Random Musings of an Armed American

CamObamalot Day 1

2009-01-21T17:04:00.003-05:00

Eventually I'll dispense with the bullet points, but there are a lot of things going on that I feel like talking about and I just don't have enough faith in my writing abilities to put them into paragraph form.

- First off, I learned a lot from the inauguration festivities yesterday. For example, in his speech, President Obama said we were going to restore science to its rightful place. What a relief that is. Finally, people will stop going to faith healers to have their humors balanced and will start going to hospitals. Our shipping industry will no longer have to fear sailing off the edge of the world; and we can stop executing people for saying that the earth isn't the center of the universe. It's days like this that make me truly proud to be an American.

I also learned -- or rather, had it confirmed -- that modern poetry is absolute garbage. The poem that was read was hands-down the worst poem I've ever heard that wasn't written by a hormonal adolescent girl.

What if the mightiest word is love, love beyond marital, filial, national. Love that casts a widening pool of light. Love with no need to preempt grievance.

Buh? Preempt grievance? What does that even mean? Don't think about it too hard, lest you get a nosebleed.

Personally, I thought the benediction given by Rev. Lowery was much more poetic.

...we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around ... when yellow will be mellow ... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right.

That's something else I learned. I had no idea that, as a white person, I hadn't been embracing what was right. All these years I thought my respect for the rule of law, my judgment of people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, my desire for justice, etc., were all good things to embrace. Apparently I was mistaken. I aim to improve that. And really, what better way to kick off a supposedly post-racial era than by playing the race card in a benediction? Color me hopeful.

Also, why did Rev. Lowery stop there? There are plenty of colors that he left out. Thus, my friends and I came up with some on our own. We also plan to work for the day when:

Taupe will have hope. When lilac gets its groove back. When tan will be the man. When gray will show us the way. When beige will no longer rage. When buff will be the stuff. When burnt sienna will be a winna. When pink will be in sync. When brick red will no longer be a dickhead. When jade will have it made. When onyx won't go into histrionics. When indigo will be in the know. When aquamarine won't be obscene. When smalt we will exalt. When teal keeps it real. When azure will be pure. When wheat can't be beat. When bronze will be like the Fonz. When fallow won't be shallow. When ocher won't be mediocre, and when rust will be just.

- I was pleasantly surprised by the Daily Show's handling of the whole thing. I actually laughed quite a bit at their self-depricating humor. At least they admit being completely in the tank.

- It never ceases to amaze me, the amount of sheer hatred directed at now-former President Bush. The response he got when he walked out for the inauguration -- the boo's, the people chanting "na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye" and whatnot -- was completely classless and unworthy of a man who has spent the last eight years as the leader of our country. I hate to beat a dead horse or give the impression that it's just sour grapes, but seriously. I suspect that liberals would be howling just as loud if Barack Obama were to be subjected to a fraction of the personal animosity that President Bush endured for the better part of the last decade.

- When I predicted that the Dow was drop below 8,000, I really didn't expect that to happen as soon as Inauguration Day.

- It's Obama's first full day in office, and here are the highlights of his actions so far:

Strictly item by item, I'm in favor of about half of those things. But given a weighted score (the pay freeze isn't equal in gravity, I believe, to the postponement of the trials) I'm probably in favor of about 20 percent of it. Just for what it's worth. I'm curious to see if he sticks by his promise for openness in government. I don't see it ending well. Granted, that supposes that the media in this country will actually do its job, which it hasn't in two years. So nevermind.

- I wonder if Peggy Joseph has heard from President Obama regarding her gas tank and mortgage payments.

Pre-inauguration thoughts

2009-01-19T23:53:00.002-05:00

- On the subject of Senate appointments: Roland Burris has every right to be seated as the Senator from Illinois. When he was appointed, Gov. Rod Blagojevich had not been impeached and still had all legal authority as governor. The fact that he was a sleazeball arrested on charges of corruption are legally irrelevant. That said, Senate Democrats totally wussed out of their ultimatum. Originally they had said that they would not seat anyone appointed by Blagojevich, apparently hoping it would deter him from making an appointment. Well, it turns out Blago has bigger, uh, hair, than Harry Reid. Not terribly surprising.

