St@te o' the Union, Part I

Tonight is the night when political nerds all over the country come together for what is generally the most scrutinized speech the President will make all year. It's essentially the Super Bowl of political speeches in that even people who don't usually follow politics will have at least heard about it. Plus, it helps that every broadcast and cable news network preempts its programming, so there are at least slightly fewer options on television.

People in D.C. (I say that because it doesn't seem to me that anyone else really cares…) seem to get giddy with anticipation in speculating what the President will say, or what he should say, or how he should say it, blah blah blah. It's all pretty pointless, really, because the President is going to say what he wants and how he wants, and he's certainly not going to be taking suggestions from the media.

All that said, there are a few things I'd like to hear addressed in the speech before he starts droning on about Brussel sprout farming initiatives in Idaho and most people either nod off or switch over to ESPN.

First of all, soci@l security. Whatever happened to that? Democr@ts were crowing that they were able to defeat the President's campaign to reform the system. Ok, great. You won. Congratulations. But uh…the system is still broken, it's still hemorrhaging cash, and I'm still putting money into it that I'm never going to see. I'd like a little update on that.

Other than that, I'm not concerned with much else — tax cuts, healthcare plans, the aforementioned Brussel sprout farming initiatives in Idaho — that's really not all that important right now.

The main thing ruffling my feathers right now is energy independence. What's the deal? I'm not an environmentalist by any means (that isn't to say I'm hostile to the environment, I just don't think its worth sacrificing major economic progress over) but I'm an ardent advocate of weaning ourselves off the massive oil teat.

So many of the world's problems have their root in oil. Most recently, in the conflict with Ir@n. The Iranians are holding a massive bargaining chip in the form of oil. If they were to cease exports, global oil prices would spike, and that would have a devastating effect on the global economy. If we didn't need their oil, there'd be no question as far as whether they should be dealt with.

Aside from that, our dependence on oil has led us to ignore some pretty atrocious things. For the better part of the last century, we've largely turned a blind eye to egregious human rights abuses in the Middle East and other places like Venezuela and Russia. Specifically in the Middle East, we were willing to ignore their appalling treatment of women and minorities, their virulent anti-Americanism, their burning hatred of Israel and the contemptible propagandizing of their youth so long as the pipeline was flowing, the price was reasonable and they left Israel alone.

This is no longer acceptable. For one thing, oil is a finite resource. It's not going to last forever. The sooner we can kick the habit, the better of we'll see. Not to mention it'll likely do wonders to civil advancement in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran, as well as have a nice byproduct in the form of a cleaner environment.
I'm sure I'll have more to say on the St@te o' the Union after it actually takes place, but I just thought I'd throw that out there ahead of time.

Case in point

As a follow up to my post a few days ago, I stumbled across this from the geniuses at the Democr@tic Undergr0und. I must admit, a guilty pleasure of mine is reading their message board — these people make Mich@el M00re look reasonable.

As I said before, liberals are setting themselves up for some major disappointment by directing all their political energy toward smearing Ge0rge \/\/. Bush. It's telling that in a list of the Top 1O Conserv@tive Idi0ts, that Ge0rge \/\/. Bush manages to land slots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9, with his administration getting slots 1 and 8. Then of course there's the obligatory pot shot at Ann C0ulter.

Is this really the best they can do? Say what you will, but if the biggest idiot of the conservative movement is a two term president whose party won control of both houses of congress, then liberals have a bigger problem on their hands than they realize. Where's Pat Buch@nan on this list? Pat Roberts0n? Miche||e Ma|kin? Not even a dig at D|ck Cheney? I'm afraid the left is becoming a one trick pony (did I just say one trick pony? :::sigh:::), and the American people are already tired of it.

To be fair, a nice ass-kicking might do the Republicans some good. I just don't think the Democrats are going to be able to do it. More on this later.

Wow. This is seriously messed up. Look at the picture of the guy fighting. His opponent seems to be in sheer terror, and understandably so. I'd be afraid of a back that was that hairy, too. For a little perspective, the guy taking the beating is 6'2", 239 lbs. That's just not right.

Well now I've gone cross-eyed

It’s not very often that my boss implores me to blow off an editorial I’m working on so that we can go drinking. So when the opportunity presents itself, I certainly oblige. One of our colleagues (and one of the dwindling number of people in the office that aren’t 15 years or more older than I am) has decided to pursue other opportunities within the District, so we decided that it simply wouldn’t be a proper sendoff without a happy hour.

An hour and quite a few beers later, I found myself with an hour and a half to kill before my s+uttering suppor+ group, so I headed over to the bookstore — where I attempted to read a S+ephen H@wking book with a buzz.

It wasn’t as ridiculous as it might sound — the concept of time travel seems much more plausible after a pitcher of beer. Plus, I periodically enjoy having my mind blown and this seemed like the book to do it.

Though I will say that after reading the chapter on time travel, I’m not particularly sold on the idea. There were, however, some interesting concepts of time. For example, the idea that time is not a universal linear experience for all people. That is to say, that events have the potential to occur in different orders to different observers. I’ll concede that. It simply requires incredibly massive distances of space.

Say for example that there are two observers stationed four light years apart. Observer A sneezes. Two weeks later, Observer B sneezes. Four years later, the Observers receive the information that the other sneezed. Now, we know that Observer A sneezed two weeks before Observer B. But according to Observer B, he sneezed four years before Observer A. More over, Observer A would claim that he sneezed four years before Observer B. Both would be right according to their own experience, but both would be inherently wrong.

