it has. But the government has no right to regulate the use of a legal product in private areas.

It's not a defense of tobacco smoke or tobacco companies, so I'd appreciate not being referred to as a 'tobacco-person.' I do not smoke, and don't recommend that people do. Nor do I have any interests in the tobacco business. However, this is a defense of an individual's right to do something perfectly legal in a private space, and a defense of a business owner's right to determine how to run their business in regard to a legal product.


Crazy irrational anti-smoking zealot: And "ethnic food" kills how many innocent people each year? I doubt the figure is anywhere as high as the 65,000 killed by toxic tobacco smoke. Unfortunately, Actually, there are many people who are not aware and/or do not believe that tobacco causes ANY problem. Part of the reason is because of people like you, who distort the facts and just plain lie. NO, smoking around others is NOT legal. You are brain damaged from toxic tobacco smoke if you believe that. And tobacco is NOT a legal product, unless you can tell us when it became "legal" to poison people, no matter how slowly you do it. Yes, you are a "tobacco person", if you defend a totally destructive drug like tobacco and toxic tobacco smoke, which injures and kills the addict and innocent people. Case closed.

Rational defender of individual/economic rights: More than 40,000 people die in traffic accidents every year...better make driving illegal.

Hundreds of thousands die of heart attacks every year...better make fatty foods illegal.

The point of the ethnic food analogy was that people are not forcibly subjected to it. Likewise people are not forcibly subjected to tobacco smoke. I'm not lying or distorting any facts. I admit that smoking causes cancer and is otherwise unhealthy. Do not call me a liar.

What evidence do you have that tobacco is not a legal product? I can walk down to the 7/11, show my ID, and buy any tobacco product I please at any time. I can then walk right outside the doors and proceed to use said product, regardless of how many people are around, all without fear of legal ramifications. How is that in any way illegal?

Do you have any medical evidence that tobacco smoke causes brain damage, as you claim? Seems unlikely.

It's wide-eyed, fanatic radicals like yourself that end up hurting your cause in the long run by turning rational, reasonable people against you if only out of spite. The inability to have a civil, reasonable conversation, as you have shown, does not lead to many converts.

--It's at this point that he blocks me e-mail address. But not before calling me a liar, saying that I must have brain damage, and that tobacco isn't a legal product. I understand that it's pretty pointless to argue with someone who doesn't even accept reality, but I do it because they piss me off.

I like to consider myself a very reasonable, common sense kind of person. So when I come across someone like that guy, I truly have a hard time understanding their utter nuttiness. A little rationality goes a long way. Blind extremism just makes you look like a moron.

Ah! Shut up shut up shut up!

Ok, I don't smoke. But I'm thinking about taking it up just to piss people like this off.

Today I got a letter in response to an article opposing the proposed smoking ban in D.C. It went like this:

Harry Jaffe ("Schwartz fired up over smoking ban") sounds as much like one of the tobacco people as human rights' violator, Carol Schwartz. Obviously both are in favor of continuing to violate everyone's long-standing RIGHT to smoke-free air. Perhaps Jaffe is as brain damaged from tobacco addiction as is Schwartz.

Both of these people also deny the truth: that smoke-free air has ALWAYS been good for people and for business. All public places and workplaces - indoors and out - should be smoke-free, without exemption or exception. Only the tobacco people and their "friends" continue to dispute the facts.

The 'tobacco people'? Are you frigging kidding me? Brain damaged by tobacco addiction? This kind of wide-eyed radicalism SERIOUSLY pisses me off. But, as it's my job to engage these people in a dialogue, I responded thusly:

Thank you for your letter to the Examiner. We appreciate your readership. In regards to your letter, do you believe that business owners should have the right to decide whether or not to make their establishments smoke-free? People are not forced to enter such establishments, so shouldn't people be given the choice as to whether or not they want to spend their money in such a place? Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

I thought I was pretty reasonable, but apparently that warranted this response:

Do you believe that "business owners" (any that complain about toxic tobacco smoke are usually fronts for the tobacco people) should also regulate how much salmonella is in the chicken, how many rats are in the kitchen and how many cockroaches are in the dining area? This is not about spending your money in an establishment, this is about breathing deadly toxic tobacco smoke. Please, stick to the subject.

People are not "forced" to enter our nation's roadways, either, but we have laws governing vehicle operation, drinking and driving, etc.

Is your publication financed by the tobacco people? You are certainly using the same tired rhetoric that we have heard so many times. Are you in favor of continuing to let toxic tobacco smoke kill 65,000 innocent Americans every year? How pathetic!