As for Caroline Kennedy, much has been made of her qualifications -- or lack thereof -- to be Senator of New York. Personally, I think Caroline Kennedy has exactly the same qualifications to be a New York Senator as Hillary Clinton did. Which is to say, well, none whatsoever. Hillary Clinton was born in Illinois, served as First Lady of Arkansas and then First Lady of the U.S. She didn't even live in New York until a little more than a year before the election. What part of that qualifies her to be Senator of New York? Caroline Kennedy at least has the advantage of being born in the state she wants to represent. Granted, given the whole Elliot Spitzer debacle, Charlie Rangel's tax problems, and Chuck Schumer's general douchebaggery, it doesn't seem the voters of New York particularly care about the qualifications of their representatives. They get what they deserve, as far as I'm concerned.

There's also the whole idea that Barack Obama's seat must be filled by a black man, and that Clinton's seat must be filled by a woman. Now, I know that identity politics is a staple of liberal ideology, but come on. Isn't that a little silly? When the voters of Illinois elected Barack Obama, were they voting for Barack Obama or "the black guy?" Likewise, with Hillary Clinton, were voters voting for Hillary Clinton, or the white woman with the last name of a former president?

- I wonder what the Daily Show is going to be like Post-Bush. They've spent the last eight years doing Bush-is-dumb, Cheney-is-evil jokes. I'm curious to see what angle they take on Obama, and if they can stop fellating him long enough to crack a joke.

- Why is it that when President Bush has a $40 million inauguration, the media decries it as a tasteless indulgence during wartime; but when Barack Obama has a $170 inauguration during an economic recession, they're so giddy because, OMG Beyonce!!!!1!11!

- I hope Republicans/conservatives give more respect to Barack Obama than liberals gave to President Bush. I didn't vote for Barack Obama, but I'm not going to claim he's not my president. I'll support him when I agree with him, and I want his administration to be a successful one. Unfortunately, my definition of success includes lower taxes, smaller government, a strong national defense, sound fiscal policy and in general a more responsible government. Given that Obama's talking of trillion-dollar deficits, having diplomatic talks with Iran and Venezuela, bailing out the auto industry, etc., he's not off to a good start.

- Speaking of the auto bailout, the idea of it infuriates me. If I wanted GM and Chrysler to have my money, I would've bought a car from GM or Chrysler. To have the government take my tax dollars and give it to a failing business is mind-boggling.

- On a totally unrelated note, I'm looking forward to Conan being on an hour earlier in a couple of months. I just hope he doesn't screw with the show too much. I also have to wonder if he'll keep the Max Weinberg 7. And if he does, what will Kevin Eubanks do with his band?

- I'm already counting down to the next football season. Luckily, spring training starts soon. That'll give me something to do to pass the time.

- So apparently there's a possibility that there's life on Mars. I've never understood the belief that Earth is the only planet in the universe that supports life. If the entire universe is subject to the same laws of physics, it doesn't make sense to me that there WOULDN'T be life on other planets. That's like life existing in California, and then being surprised to find that there is also life in New York. But that's just my non-scientist opinion.

- Is it too early to start campaigning for Bobby Jindal in 2012?

I'm back, with predictions

2008-12-31T01:08:00.000-05:00

Yeah, so I kinda took a seven-month hiatus from blogging. Sorry about that. Long story short, things got a little crazy and blogging got relinquished to the back burner. The way way way way back burner. It actually got taken off the burner completely. But I digress.

Anyway, it's one of my New Year's resolutions to get back into the habit of writing. So I'll do the best I can to blog more regularly, i.e. at least once a week, about the various happenings that raise my ire. Given the incoming administration, that shan't be a problem.

Just a few passing thoughts on recent events before I get to my predictions for 2009.

First up, Chip Saltsman. For those uninitiated, Chip Saltsman is running for Chairman of the Republican National Committee. He recently got himself into a little P.R. trouble for distributing a Christmas greeting that included a comedy CD that included a song of an impersonated Al Sharpton singing about "Barack the Magic Negro."