This leads me to believe that time travel as most people conceive it isn’t possible, but the illusion of time travel is. Say there was a baseball game happening in the civilization of Observer A. Now, Observer B usually wouldn’t know about the game until four years after it was played because of the distance between the two civilizations. However, it would theoretically be possible for Observer B to travel faster than the speed of light, arrive in Civilization A, watch the baseball game, travel back to his civilization faster than the speed of light, and place a bet on the baseball game with other members of his civilization, having already witnessed the outcome.

Now, in the eyes of those in Civilization B, Observer B traveled into the future, having already seen a future event. However, according to Civilization A, he would have traveled into the past, having arrived before a past event had taken place. But this isn’t entirely accurate. What he did in reality was travel faster than the information that eventually reached the respective destinations.

Naturally, I don’t have a degree in astrophysics or anything like that, that’s just the kind of stuff that makes sense to me. I guess you could argue that with such massive distances, forces and incredible speeds that anything could happen, which is pretty much the point of the whole “uncertainty theory” — essentially, there are just some things we won’t know.

The whole idea of time being abstract as well as subject to different observations has led me to develop a theory of a universal observer, which holds this whole time/space continuum thing together. More on this another time. It’s Friday, and I gotta get out of here before the sun goes down.

If this post just bored you out of your mind, go have a pitcher of beer and read it again. It’ll sound a lot cooler.

The Amazing Fizzling Hillary and shadowboxing the boogeyman

A few months ago, I blogged about how I wasn’t as fearful of Hill@ry C|inton as many other conservatives seem to be. And according to a poll released earlier this week, I was apparently well founded in my belief. When a majority of Americans are already saying they would vote against Hill@ry, I just don’t see the need in getting all riled up over the prospect of her candidacy.

That isn’t to say, of course, that conservatives should start celebrating victory and totally begin ignoring “Lady M@cBeth,” as she is sometimes called. Politics is a dirty, dirty game. So while it seems that Hill@ry is down for the moment, she should not be beyond a proverbial kicking. I’m not advocating mud slinging or character assassination, but there are certainly things about her that are legitimately worthy of criticism. Of course, with numbers like that, I’m perfectly willing to keep my conservative powder dry until she gets the nomination and then ruthlessly bombard her in the general election. (See, this is why I don’t like politics. It gets me thinking like a cutthroat sleazeball.)

As far as the Democr@ts go, it never ceases to amaze me how consistently they can be thrown a hanging slider and completely whiff it. There were times last year when I was genuinely fearful that Democr@ts were going to take advantage of a Republic@n misstep and gain the upper hand in the political sphere. This, as yet, has not happened.

Far be it for me to offer political advice to my opponents, but they’re going about this all wrong. For the last five years, the Demcr@ts, and liberals in general, have directed virtually all of their political energy toward slinging mud at Ge0rge \/\/. Bush and his administration.

It’s almost comical, really. The amount of vile hatred directed at the President is staggering. People that oppose the President have become so blinded by their rage or detached from reality that they claim that Ge0rge \/\/. Bush is not their president, or that he’s Hi+ler, or that we invaded Iraq for oil/to benefit Ha|iburton, that he’s spying on Americans talking to their grandmothers, that the Iran crisis is a farce to cover an economic agenda, or any number of the crazy things liberals say. Ignoring for the moment that each one of those accusations is demonstrably untrue, let’s say for the sake of argument that they are true.

President Bush is a lame duck. He can’t run again, and there is no reason to believe that Cheney is going to run. Thus, this unprecedented amount of hatred being leveled against the President is truly an exercise in futility — or, to use my new favorite word, nugation. Liberals are shadowboxing the boogeyman. They are expending so much energy trying to impress each other with how much they can hate Bush that they’re setting themselves up for another disappointment in 2008.

J0hn Kerry’s main platform in 2004 was that he wasn’t Ge0rge \/\/. Bush. Oh, and he would’ve nicer to France. That sort of platform isn’t going to fly in 2008. 2008 is going to be a truly open-field election. The Republic@n candidate isn’t going to the Ge0rge \/\/. Bush, and the Democr@ts aren’t going to be able to get away with their bash-Bush platform. The problem is, by the time the campaign rolls around, the Democr@ts are going to be so over-invested in the “Bush is Hi+ler” mantra that they’re going to be utterly incapable of piecing together a coherent policy platform. Personally, I’m alright with this prospect. One of the first rules of politics is: if you’re opponent is shooting himself in the foot, for Heaven’s sake, don’t interfere.

I say let the Democr@ts go nuts over Bush. By the time they realize that he’s no longer their opponent, they’ll already be well on their way to being routed by Ge0rge Allen.

Lightening up

Several of my conservative colleagues are/would be upset with things like this, and I probably would have been in my, uh, younger days...but now I just see it for what it is — a joke. And some pretty funny ones at that.

I find that people often take themselves, and life in general, entirely too seriously. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely times to take things seriously — but some schmuck telling jokes on a blog isn't one of them.

To those who are offended at things like this, the D@ily Show, or even the Colber+ Repor+ (which, by the way, is quickly becoming one of my favorite shows) I say: How much political power do these people really have?

Let's say for the sake of argument that the D@ily Show gets two million viewers a night (It doesn't, but again, for the sake of argument...) Even if all the viewers of the D@ily Show voted Democrat (which, counting myself, I know they do not...though I suppose 1,999,999 of them might...) Ge0rge VV. Bvsh was still elected by three million votes.