Like I said, I don't smoke, but that pissed me off. First of all, her argument is stupid. Business owners do regulte how much salmonella is in the chicken, rats in the kitchen, roaches in the room, yata yata yata. If those things were high, no one would eat at that restaurant. You don't need government regulation to enforce that.

And her argument that no on is forced onto the roads is irrelevant. First of all, roads are funded by tax payer dollars, and thus can be regulated by the government because the government built them. Businesses are private, just like homes. And while smoking is a legal practice, the government should have no more right to regulate smoking in private businesses than it does to regulate smoking in private homes.

People like this crazy woman who advocate government regulation in private enterprises, especially to this degree, are completely nuts. Yes, smoking causes cancer and kills people. But anyone who's started smoking in the last 20 years knows this. If they choose to do it anyway, it's their business.

I don't understand the rabid opposition to smoking in bars and restaurants. If you don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke, here's an idea -- DON'T GO INTO THOSE BUILDINGS. Eat somewhere else. Holy crap. Just stop yelling. It's smoke, not the plague.

Ugh...this makes me wanna go buy a giant cigar and smoke it right in that woman's living room.

Having my mind blown in line at McDonald's

The following exchange took place at the McDonald's close to my office. It was between the guy ordering after me and the cashier. It blew my mind, and I'm having trouble figuring out how I feel about it. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Cashier: May I take your order?
Customer: Si, numero ocho, por favor.
Cashier: Excuse me?
Customer: Numero ocho, por favor.
Cashier: Oh, I don't speak Spanish.
Customer (in fluent English): Oh, sorry. Number eight, please.

Don't ponder that one too long, or blood will start coming out of your nose. There are so many questions that could be asked, I don't know where to begin...

When the heat index is over 100 degrees, it's kinda hard to argue against global warming. But I'm going to do it anyway.

At the risk of sounding like I'm parroting President Bush's talking points, I'm going to go ahead and say that I don't think we know enough about the idea of 'global warming' to say that we're causing it, or that we can do anything to change it. Think about it...the Earth is something like two billion years old, or so we think. Modern man has been around for what? Maybe 5,000 years? And we've been keeping weather readings for maybe 200, probably less. It's a little arrogant to believe that in 200 years we've totally figured out the cycle of a 2 billion year old planet, and even more come to the conclusion that we have that significant of an effect on it. A billion years ago, this planet was one giant, bubbling ball of molten rock. A few hundred thousand years ago, it was covered in a sheet of ice. How did it get from one to the other? If we'd been around back then, GreenPeace would've been blaming George W. Bush for global freezing, and not doing enough to stop it. When we can accurately predict the weather 2 days from now, let me know. Or when we can prove that this isn't a natural cycle of the planet and that we're causing it, I'll be the first one demanding that something be done. However, I don't think that the amount of information justifies all this wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left, or that it justifies things like the Kyoto protocol.

Interesting side note: Pretty much every country that has signed the Kyoto protocol hasn't been able to reach the goals set by it. So all those countries criticizing us for not being a member of the treaty aren't faring much better despite the fact that they've signed a little piece of paper saying they care. Shocking, isn't it? But, as per usual with the left, intentions trump results.

All of that being said, if I were going to do anything to stop global warning, my first step would be to make volcanoes illegal. See, the top polluter in Washington State isn't the coal-firing power plant that produces 27 tons of sulfur dioxide a day (sulfur dioxide causes acid rain, respitory distress and a lovely little haze in the air). No no no...it's Mount St. Helens. The volcano puts out between 50 and 250 tons of the pollutant every day...that's almost twice the amount of the state's top 'man made' polluter -- on a GOOD day. On a bad day, the volcano puts out almost twice the amount of sulfur dioxide as all man-made polluters in Washington State COMBINED (which is right around 120 tons).

If you think that's bad...try living in Italy. Mount Etna can produce 100 times the sulfur dioxide of Mount St. Helens. For those of you scoring at home, that's 200 times all of the man-made polluters in Washington State COMBINED. Better get GreenPeace on that...see if they can get volcanoes to stop erupting.

This isn't to say that we shouldn't try to do something about the environment...but it's not as drastic as some people make it out to be. In the late 1700's, Thomas Malthus got his pants all in a bunch because he thought we were gonna run out of food. And he probably would've been right if we'd stuck with the agricultural practices of the 1700's. But he forgot to factor in the whole idea of technological advancement and innovation. Today we have a few billion more people on the planet, and save for a few exceptions, we're fatter than ever.