Now, I've heard the song several times. Rush Limbaugh plays it on his show with some regularity. There is nothing racist about it. It makes more fun of Al Sharpton and the L.A. Times (the paper in which the term "Magic Negro" originally appeared) than it does Barack Obama. The race between some Republicans to see who can be the most offended in the least amount of time was pretty embarrassing. Some were "shocked and appalled." There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. It was pathetic. If there's one problem with the current Republican party, it's the complete lack of backbone and utter willingness to shamelessly pander to any and every interest group.

That said, Chip Saltsman is a moron for associating himself with it. I'm as politically incorrect as the next guy, don't get me wrong. But I'm not running for Chairman of the RNC. When someone is trying to become the leader of an entire political party -- a political party with the recent misfortunes of the Republicans, no less -- it would help if they weren't absolutely politically tone deaf. Is the song racist? Any fair-minded, rational person would conclude that it is not. Should people lighten up and be able to take a joke? Absolutely. However, it's reasonable to assume that people might be offended by a white guy distributing a CD by another white guy impersonating a black guy that prominently uses the word "negro." The Republicans will have no chance of winning new voters if their time is ostensibly dedicated to saying to those voters "Oh come on! I was just kidding! Can't you take a joke?!" Moreover, it's simply unbecoming of a man seeking an office with so much responsibility. So, Chip, you're done. Thanks for playing. NEXT!

On to Cynthia McKinney. Personally, I was surprised she was still alive. I thought I'd heard something about her being mauled to death by a pack of rabid raccoons. Maybe that was just a dream I had. At any rate, I cannot effectively put into words the rage this woman brings out of me. She continues to be an embarrassment to her state, her country, and human beings in general. Actually, I'll go a step further. She's an embarrassment to all land mammals. Even the three-toed sloths of the world don't want to be associated with such a race-baiting anti-Semite. But again I digress.

Ms. McKinney was apparently incensed that her boat was turned away while trying to deliver aid to Gaza in the midst of the current military operation going on there. She also seemed bewildered that Israel was using weapons produced in America, and called on President-elect Obama to "say something about the humanitarian crisis that is being experienced by the Palestinian people, by the people of Gaza" and "discontinue the transfer of weapons of mass destruction used by Israel."

Right. Just a couple of points. First, did it ever occur to Ms. McKinney that Israel might object to an unchecked civilian ship sailing into a war zone? I suspect it did not. I mean, what's the worst that could happen, right? Second, this might come as news to Ms. McKinney, but Israel is actually an American ally. Allies generally share weapons. As far as the "Weapons of mass destruction" claim, the only difference between the weapons used by Israel and those used by Hamas is that Israel's weapons actually work. Unfair, I know. Third, I don't know what she expects President-elect Obama to say. To my knowledge, he's never taken a firm stand on much of anything, let alone one of the most volatile issues in politics. But she can dream, can't she?

Anyway, on to my predictions for 2009:

- Obama's approval rating will be below 50 percent.

- The auto companies will receive a bailout, won't restructure themselves, and will continue to lose money to each car they make.

- Benjamin Netanyahu will become Prime Minister of Israel and will take out Iran's nuclear facilities after Iran announces it has manufactured a nuclear weapon.

- The House Republicans will start getting their act together, but the Senate Republicans will remain impotent and ineffective.

- The Obama administration will be more frustrating for the media than the Bush administration.

- The average temperature of the planet will not increase.

- The Senate will be without a Kennedy for the first time since 1962.

- The DOW will go under 8,000.

- Oil will go under $30 per barrel.

- The dollar will lose value.

Why I hate Republicans

2008-05-23T13:35:00.002-04:00

There have been various news stories and commentary lately about how the Republican party is in trouble, is in decline, faces extinction in this coming election, needs to re-brand itself, and so on and so forth. Now, I can't argue with several of those premises -- the Republican party is in trouble and does need a re-branding. But many people seem to think that because the party is in such dire straits that ideological conservatism is also in decline. This argument I have quarrel with.

It should be no secret that my first -- and, actually, only -- political loyalty lies with conservatism. The only reason I've associated with the Republican party during my political life is because I view it as -- at least currently -- the best vehicle to implement conservative policies. It is because of this that I've been so disappointed and, in some recent cases, disgusted with the current party leadership (I use the term loosely) and, indeed, the current administration.