I simply no longer feel threatened by such things. Besides, getting upset about them lends them credibility. Just laugh at them like they're intended and move on. Above all, lighten up. Conservatives already get a bum rap for being uptight prudes with no detectable sense of humor, and it'd be nice if we could shake it. I like to think that I have a detectable sense of humor. I do still remain, however, an uptight prude.

Could it be?

Wow, this guy is finally owning up to the position liberals have been taking since the start of the war. He's absolutely dead wrong in his opinion, but at least he's intellectually honest about it. That's at least, in some small way, respectable.

Happy Birthday, aborted fetuses

As you may or may not be aware, today is the 33rd anniversary of the R0e v. VVade decision that opened the door for the sanctioned practice of abortion. From my point of view (that is, my office window), it’s a strangely commemorated anniversary.

There are both sides of the argument, roughly equal in number from what I can tell, marching around outside, carrying signs and in general just making things rather tense. In some cases, members of either side were yelling at their counterparts.

In my humble but accurate opinion, the great chasm between the two sides distills down to the basic question of whether a fetus, or even an embryo, constitutes life. I would venture a guess that most, if not all, so-called ‘pro-lifers’ would argue to the positive in both instances where are so-called ‘pro-choicers’ would not.

This seemingly small but fundamental difference, I believe, leads to the incredibly polarized opinions on the issue of abortion. For those on the ‘pro-life’ side who genuinely believe that a fetus is a life, it is perfectly reasonable for them to believe that the taking of that life is tantamount to murder, genocide, or some other malicious, inhumane practice. For those on the ‘pro-choice’ side who do not view the fetus as a separate human life, the practice of abortion should be no more objectionable than that of having a mole or tumor removed.

My opinion on the matter falls somewhere in between — though admittedly favoring the ‘pro-life’ side. I indeed believe that an unborn child constitutes at least some basic form of human life. Granted, it is not yet a ‘full’ human being to the extent that it cannot breathe air or ingest food, but a fetus does have unique DNA and there is evidence that fetuses are able to hear outside noises and experience sensations such as pain. Most importantly, however (at least in my opinion), a fetus grows and develops, a process that would not otherwise occur unless the fetus was living.

All that said, I just can’t bring myself to buy a ticket on the “Abortion is Murder” bandwagon, and the comparison by some of abortion to genocide is, at least to me, unsettling, if not borderline offensive.

I’ve never been one to favor the abuse of semantics, and this is no different. As I understand it, murder would imply that there was some sort of malicious intent on behalf of the planners and performers of the abortion — something I just can’t concede.

I have a similar reaction to those who would claim that abortion is genocide. Though the founder of Pl@nned P@renthood, M@rgaret S@nger, was a professed eugenicist and had some rather suspect goals in the implementation of birth control, it doesn’t appear to me that modern advocates of abortion are out to maliciously extinguish an entire race of people. Trust me, I’ve seen institutions of genocide. After feeling for myself the aura of death that remains in a place even 60 years after its liberation, I can’t help but believe that to compare abortion to genocide is to cheapen the meaning of genocide.

Rather, I think the practice of abortion comes from a gross ignorance and misunderstanding than it does from any sort of malicious intent. Legally speaking, it would seem to me that abortion would rise to the level of involuntary manslaughter, not murder and certainly not genocide. But I suppose “Abortion is involuntary manslaughter” doesn’t make for as good of a bumper sticker.

This is why I believe that if people were simply educated on the matter of abortion that its prevalence would plummet. I also believe, however, that so long as R0e v. VVade is “settled law,” we will never truly have this debate. This reality truly serves an injustice to our society.

Moreover, it’s incredible to me that, in the 21st century, abortion is still viewed as a viable means of birth control. In a time when there’s a pill women can take, a shot they can get, a patch they can wear and condoms people can buy among many other things, it is simply inexcusable that so-called unwanted pregnancies still occur. And let’s not forget, it is possible — God forbid — for people to refrain from having sex. It truly is the only form of birth control that’s 100% effective.

I will concede, however, that it’s entirely naive to think that this over-sexed culture of ours will ever accept the prospect of abstinence. But saving some cultural revolution contrary to that of the 1960’s, there are still plenty of things that render abortion obsolete.

Not only is the practice of abortion tragic and in many ways barbaric, it is becoming more and more outdated. While I have my doubts that R0e v. VVade will ever be overturned, it seems more likely that through education and other advancements in birth control, the R0e v. VVade decision, and abortion in general, will become irrelevant.

Guess who spent 30 minutes on a broken elevator today? Yeah, that'd be me. I'm taking the stairs from now on. It's better for me anyway.

Hmm...he must've been worried about Israel pegging the shekel to the Euro, or something like that.

Duck and cover

Several weeks ago, I blogged about Iran and how it's only a matter of time before the shit hits the fan. Well, the fan is on high, and there's a big pile of shit heading straight toward it. The Europeans have finally admitted that their two year diplomatic campaign has achieved precisely nothing (funny, I could've told them that two years ago...) and now it's looking like Russia and China are lukewarm to the idea of imposing sanctions. Not that it matters, because sanctions would essentially be pointless unless the world community stopped buying Iranian oil, and that's simply never going to happen. So pretty much, we're screwed. There's no easy way out of this, but doing nothing is much, much worse than doing something. At any rate, I wrote an editorial on the matter scheduled to run next week. We'll see. In the mean time, here's the rought draft:

Political Philosopher Nicollo Machiavelli famously said that war cannot be avoided, it can only be postponed to the advantage of others. This harsh reality may soon come to fruition over Iran’s much-publicized and worrying nuclear program.