The same is true for pollution. As we advance technologically, we'll finder better, cleaner, less polluting sources of energy. In the 1970's, cars got about 7 or 8 miles per gallon...today with a hybrid car, they can get like 50. And it's only a matter of time before we develop a vehicle that doesn't run on fossil fuel at all. And I'm sure we'll think of something to clean the pollution that already exists. We just need to calm down and let captalism do its thing.

I've got your Eminent Domain right here

Are you sure I haven't talked about the Eminent Domain ruling before? I could've sworn I did. At any rate, as you might expect, I think it's one of the worst ideas ever.

That being said, I'm really not surprised that it came from the Supreme Court. I'm obviously no fan of the court, and it's obviously done stupid things in the past like uphold slavery, claim abortion as a right, and interpreting 'school' as 'congress' and 'prayer' as 'establishing a law regarding a national religion'. Don't get me wrong...I wouldn't want my kids having to sit through school in the morning while some chubby Baptist (no offense, but let's be honest, who else would be leading a prayer in Tyrone, Georgia?) got on the intercom and did a little spiel about JEE-sus. But having prayer in school is NOT against the Constitution, or, in legal-speak, unconstitutional. But that's a completely different issue.

As far as the Eminent Domain ruling goes, it's absolutely mind-boggling. I understand that occasionally the government has to buy private property in order to fulfill public needs like roads and the like, and as much as I might not like it, I understand it. However, to think that the government can buy private property, and then sell/give it to another private entity with the goal of developing the property in a way so as to generate more tax revenue is atrocious on so many levels.

First of all, property rights are what America is founded on. When the government can just usurp land and do with it what it likes, that's called communism, or at best, monarchy. And we saw how well that turned out in the Good Ol' USSR. Millions of people starved to death...millions more thrown in jail for political dissent — yeah, good plan. Oh, excuse me — good THEORY.

And as far as the whole Monarchy thing goes...isn't that what we fled Britain to get away from? And as horrified as some people are at the thought of George W. Bush being our president, imagine if he was our King.

But at the end of the day, maybe some good can come of the ruling. As much as the ruling itself might suck, it's doing some good in the area of federalism. States everywhere are scrambling to make laws limiting the reach of the federal government, and I'm all for that.

Sonny Purdue is already working to enact laws limiting the effects of the ruling, and that's comforting, because I wouldn't trust D.C.'s Mayor Williams to find his ass with both hands, a flashlight and a bloodhound...let alone protect the property rights of DC citizens. At least when they turn my apartment into a Casino, I'll be able to move back to Atlanta.

In response

Well, first of all, I haven't seen Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. So I can't really comment on it. As far as Johnny Depp being an ex-patriot, I'm really not all that concerned about it. I mean, Canadians still see Jim Carey and Mike Myers movies, so I'm not going to fault Johnny Depp for moving somewhere else. Even if it is France.

Plus, he shoots his mouth off substantially less than most celebrities, so I've got no beef with him. Sean Penn he is not. And I think he's better off keeping his mouth shut anyway. Listen to his commentary on the Pirates of the Caribbean DVD...you'll be dumber for the experience. It makes it easier to understand why he makes his living reading what other people write...because if he had to subsist on his own creations, he'd really be in trouble.

As far as Johnny Depp being gorgeous, that I don't understand. And not just because I'm a guy, either. Normally when girls get all worked up over a guy, I can at least see what they're talking about. But in the case of Johnny Depp...I dunno. He just looks creepy to me. Maybe it's the fact that I saw Edward Scissorhands at a young age...but he's just always creeped me out a little bit.

I like the requests for eminent domain and global warming. Rest assured I will have sarcastic, smart-ass retorts a little later. You know, when I'm not at work wasting time dicking around on my blog.

I do take requests...

So this is the audience participation part of the show...

Actually, I just don't have anything in particular to write about, and I'd like to post more often just because I like to do it...plus I like when people leave comments. Let's me know I'm not just talking to myself.

So here's your job. Give me a topic to write about. Doesn't really matter what...just something you'd like to hear my screwed up opinion on. If I like your idea, I'll do a post about it, and you can feel special. If not, keep trying.

Of course, this offer is only valid until something amazing happens, or something pisses me off/doesn't make sense to me. So kinda hurry, 'cause that could happen at any time.

Ok, that does it. Start building a wall.

I don't consider myself much of an alarmist. I don't walk the streets of DC or ride the Metro in constant fear of a terrorist attack. But stuff like this scares the crap out of me. I'm not sure how much of it is confirmed, but it's quite plausible and certainly possible, and that is completely unacceptable.

As I've said before, I'm not a rabid Bush supporter. I think No Child Left Behind is stupid and ineffective, and I think that spending billions of dollars to give people a prescription drug benefit that they don't even need is pure political pandering.