Earlier this month, officials in Britain, France and Germany were forced to admit that their two-year diplomatic campaign to convince Tehran to drop its nuclear ambitions had proved utterly nugatory. In what was originally an effort to avoid imposing sanctions on the Fundamentalist Islamic nation, the two-year diplomatic exercise has not only failed in stopping Iran’s nuclear program, but it has also afforded them a two-year window to fortify nuclear facilities and otherwise prepare for a military attack, as well as covertly pursue nuclear research. Above all, the European attempt to avoid imposing sanctions has all but made sanctions inevitable.

But even sanctions, at this point, are unlikely to be effective. Partly because, as it is widely believed, Iran will have already gone nuclear before any such sanctions would take effect. Sanctions would be ineffective, however, mostly because Russia and China, having veto power and the U.N. Security Council, will not allow any meaningful sanctions against Iran. Not to mention that such sanctions would ultimately be more adverse to the general population than members of the regime, ala Saddam Hussein.

To make matters much, much worse, Iran has pledged to react to any sanctions by cutting its oil exports, spiking oil prices. Though the United States would not be directly affected, having put in place an embargo against Iranian oil in 1995, the implications of an Iranian oil stoppage could be globally devastating.

We have crossed the point of no return in dealing with Iran and from this point forward, any resolution to this conflict will not be easy, quick, painless or pleasant. Iran’s president is, technically speaking, a raving lunatic. He has expressed a desire to annihilate Israel, questions the historical accuracy of the Holocaust and has said that he wishes to prepare his country for the coming of the Islamic Messiah, or Mahdi. The thought of this man having “his finger on the button,” as it were, should be universally horrifying. And to certain extent, it seems to be.

What the so-called International Community lacks, however, is a consensus on how to proceed. At the very least, the Europeans have conceded, though belatedly, that negotiations with Iran are futile. Beyond that, we can expect a great deal of quibbling and bickering over the wording of resolutions, timetables and consequences. Meanwhile, Iran will bide its time, knowing that it holds two enormous bargaining chips — oil and nuclear proliferation — that are both capable of mass destruction.

The time for diplomacy has passed and sanctions are ineffective. Military conflict is often referred to as “the last option,” but it is nevertheless an option. Though with weakened credibility and stretched military personnel following the invasion of Iraq, coupled with scattered and fortified Iranian nuclear sites, even the effectiveness of military action is called into question.

Whatever the resolution to the crisis, it is likely to get worse before it gets better. Buckle up and hold on tight, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Red is positive, black is negative

Well, this is comforting. Now I don't feel so bad when I feel like hooking up certain people to a car battery.

I'm ok, I'm ok, I'm ok...I just...ow...

So it's raining pretty substantially in "The District" today. That's always nice depressing. Remember this. It's going to be important later.

Normally, I feel pretty good when I come into the office. Usually wearing a suit and tie, a London Fog coat and freshly groomed hair. The lobby is nice — shiny marble floors, plants, paintings on the wall. Normally a pretty nice way to start the day.

Today, however, not so much. Upon the aforementioned shiny marble floors was an invisible, yet prominent, layer of water. And in what appears to be a bit of an engineering faux pas, the carpet with which employees are supposed to wipe their feet was some three feet from the door.

I took one step into the building and promptly found my foot moving faster than my balance deemed acceptable. Shortly thereafter, both feet, along with the rest of my body, were aloft and time slowed down just enough for my brain to process a few choice words (I'm still not entirely sure whether they were said out loud). Luckily, I was able to break my fall with my right wrist, ribcage and hip. Upon landing, I discover that marble isn't as soft as it looks.

In a small piece of good news, no one saw the ordeal — save for the concierge at the front desk, the customers in the corner of Starbucks, the people on the sidewalk loading their tour bus and the five intern-aged females waiting for the elevator, who were all staring right at me.

I always have had a knack for first impressions.

My assistant band director in high school would refer to such an event as 'losing your cool points for the day.' Having lost them first thing in the morning, and already battling a running deficit, I've got a lot of catching up to do. Maybe I'll get a piercing or something.

Calm down, we're gonna be alright...

I was working on a post on my thoughts about Mar+in Lu+her K|ng, but I left it at home. I’ve also been working on several other posts that are quickly becoming outdated (or “losing their news peg,” as we say in “the business”) but I’ll probably end up posting them anyway because this is my blog and I’ll do what I want. Whuh-eva. Whuh-eva. I do what I want.

We’ve been getting several letters in about the confirmation of Sam Ali+o and how utterly destructive it would be for our nation. Most of these people mention the taking away of “women’s rights,” (some even go as far to call them “women’s reproductive rights”) “civil liberties” and “religious freedom.”

As is typical with such accusations, evidence for these claims has been scant, though I can infer exactly what these people are talking about. For “women’s rights,” and certainly for “women’s reproductive rights,” they’re obviously talking about abortion.

Why they can’t just come out and say that, I’m not entirely sure. Though I suspect it has something to do with the fact that claiming women have the “right” to puncture the skulls of unborn children and vacuum out the brain is a tough position to defend.

Many such advocates also seem to be unaware that the overturning of Roe v. Wade would not entail the wholesale criminalization of abortion. It would simply relegate such legislation to state governments.

Though I also suspect that even if advocates were aware of this, they wouldn’t find this prospect comforting, as they would still be forced to discuss the issue and presumably defend their position in the public square.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned outright. I do believe, however, that with Ali+o on the court, and certainly if another space opens up on the Supreme Court before Bush leaves office (Justice Stevens being 85 and Ginsburg being 72 it’s certainly within the realm of possibility,) that the court will decide cases in such a way so as to eventually render Roe v. Wade obsolete. Though my judiciary scholarship is amateur at best, so I could quite possibly be wrong.

The “civil liberties” accusation is a little harder to guess. With the recent news of the NSA spying program, there’s been quite a lot of talk about the President violating our right to privacy. I’ve been scouring the Constitution, however, and I can’t seem to find anything that says that American citizens have the right to contact enemies of this nation with the expectation that such contact will not be monitored by the government. That’s absolutely asinine.

Someone much smarter than me once said: “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” Indeed. That’s why freedom of speech stops at shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. In pursuit of this, the right to privacy ceases when private dealings threaten national security.

(On a bit of a side note: Several of the critics of the spying program have been saying ‘All the President had to do was get a simple warrant from the FISA Court. They never turn one down, and it’s easy to do.’ Well, if they never turn one down, then what’s the point of the President asking? It just wastes valuable time. It’s either a blatant violation of civil rights or it isn’t. I don’t buy the argument that it would be ok for the President to blatantly violate our civil rights as long as he asked permission first. That doesn’t make sense.)

Regarding religious freedom, there’s been a great deal of clamoring that, with Ali+o, the court will now be a majority Catholic. And apparently, this somehow threatens religious freedom. I think I know where this is going. The people fearing for their “religious freedom” aren’t afraid that they won’t be able to freely practice their religion — they’re afraid others will be freely allowed to practice theirs.

They’re afraid that the new makeup of the Court will see things like opposing the Ten Commandments in court houses, protesting nativity scenes in front of government buildings and going apoplectic over the word “God” in the pledge of Allegiance for exactly what it is — sheer asininity.

The only separation of Church and State in the Constitution is the part that says: “Congress shall make no law establishing a national religion.” It says nothing about forbidding religion in the public square.

There is no “right” in this country to not be offended. If the Ten Commandments being displayed in a courthouse offends you, tough. Don’t look at it. But a courthouse is not “Congress” and displaying the Ten Commandments is not “making a law establishing a national religion.” We also can’t go around offending some people because others are offended. What kind of logic is that? I’ll tell you — dangerous logic.

It’s a scientific fact that when two opposing parties take offense at the other party’s being offended, they both become so offended that they breach what’s known as the Offensive Event Horizon, thus unraveling the construct of time itself. Well, that and it’s just really stupid.

The bottom line is, soon-to-be-Justice Ali+o terrifies certain factions of the population because he doesn’t buy into their game of semantics. Just because a certain issue involves women, that does not make it a women’s rights issue. Just because an issue involves minorities, that doesn’t make it a civil rights issue. And just because an issue involves religion, it does not make it a religious freedom issue. Ali+o seems to know the difference, and moreover, he doesn’t appear afraid to point it out.

Heaven forbid one of the people interpreting our nation’s laws would have a shred of common sense.

3-2-1 Contact

Does anyone else remember that show? I remember having to watch it fairly often in elementary school. It had a pretty catchy theme song. Con-tact...is the feeling(?)...of the moment...that makes ev-ry-thing hap-pen...con-tact. Yeah, that’s right. Even back then I was a total music dork. I often would feel inadequately masculine because I found myself enjoying music class more than P.E. Well, that and the fact that I didn’t weigh more than 100 pounds until I was almost 15. But I digress. (I really need to shut up sometimes.)

Anyway, the real reason for this post is that earlier I watched the movie Con+act with J0dy F0ster. In a marked improvement over the other movies I’ve seen lately, this one did not make me want to kill myself. Though to be fair, after seeing it for the first time in high school, I was upset in spending $14 on it.

In my opinion, it’s one of the best movies with a horrible ending. Everything is great up until the last 30 minutes or so. I won’t spoil the horrible ending for those of you who haven’t seen it (though it came out in like 1998, so what’s the hold up?) but it deals with the existence of life on other planets, in other galaxies, etc.

It also deals with how people would react to it. It portrays so-called religious conservatives as being panicky, in shock and opposed to any scientific pursuit of contact with other civilizations. As with most movie portrayals of religious people, I took exception to this.

There’s always this air about religious people in movies that they’re irrational, ignorant and patently afraid of and opposed to any advancement of science or anything that contradicts their perception of the Bible. This is, as they say, stupid. Granted, there are some religious factions that behave in such a manner, but I would hardly count them in the majority.

Personally, I’ve always had an inkling that there is indeed life on other planets. And as with most other beliefs I hold, I don’t see what the big deal is. It’s just common sense to me.

From a religious standpoint, I don’t recall there being any part of the Bible that says that we’re the only life in the universe. And believing in at least some form of a creator, I think, would lead people to believe that he/she/it didn’t stop with us. I mean, honestly...would God just be sitting around for billions of years, with an area as unfathomably expansive as the universe and call it a career after making Earth? I for one don’t think so.

From a scientific standpoint, if the laws of the universe are, indeed, universal (hence the term, I suppose), then what reason do we have to believe that conditions similar to our own don’t exist elsewhere in the (again, unfathomably expansive) universe? To say that there’s no other life out there is like saying there can be life in America, but not Australia. At least in my unscientific opinion.

That said, I also don’t believe that life on other planets would be incredibly different from our own. By that I mean any contact between our civilizations would more closely resemble the pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock rather than the cantina on Mos Eisly.