But my major pet peeve with him is the fact that he doesn't have the balls to curb the flood (and yes, 4 million people a year is a flood) of illegal immigrants streaming across our Southern border.

I'm not xenophobic and I understand that the vast majority of these people are simply looking for better economic opportunities. It's not them I'm worried about. But how many al Qaeda operatives would it take to pull off a massive attack like that? 9-11 only needed 19. What's 19 out of 4 million? A statistical anomoly. The odds that such people would be apprehended at the border are statistically insignificant.

It's frustrating and frightening all at the same time that our President, along with our Congress, continues to ignore this glaring vulnerability that can be so easily exploited. And for what? So as not to offend potential hispanic voters? Please.

I wanna goin' back

So probably only Amanda and Brett are going to understand that title...but that's ok.

There's a little less than two weeks left in July, the thermometer easily clears 90 every day, and the humidity is such that the air is tangible. Baseball season is humming along, and my fantasy team in losing. My birthday came and went with minimal hoopla (just the way I like it), and there is a general sense of stagnation every afternoon. So pretty much, this July is going like every other July in recent memory.

But something's missing. There's this nagging feeling that I should be getting excited about, or at least looking to, something in the near future. And last night, in that weird state between consciousness and sleep, I realized what it was...and realized that it won't be happening again.

See, the gravity of the whole 'graduation' thing never really set in during or immediately after the ceremony. Aside from the mass of people and general pageantry, the feeling was largely similar to that of previous end-of-the-school-year feelings. I was never too upset about it because I knew that in 3 months or so, I'd be right back there doing the same thing again.

But now that reality has set in, I realize that, barring any unforeseen job termination, tear in the space-time continuum, or insatiable desire for another degree, that chapter of my life is likely closed for good. And as yet, I’m not sure how I feel about it.

As much as I dig living in D.C. and things like seeing the Capitol lit up at dusk, the occasional encounter with the Presidential motorcade, and making my own money, I find myself pining more and more for Athens and things like General Beauregard’s on Thursday nights, the occasional encounter with the Tate Preacher condemning me to hell, pooling money with friends to get a pizza, and yes — band camp.

There was always a feeling of renewal with the first trip back to Athens after the summer. A clean, empty apartment waiting to be filled mostly with my useless crap. That first trip downtown before most people got back in town. Going to lunch with the mellophone section and talking to old friends about how we don’t know any of the freshmen’s names. Looking forward to indoor music rehearsal because it sounds better…but mostly because it’s air conditioned and we get to play The Chant. And The Chant kicks ass.

Not to sound too hokey, but there was also a feeling of a clean slate, second chance, whatever, that came along with each band camp. A chance to make new friends, become a better musician, make a drunken ass of yourself at the ATA party, or decide against that.

The same goes for the start of the start of a new school year. The new notebooks, writing utensils, text books, planners, etc. always signified a chance to start over and make improvements -- whether or not they were actually made is another story. There was just the sense that there were a million possibilities out there, that the world was my oyster, if you will, and while that's not necessarily untrue now...there's certainly the feeling that I've reached a certain point and that there's no turning back.

I guess I just miss that whole process, or worse yet, I don't like to think that it's going on without me. As much as I like where I am and what I'm doing and like the prospect of my future...I can't help but look to the past with a certain nostalgia, but also with an uncertainty that I made all the right choices. But, not being able to complain about where I am...I suppose the 'right' choices are all in the eye of the beholder.

I suppose the time always comes to move on, but I guess that doesn't mean I have to like it, or that I can't get homesick for it. On the same hand, it doesn't mean that I can't visit, get toasted, and scream my lungs out at a football game. Only next time I won't be in the wool uniform or holding the horn. But as they say...once a dawg, always a dawg. How sweet it is.

Sweet indeed.

Wow.

Apparently, if you get your jollies by banging farm animals, Washington State is the place to be. But be sure to only bang animals bigger than you, because banging animals that are smaller than you can be illegal. Go figure.

I was surprised to learn that only 33 states have laws against this stuff. Pretty soon, there'll be a debate about whether or not banging farm animals is a constitutionally protected right. You just wait.

My bad

So I got this letter a few days ago, and this guy signed it with his middle initial in his name. Well, no one else on the letters page had used their middle initial, so it looked a little awkward, and I took it out. Apparently, this was a bad move on my part, as it generated the following response:

I suppose I should be glad you published my letter today (July 13), but I'm disappointed you could not spell my name correctly and I want a correction to be published. I also want to hear from you. I expect an e-mail message or phone call in response to this message.

My name is (First name) F. (Last name). That is the correct way to refer to me, although in conversation friends and family call me (Variation of first name). My middle initial is part of my name. It appears on every document that originates with me. The correct rendition of my name appeared three times in the "letter to the editor" you published today.

Others may feel differently and may not care whether their middle initial is included. I do. It's not only my name. It's also my product. I'm an author and my by-line means something.

Regardless of how others may feel in a similar situation, I do not want to be called (First name)(Last name). That is not my name. No document has ever left my hands identifying me as (First name)(Last name). Not once. Not ever.

There is nothing in any style manual, nothing about routine editorial practices, and nothing in accepted standards of journalism that entitles you to change my name. You could have avoided causing me this unhappiness by following a simple rule: call people what they call themselves.

I want an explanation, a published correction, and an assurance that if my work appears in your paper again, you will make an effort to spell it right.

Oops. Sorry. But don't worry...I don't think your work will be appearing in our paper again.

Innocent until proven guilty...unless you're a Republican

For those of you who haven't been keeping up with the news (and I don't blame you), there's a little thing going on with President Bush's top political advisor, Karl Rove.

Again, for those of you who don't know, Karl Rove is one of the most demonized people in American politics. He's been referred to as the Puppet Master of George W. Bush (because, of course, President Bush is too stupid to do anything on his own), and pretty much blamed for anything that liberals don't like. But like him or hate him, he's good at what he does. Damn good.

And liberals can't stand this. Mostly because he keeps beating them.

But it seems that they've found a soft spot in his armor...maybe.

See, a couple of years ago, former Ambassador Joe Wilson was a major critic of the Iraq war. He wanted to go to Nigeria to 'investigate' the claim that Saddam Hussein tried to buy nuclear materials from the country. His wife, a 'covert' agent for the CIA, recommended him for the gig (something Wilson originally lied about, only to be proven wrong). On a side note, do you really think that such a huge critic of President Bush and the Iraq war would SERIOUSLY investigate such a claim that would justify everything he was against? Not likely. And that's exactly what happened.

He came back, and wrote a nice little piece for the New York Times using the typical 'Bush lied, Iraq wasn't a threat' rhetoric. He said 'it did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.' Oh, well that's good to know. What, did he get off the plane, look around and say 'Well, so sign of nuclear bomb-making materials here. And no receipt with Saddam's name on it. My work here is done.'? Please. Is anyone really all that shocked that a staunch opponent of the Iraq war concluded from his investigation that there was no wrong-doing on the part of Saddam Hussein?

But I'm getting off topic.

The main point is, sometime during all of this, it gets revealed to the public that Joe Wilson's wife is a covert agent for the CIA. Oops. That's not good.

And so begins the race to find out who's responsible for the leak. It gets really complicated, but long story short, of the 3 journalists that are known to be the recipients of the leak, 1 is in jail for contempt of court for not revealing the source of the leak, another had to make a plea deal to get out of jail, and the last one has just been sitting pretty.

Something's a little fishy here. It seems to me that if Karl Rove, the ultimate nemesis of the American liberal, was responsible for the leak, journalists for Newsweek would've been offering that information up left and right...journalistic integrity be damned. But instead, one of them is willing to go to jail without revealing the source.

The journalist that made the deal to stay out of jail is going to talk, so we could very well be finding out rather soon the identity of the leaker.

The point is, we don't know. And even after we know, it's not a warrant to throw the leaker in jail or execute them for treason.

For the sake of argument, let's say that Karl Rove is the leaker. Did he do it with the malicious intent to destroy a CIA agents career in return for her husband's opposition to the Iraq war? If so, then yes, Karl Rove deserves to go to jail. But I highly doubt that Karl Rove would do something so stupid.

However, what if Karl Rove didn't know the capacity in which the agent worked, only that she worked at the CIA? What if his comment was only something along the lines of 'Wilson only got that job because his CIA wife recommended him.' There's nothing untrue or illegal about that.

But don't try to explain that to the Democrats. Ever since the possibility arose that Rove might be somehow involved in this whole mess, there has been clamoring for Rove to resign, or for President Bush to fire him. My question is...for what? Rove has not even been subpoenaed, let alone indicted or convicted...of ANYTHING. But again...don't tell the Democrats. They want so badly to believe that Karl Rove is guilty of a felony, that they're smelling blood in the water...even if it's not really there.

For a party that supposedly prides themselves on social justice, they certainly don't seem to be too keen on the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing right now. Which I guess is nothing new. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised when they abandon their supposed principles for their political agenda. It happens all the time.