Not that my opinion on any of this matters at all, it’s just something I think about from time to time. Any thoughts?

I thought I had malaria...

...but no, it's just the weather. Yesterday it was 60 degrees. Today we have this:




What's that about? Seriously. WTF, mate.


(Apologies to Brett for the blatant rip off, but I too was having issues getting pictures of my own.)

For what it's worth, an editorial I wrote got picked up on Wonke++e.

In my defense, I wasn't going for a sexual theme. They made that up on their own. But at least people are paying attention.

If I may be totally self-absorbed for a moment...

In what has become somewhat of a ritual, often times after I leave the office I don’t feel the particular desire to immediately return home. Recently I’ve been questioning whether I’m actively avoiding going home, which I suppose could very well be a possibility as the hours between 6 and 11 p.m. are often the lowlights of my day. But at any rate, it’s becoming a habit of mine to patron this fine establishment, which I literally found by accident a few weeks ago when I had a day off and scoured the city for some music and art supplies with which to entertain myself.

It’s only a few blocks from the office, and provides a nice “scenic route” for going home — when I begrudgingly decide to do so. It’s also one of the nicer such establishments I’ve seen, and the only one I’ve seen outside of Hanover, Germany with more than one floor.

I tend to use the place as my own personal library, as I am often too cheap to buy books myself, and for ones I absolutely have to have, I usually get them for free through work. (One of the few perks of the journalism trade is that pretty much any business, particularly book publishers, will send you free stuff if you tell them you work for a newspaper and wish to review their product. Though this theory seems to fizzle out at a certain point — apparently Apple doesn’t feel the need to have the Ipod Nano reviewed. But I digress.)

I appreciate the fact that the particular section of books I have been perusing lately can be found in the basement, as it tends to be generally more deserted and thus more conducive to my second-rate attempts at philosophizing. (On a side note, for my two (more likely one) Jewish friend(s) that read my blog, I found this book particularly enjoyable.)

In my generally solitary existence, I find that I am often left to my own thoughts. I already consider myself a person who thinks entirely too much as it is, but since moving to D.C., and in the past three months or so in particular, I’ve been finding it difficult to, in the simplest of terms, get my brain to shut up.

Don’t misunderstand — I’m not claiming any nobility from the fact that I think as much as I do. I’m not coming up with solutions to the world’s problems. I’m not even coming up with solutions for my own. My thoughts likely aren’t any different from those of people similar to my age, experience or current situation…I just tend to have more of them, from what I can tell.

A central theme of my ponderings of late have centered around two questions, namely: why am I here, and where do I want to be?

The former is much less philosophical than it sounds. I’m not particularly questioning my existence in abstract terms, but rather in realistic ones. Why am I in D.C.? What am I hoping to accomplish here? Am I accomplishing it?

At the most basic, I came to D.C. because that’s where I was offered money. Or, at least, enough money so as to make it worth my time to come here. I also thought it would be a great experience and a great opportunity and such as that. Thus far, all of those have come to pass. I do, in fact, get paid enough to make it worth my while, and it has been at the very least an interesting experience, and I believe I’ve been offered a unique opportunity.

There are still times when I’m walking around the city and see the Washington Monument or Capitol Dome in the distance and can’t help but shake my head at the fact that I live here.

Ok, great. But now what?

That question, the latter of the two I’ve been mulling lately, has a much more elusive answer.

In pursuit of that answer, there’s a rather intense, bi-polar debate my mind is having with itself. You know that Clash song? It’s pretty much the same thing.

I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m not particularly interested in the newspaper scene. I’m much less interested in what happened yesterday than I am in what will happen tomorrow and the days after.

I’m much more intrigued by Thom@s Friedm@n and Ch@rles Krau+hammer than I am by B0b \/\/oodward or Judi+h Mi||er, and would much rather have the jobs of the former. That said, I’m not particularly interested in becoming famous, or for that matter, infamous. If nothing else, I’d like to become a respected commentator, maybe write a book or two, and maybe serve as an advisor or speechwriter for anyone who might need such a service.

Other than that, my life is much more driven by relationships than it is by accomplishments — which, incidentally, is why I think I’m not enjoying D.C. as much as I otherwise would.

If a mutually exclusive choice were to arise between making $2 million a year and being lonely or making $50,000 a year and having a significant network of friends and family, I’d take the latter, hands down.

Thus, I must question the merits of sticking around “the District.” As a friend of mine recently (and rather bluntly) pointed out: “I don’t think you’ll find anyone to marry in D.C.” As much as I might agree, it was still a bit of a body blow. Or, more accurately, as much as it might have stung, I can’t help but agree.

On the other hand, another friend of mine predicts that I’ll be a straight-up family man within two years. Which, not to say that I oppose the idea, I just have no idea whatsoever as to what would lead him to believe such.

At any rate, it would appear that in order to appease my career-driven side, I should stay in the area. To appease my relationship-driven side, it would appear I need to leave. Technological advancements being what they are, however, perhaps my career objectives will become much more mobile, giving me considerable freedom to pursue other priorities. I have a few months to decide, I suppose.

Ok, I think that’s enough self-indulgence for now.

Hmm. It’s a Friday afternoon, everyone else in the department is already gone, and I don’t have anything else to do. Screw this, I’m going home…later.

Wait, so does this mean...

I'm a bloggin' fool

I've been on a blog binge lately, as I tend to do every now and again. Nothing particularly intellectually stimulating, just "random musings" in the truest sense of the word.

On my 20 minute walk to work this morning, I was thinking about the fact that Ange|ina Jo|ie and Brad Pi++ are expecting a child together. And then I started thinking — this kid is probably going to be one ugly bastard (bastard in the biblical sense, of course) ever.

Think about it. The kid is a recessive gene time bomb just waiting to go off. So Ange|ina Jo|ie and Brad Pi++ are ridiculously good looking. You think those are dominant genes? Psh. The kid'll be lucky not to be cross-eyed and abnormally hairy.

Save the planet by killing it — one piece at a time

If you see a plant, kill it. If not for you, for your children. Do your part to stop global warming.

You can thank me later

Warning: This is on of the most addictive things I've ever seen. By clicking here, you will waste at least 30 minutes of your life without even realizing it. You've been warned.

Pulling the plug is ok by me

A few nights ago, I accidentally watched “Million Dollar Baby.” After that, I made another New Year’s resolution — no more watching movies that make me want to kill myself. Yet last night, I watched it again. Why? Because I’m a masochistic moron. But that’s beside the point.

I won’t spoil the movie for those of you haven’t seen it, but suffice it so say that the movie deals with the issues of euthanasia and the right to die, ala Terri Schiavo.

I don’t want to rehash the whole issue of Terri Schiavo because it is, in every sense of the word, a moot point. But simply to remind everyone of my position, here’s a little refresher:

My main problem with the entire Schiavo case was not whether she should die, but rather the fact that there was no conclusive evidence one way or the other as to what Terri Schiavo’s wishes were. Had she left a living will, there’d be no question. But I do believe that in such a scenario, it is more proper to err on the side of life. Simply because I, and most other Americans, would not prefer to be kept alive in such a manner, I don’t believe that we can project those feelings onto people like Terri Schiavo and end their lives without their consent.

All that being said, I’m a fairly staunch right to die advocate. Or, I suppose I would more accurately be described as a right-to-choose-to die advocate. My libertarian streak leads me to believe that people of sound mind should be able to do what they want when it comes to living or dying.

There’s this so-called “culture of life” among conservatives, especially Catholics, that I’m just not sure I’m on board with. That is to say, they oppose anything that could be construed as the ending of a life, be it abortion, capitol punishment, or euthanasia. I just can’t resolve that idea that all lives are equal, regardless of the circumstances. By that I mean it doesn’t make sense to me to put an unborn child, a convicted murderer and a suffering adult in the same category. Particularly the convicted murderer.

But even with the unborn child and the suffering adult, it’s just not the same thing. When an unborn child is aborted, the fetus is not making a conscious decision to terminate itself. But on the other hand, when an adult is terminally ill, suffering greatly and has made the decision that they no longer wish to live, I see no nobility in forcing them to live.

What compassion is there in forcing someone to live who would rather die? Is it morally superior to prolong a person’s suffering with the simple goal of prolonging their life? As far as I’m concerned, life is not constituted by a beating heart, functioning lungs and other involuntary functions. Life is consciousness and being able to enjoy the fact that you’re alive, absent chronic suffering. Once that consciousness or enjoyment of life has been removed, it ceases to be a moral issue of life and death.

Oh, and for what it's worth, if (God forbid) I ever end up in the hospital, immobile and drooling on myself, pull the damn plug. Seriously. You can even slap me around a little before you do, if you like. Hell, I wouldn't know. Just don't show me on TV, and certainly don't have Congress pass a law just for me. That's just asinine.

Promising new job prospect

My boss sent me this. I'm pretty sure he was kidding, but if I decided to go to grad school, it'd certainly be worth looking into (Ha!). I'm sure the parents would just love this one:

Penthouse is looking for an intern to assist the Editorial Department. The qualified candidate will be responsible for mailing issues, researching stories, and transcribing interviews, and writing opportunities may be available. An interest in pop culture is essential. Previous magazine experience and journalism courses are a plus, though not required. This unpaid internship is available for enrolled students only and the intern must be able to receive academic credit. The duration of the assignment will be for the spring semester only. To apply, please send your resume, cover letter, and clips, if available, to [name removed] at [name removed]@pmgi.com.


Interesting. I'd be curious to see how many applications they get from aspiring, male college journalists.

Not that any of you are particularly interested, but I kinda got a kick out of this:

Apparently, this guy is soon going to be working here. What's funny is that this place is in the same building as this place, just a floor apart. And while our bathrooms are being renovated, we have to share. So I could very well bump into him (though hopefully not literally) in the john. I find this prospect strangely entertaining.

Tell me all your thoughts on God

In keeping with my religious ponderings of late, I’ve been thinking quite a lot about the recent mining accident/tragedy in West Virginia. For those of you living under a rock for the past week or so, a group of miners got trapped in a mineshaft and only one survived.

To make matters worse, in what appears to be an unintentionally (but nonetheless shockingly) cruel miscommunication, word got out that all but one had survived.

Being the old-fashioned, blue collar, God-fearing community they were, many of the citizens immediately began to thank/praise God, sing hymns and dance. This is probably the most tragic aspect of the story, as they were allowed to celebrate like this for some three hours before being told the truth — the exact opposite of what they’d been told was true. All but one had died.

I simply cannot comprehend going through such a broad range of emotion in a time so short. To go from uncertainty to ecstatic elation to pure despair so quickly, I would imagine, would be more than most people could handle.

There was one news interview shortly after the unbelievably terrible news was delivered that really got me thinking. An older lady, noticeably and understandably upset, was essentially shouting into the microphone something to the effect of: “A lot of us have started questioning whether or not there even is a Lord, because we had a miracle, but it got taken from us.”