Britain at a crossroads

I woke up around 8:30, and because my laptop was conveniently beside my bed, I opened it and saw if anyone on my buddy list was awake as well. In what’s a little out of the ordinary, my mom was online.

She sent me an Instant Message™ asking me what I thought about the news this morning. Well, having just woken up and lacking the energy to go into the living room and turn on the tv, I opened up the Drudge Report©.

The initial information was a little hazy. My first thought, due to the relatively low number of deaths and location of the G8 summit, was that it was some militant Marxist/Leftist group trying to stop the G8 summit/protest globalization. Judging by the film recently aired of Fox News of G8 protestors actively vandalizing riot police cars (while the police were inside, no less), it didn’t seem much of a stretch. Their hatred of America is every bit as deep and bitter as that found in the Middle East, so I wouldn’t have put it past them.

But, as more information became available, it seems like it was the doing of Muslim extremists. Again, not surprising.

There’s been quite a swirling of emotions going on in the Motherland of our Motherland, ranging from resolve, to anger, to surrender, to ‘it’s all George Bush’s fault’ (I’m not kidding).

Personally, I’m hoping to see a lot of the first, mixed with a little of the second. The third and forth I have no desire to see at all.

Much like we found ourselves after 9/11, Britain is now at a cross-roads. However, their options are not as ‘clear’ as perhaps ours were. They don’t have the luxury of a definable enemy such as the Taliban or Osama bin Laden. They don’t have military targets, or even a concrete organization on which to focus their attention.

However, their choices are defined in as much as they can choose to back down from this attack, or they can choose to confront it.

Politicians often refer to terrorists as ‘cowards’. I believe there’s a slight fallacy in that. ‘Cowards’ would imply that fear leads to surrender. That’s not what terrorists are. While they may hate Western civilization, that hate comes from
fear (just like Yoda said). A fear that the West is going to take over their entire civilization. It seems to me that ‘cowards’ would run from such a threat, and essentially do nothing about it. However, terrorists strap bombs to themselves
and commit suicide in order to kill people they view as non-believers. As evil as they may be, that takes incredible dedication to a cause, and that’s not the mark of a coward.

That being said, we’re never going to change Osama bin Laden’s mind. The people that are willing to kill themselves in order to kill ‘infidels’ cannot be reasoned with. They can only be isolated, and preferably killed.

No amount of money, medical aid, technology, or general kindness is going to change the mind of a single terrorist. So we shouldn’t even waste the effort trying. However, the vast majority of Muslims, I believe, are quite reasonable, and thus their minds can be changed. The trick is separating the two, and getting the 'moderates' to band against the extremists.

People (and politicians) also like to claim that Britain was attacked because of their involvement in the Iraq war. Perhaps. But what war was America involved in that caused the attacks on 9/11? What war were we involved in that caused the attack on the USS Cole? The embassies in Africa? The marine barracks in Beirut? The FIRST attack on the World Trade Center? Point being, Britain's involvement in Iraq was not a reason or cause for the attacks, it was an excuse. Every western nation is a target of these sociopaths...they would have found a reason. The Iraq war just makes it convenient.

So how do we deal with this? Some would apparently argue that we should cede to terrorist demands and leave the Middle East well enough alone, and as such, subject religious minorities and women to severe mistreatment, and in some cases (many cases) torture, stoning, dismemberment, and other heinous forms of death.

Others would argue that we should simply arrest the terrorists as we find them, and let the legal system handle them. Still others believe that we should simply go to war against them and kill as many of them as we can.

But I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle of the latter two. Terrorism is not a disease, it's a symptom of a disease. A disease of cyclic poverty, religious intolerance, and preached hatred.

Killing terrorists merely treats a symptom, which is perfectly fine, but in my opinion is on par with taking pain killers for chronic pain. Sure everything's better for a while, but the real problem still remains. In order to effectively solve this problem, we have to deal with the immediate threats (i.e. kill/imprison those who want us dead) while at the same time waging a public relations campaign to change the minds of the moderate muslims in the Middle East.

However, we're not going to get anything accomplished if our unity crumbles and people start waving white flags at the first sign of resistance. It's not going to be easy, and it's not going to be quick, and it's certainly not going to be painless. But surrendering, conceding, and capitulating are only going to make the problem that much wrose. There are probably fewer 'moderate' Muslims in the world than we would like to think. But they do exist, and they're vital in winning this war.

Thoughts and prayers for London

While I haven't yet had the time or opportunity to formulate a thoughtful post about what happened in London yesterday, Thomas Friedman has. So I encourage you to read it. He probably expresses it in a much better way than I could, anyway.

It's not very often that I agree with Thomas Friedman, but I'll admit when people are right. I don't care for his coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or his opinion about the Iraq war, or the fact that he goes on Bill Maher's show. But he's got a point on this one, and because I like to think of myself as intellectually honest, I'm going to give credit where credit is due.

I'll post my own thoughts later. Maybe tonight. Stay tuned.

I'm speechless.

Is this a common thing in Turkey? It reminds me of that South Park episode...

What are we fighting for?

In regard to the debate that's been going on on my blog for the past few days, I thought I'd post this.

There's a guy in Baghdad that has a Blogspot blog (go figure), and we asked him to write an article for us.

He posted the same article on his blog under the heading 'What independence means to me'. I highly encourage you to read it. Hopefully it'll shed some light on just exactly what we're accomplishing in Iraq and around the world, despite the negative media coverage.

It's people like this...

From an e-mail I received at work:

It's funny how almost every single person who thinks that we should keep our troops occupying Iraq are people never personally effected by the tragedies of war. I am a military brat, born and bred both parents serving (Army/Air Force). I have an uncle who served in Afghanistan and who's serving in Iraq this very moment. His children aren't allowed to watch the news because when they hear that a soldier gets killed they fear it's their father. I'm 20 with friends in war to pay for college! You don't see the wounds and post-traumatic stress these soldiers suffer from when they come home. How dare Bush say this war is 'worth it' when his good-for-nothing girls are out getting drunk instead volunteering at Walter Reed or Bethesda like my friends and I! Chalk this up as a loss! We went after the wrong bad guy! Bring our troops home!

Like I said before. It's sad. Some people just don't get it.

Like monkeys doing a math problem

As you well know, tomorrow is the 4th of July (America...fuck yeah...), but due to the fact that I have to be on a plane back to DC at 8:20 tomorrow (oh, I'm in Georgia for the weekend for those of you who didn't know...) we're having a little 4th of July shindig tonight, technically the 3rd.

Most of the people who read this have been to my house, so they'll know what I'm talking about, but for those who don't, I'll explain. My house is two stories, but because we mainly live on the first one, we only installed the central air-conditioning on the first floor. The 'bonus room' upstairs, as it were, has a little window unit air conditioner to keep it cool when we have company, such as today. There's also a window unit in the garage for a reason I do not yet understand.

So anyway...the window unit upstairs decided to stop working. Inconvenient, but not a huge deal...we could just take the one from the garage and put it upstairs. So my dad and I unscrewed the one in the garage from the window, and hauled it upstairs (naturally leaving a trail of rain water that had collected in the fan area as we went through our carpeted living room.)

My uncle joined us, as I believe it is mandatory for any male within a 500 foot radius to join in on, or at least spectate, anything involving more than one screw driver and or electrical current.

I got stuck holding the first air conditioner while my dad took the screws out of the second one, in hopes of removing it from the upstairs window. However, apparently the paint from the window had made quite a nice seal around the unit, and despite removing the screws, the airconditioner was still firmly ensconced in the window frame.

Thinking it would only need a little nudge, my dad started tapping where the unit met the frame, hoping to loosen it enough to remove it. When this was to no avail, his tapping became more of a beating, and eventually an open throttle pounding.

I could see the back (and substantially heavier) side of the unit bouncing up and down rather violently, and I could see what was about to happen.

As I stood there helplessly -- both of my arms occupied with the other unit -- I said 'Hey maybe someone should hold the other...' [Creeeeeek..thud..thud thud..scraaaaape..................CRASH]

My dad tried to catch it as it fell out of the window, rolled down the eave and off the side of the house, before crashing into a flower bed. What he would've done with it had he caught it outside the window, I'm not entirely sure.

'Yeah, I was gonna say maybe someone should hold on to the other side so it doesn't fall out of the window, but nevermind.'

'Well, it was broken anyway.'

Indeed. But I'm not getting it out of the flower bed.

The war hits a little closer to home

I had planned to write a little rant about the book I picked up yesterday at the airport, or how annoying Dakota Fanning is in War of the Worlds, but all that's kinda taking a back seat right now to a phone call that recently came in to my grandma.

My cousin Kim (cousin-in-law?) is in the army, which is where she met and married my cousin Blake. He joined the army right out of high school, where he proceeded to win Soldier of the Year like 3 years in a row. He's been stationed in Korea on the DMZ, and served in both Afghanistan in Iraq. He's currently in the reserves learning to fly Apache helicopters.

His wife Kim however, has been much less 'involved', I guess you would say. Most of her responsibilities are state-side. She plays clarinet in the Army band (which is nothing to sneeze at musically), and was studying toward a degree in nursing.