This notion rubbed me the wrong way. First of all, her entire premise was wrong. Believe me, my heart aches for these people. What happened to them was indeed tragic and the miscommunication that gave so many so much false hope is incomprehensible. But the harsh reality is that there never was a miracle in the first place — in as much as the one survivor isn’t a miracle in and of itself. It wasn’t, however, taken away by God, but rather it was a correction of a mistake by man.

This would likely come as little comfort to the friends and families of the victims, but it is what it is.

This got me thinking of a question that has been in the back of our collective mind since we gained the ability to reason. Namely: why do bad things happen to good people?

I don’t claim to have answers to this question by any stretch of the imagination, but I do have what makes sense to me.

Of course, there are dealings with this issue in the Bible, both Jewish and Christian. For the former, there is Job. For the latter, there’s the question that Jesus was asked about the blind man.

Truth be told, I’m not particularly sold on either one of these answers. With Jesus, he was asked ‘Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he may be born blind?’ And Jesus said ‘Neither. He was born blind so that the works of God may be seen through him.’ Really? That’s it? People suffer so that God has a medium through which to work? I guess. Just doesn’t seem like something God would do.

As far as Job goes, I’m not really into the whole ‘The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away’ thing. Especially when it seems all willy-nilly-like. Job hadn’t done anything to deserve what happened to him, yet it happened anyway and he still praised God for it. Pretty admirable, I suppose.

It’s been explained to me that the story of Job is supposed to show that what is important in life is that God is present in a person’s life, not whether or not God is just. I have a hard time accepting this notion as well.

In my mortal opinion, if God is not just, what’s the point of His presence in people’s lives? If God’s presence is a person’s life only leads to suffering, is it not better to be separated from God? Again, I don’t claim to have answers to these questions. I’m just asking them.

As far as I’m concerned, God doesn’t micromanage. He created a system, and it does what it does. We all know the rules. Granted, there are some times, I believe, that God intervenes, but those are few and far between — hence the term miracle. But for the most part, things just happen. Sometimes mines collapse — it’s gravity. Sometimes people are born blind — it’s genetics. And some people just happen to have those kinds of things happen to them more than others.

Of course, I could be completely wrong. That’s my opinion. I welcome yours.

Ariel Sharon ≠ Peace (But it's not his fault)

The big news currently on the international stage is that of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. After various health problems and a previous stroke, he seems to have been incapacitated by what’s being called a ‘significant stroke,’ and is not expected to return to power.

In perusing some message boards on the subject, I found that many people, especially in Israel, seem to be devastated by the news because they felt that Ariel Sharon was the best opportunity for peace with the “Palestinians.” But I’m not so sure.

Most of you know that I’m a Zionist almost to the point of militancy. I’m much less interested in peace with the “Palestinians” than I am with the survival and security of Israel. Ariel Sharon, at least in recent years, seemed to be more concerned with the former.

For what it’s worth, I was a fan of Ariel Sharon up until he started conceding things to the “Palestinians.” I’m much more of a fan of Ariel Sharon circa 1967. I still prefer Benjamin Netanyahu, but I digress.

More to the point, I don’t think that the prospects for peace will be any more or less likely in the absence of Ariel Sharon, anymore than I thought they were more or less likely with the death of Yassir Arafat.

Bottom line, I don’t think there will ever be peace between Israel and the “Palestinians,” save for the event of literal divine intervention. This is because the goal of the PLO, the “Palestinian” people, Arabs and Muslims in general is to destroy the Jewish state of Israel. Ok ok, here’s your disclaimer: Not every Muslim, Arab or “Palestinian” wants to destroy Israel, but it’s in the charter of the PLO, it’s a stated goal of Iran, and people dance in the streets every time some brainwashed zealot kills innocent civilians.

I’m sure I’ve written about this before in my blog, but I’m too lazy to go back through it and see. At any rate, the struggle between Israel (read: Jews) and the Arab world (read: Muslims) is Biblical. All the way back to Isaac and Ishmael. For those of you who don’t know the story, I recommend reading the Book of Genesis. Suffice it to say that they saw this coming thousands of years ago.

I could go on for days about the various aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but it all boils down to the fundamental fact that Arabs and Jews, the respective descendants of Ishmael and Isaac, simply don’t get along. More over, according to Genesis, the descendants of Ishmael don’t get along with anyone. And I don’t think anyone can disagree with that.

All that said, the people lamenting the fact that the resignation of Ariel Sharon signals the end of the prospects for peace are misguided. There were never prospects for peace. Giving up land as an appeasement to terrorists is not peace. It’s surrender.

Peace does not mean the absence of conflict, it means the presence of justice and security. And regardless of who Israel’s Prime Minister may be, the prospect for such a scenario is, sadly, highly unlikely.



Note: If you're wondering why I always use quotes around "Palestinians," it's because they, as a people, do not exist. They are Egyptians and Jordanians. The nation of Palestine does not exist, and the drive for such only became prominent after it became a means by which to destroy Israel.

You can thank Brett for this one...

I've had this in my head for the better part of a day now, and I wouldn't want you guys to feel left out.

Oh, and since people are asking, yes, there were tornadoes near my house on Monday, and yes, everyone and everything is fine. My dog was about as wigged out as she's ever been, but the house is still standing.

Some people, as you know, weren't so lucky. But from what I've heard no one was seriously hurt or killed, and everything else can be rebuilt. So that's good.