I say 'was' because of an assignment she just received. Due to her expertise in a certain field (I'm not entirely sure what, something with fueling), she has been activated from the reserves. She has been assigned some sort of training in North Carolina for the next month, followed by more training in Indiana for the next four months. After which she will be deployed to Iraq for 18 to 20 months.

Her four-year-old daughter will have started school before she sees her again.

In reading Letters to the Editor at work, I get a substantial bit of commentary on the Iraq war. People saying that it's a quagmire, we have no business being there, we're not getting anything accomplished, Bush lied-kids died, we should come home now, blah blah blah.

I also read quite a bit of mail that says things like 'our soldiers are dying for no reason' and '[supporters of the war] would feel very different if it was their own family that was over there getting shot at.'

Aside from the general narrow-mindedness of the first characterizations I mentioned, the last two really get to me. Or should I say, infuriate me.

Let me start from the beginning.

Was Saddam Hussein's Iraq an immediate threat to the United States? No.
Was he producing weapons of mass destruction? Apparently not.
Did he have anything to do with 9-11? Besides rejoicing over it, no.
Did President Bush kinda maybe fudge intelligence so as to get more support for the war? Probably.

But so what? I think that reflects more poorly on the American people -- and the Western world as a whole -- than it does on President Bush.

One of my favorite quotes is from John Stuart Mill, when he said 'War is an ugly thing, indeed, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks nothing is worth a war -- is worse.'

The American people, and the Western world as a whole -- myself included -- are complacent. We have no sense of sacrifice. Gas goes up 10 cents a gallon, and everyone's all pissed off. And as long as we get home in time for American Idol, we could care less what some oppressive dictator does to his people. We don't want to be bothered with unpleasant things. Especially when those unpleasant things might cause an American to lose their life. We certainly don't want to sacrifice our lives for a bunch of sand-niggers that don't know what to do with freedom anyway, right?

On top of that, the American people, and the Western world as a whole, are generally stupid. Not in the academic sense...but moreso in their inability to see the big picture and grasp its importance.

If President Bush had come to the American people and said 'Alright look, here's the deal. Saddam Hussein is a tool. He's not an immediate threat, but there's a chance he could get his hands on some nasty weapons, and give them to people that want to kill us. But more importantly, he, and people like him, breed anti-Americanism. So we need to make an example out of him by kicking his ass, and showing the Iraqi people the beauty of democracy. It won't be easy, but we gotta start somewhere if we're going to change the region from this hotbed of hatred. People there want to kill us, and they're going to continue to want to kill us unless we change the system.' -- no one would've bought it.

Because Saddam Hussein isn't a threat. Osama bin Laden is. That's the real enemy.

Is it really? Osama bin Laden is no more of a threat to us than Hitler was to Americans in 1944. Hitler himself wasn't the one conquering nations and exterminating millions of people. However, he was the one breeding the ideology that brainwashed people into thinking it was the right thing to do.

That's what Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and every other militant Islamist do -- they justify hatred. They justify children being strapped with explosives and put onto busses where they detonate and murder other children. They justify flying planes into buildings and killing thousands on innocent people. They justify stoning rape victims to death and forcing women to be covered head-to-toe in the middle of the desert.

And saying 'Well that's just what some Muslims do...' is the equivalent of saying in 1939 'Well, exterminating Jews is just something some Germans do...'

That's such a cop out. If there's one thing Americans should be the first in line to defend, it's 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness', to be cliche.

These people want to destroy us. And they're going to want to destroy us as long as we continue the status quo.

That's what we're accomplishing in Iraq. We're changing the status quo. We're putting an end to the soft bigotry that Muslims just do crazy things that we don't understand, and instead giving them the right to self-determination. We're giving them freedoms that many have never experienced before.

Is it going to be rough? You're God-damn right. Are innocent people going to lose their lives? Yes, and it's tragic. But we have a responsibility to the next generation to ensure that their lives are better than our own. And we're not going to accomplish that by trying to reach an understanding with people who justify things that are intrinsically wrong.

Am I scared for my cousin? You better believe it. Does my heart bleed for her daughter and her husband? Of course. But I refuse to believe that she's not a part of something incredible. I refuse to believe that when this history is written, that she will have contributed to anything less than a world-changing experience.

I don't feel any less supportive of the war knowing that my own relatives could very well die because of it. In fact, I'm all the more supportive because I want them to accomplish their mission so that their sacrifice and the lives lost are not in vain.

We're changing the world and trying to make it a better place. It saddens me that so many are complacent to the point that they refuse to see the big picture.