Ever since the historic election in 1994 that brought Republicans out of the wilderness and into power, there has been a steady drift away from conservative principles that has left us with the hapless, rudderless party that we currently, uh, tolerate. The Republican party has drifted just far enough to the left to turn off the conservative base but not far enough to attract moderate/liberal voters, leaving it in a political no-man's land of unimpressed voters. Many seem to think that in order to re-brand the party, Republicans need to drift even farther to the left and monopolize the center. This solution would be disastrous and actually could be the death of the party.

Thus, I have my own solutions that I would like to offer the Republicans to make themselves politically relevant again, not that they're listening to me.

First and foremost, we need leaders who 1. believe in conservative principles and 2. can articulate them. We currently have neither. President Bush is conservative on certain issues, but he is not a conservative. And with the issues on which he is conservative, he can be maddeningly inarticulate in explaining them to the American people. Moreover, there is currently no strong conservative voice in congress for Republicans to rally behind.

This rudderless group of politicians in Congress has churned out some mind-blowingly awful policies, but it is not the fault of conservatism that said policies were so spectacularly terrible. To the contrary, it was the drift away from conservatism that led to such asininity as Medicare expansion, No Child Left Behind, the immigration bill, campaign finance reform, etc. Republicans would do well to return to their roots and reclaim conservative principles in order to restore faith in the Republican "brand."

Principles like smaller, more responsible government. Republicans have, as of late, appeared far too eager to accept the premise that the federal government has responsibilities not delineated in the Constitution. Despite accepting this premise, they somehow manage to appear as stingier and meaner than their Democrat counterparts. This is a losing proposition.

Republicans need to explain to the American people the differences between what is and is not the responsibility of the federal government, and they need to do so not in terms of taking things away from the people, but in terms of giving them more freedom -- and, in turn, more of their own money.

And for those things for which the federal government is responsible, Republicans should advocate them in a common sense manner. Remember last summer when Republicans were proposing sending every American family $100 to combat high gas prices? That was absolutely ridiculous. How about the famed Bridge to Nowhere? That was another gem. But it's sadly indicative of the terrible ideas coming out of the current Republican party. If they hope to retain any sort of credibility, they're going to have to do better than that.

Also, this may just be a personal preference, but can we get off the Jesus thing? We get it. Your faith informs your political philosophy. That's great. But there's a point where it becomes abrasive, off-putting and exclusionary -- I'm talking to you Mike Huckabee. I've got no problem, obviously, with religious people being politicians. In fact, I prefer it. However, faith, particularly Evangelical Christian faith, has become so entrenched and associated with the Republican party that it has almost become a caricature. I understand that abortion and other "values" issues are important, but when those issues get more attention than they should, we end up with candidates that are good on values but awful on everything else. Again, I'm talking to you Mike Huckabee.

While I'm on the subject of frustrating candidates, what's the deal with the corruption? Mark Foley, Randy Cunningham, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Tom DeLay, Ted Stevens, etc. Where do we find these people? Is it so much to ask that we find candidates that aren't corrupt or sexual deviants? Honestly.

I could go on and on about specific policies Republicans should adopt, but specific policies are not as important as conservative principles. Once those principles are adopted, the good policies will follow. We can't go wrong with smaller government, free markets, common sense domestic policy and trustworthy candidates. Sure, Republicans are in trouble right now, but it's not because of conservative philosophy. It is, in fact, due to the abandonment of conservative philosophy. Once they wise up and return to their roots, the media can start writing stories about how the Democrats are facing extinction.

Pre-return thoughts

2008-05-06T17:25:00.002-04:00

Just a few thoughts on tonight's primaries before the polls actually close:

- If Hillary loses both, she's done. She's more or less mathematically done at this point anyway, but if she loses both states tonight, she can no longer play the 'electability' card against Obama and most everyone will start admitting that the race is over.

- If Obama loses both states, he's in dire straits. Apologies for the rhyme. If Obama is swept, he's not in as bad of a place as Hillary, but the argument that he's unelectable will start to make a lot more sense to the delegates. I said before that I'm not counting Hillary out, and if she pulls off the sweep tonight, I'll go so far as to say that she's back 'in,' delegate counts be damned.

- The more likely outcome is that Obama wins North Carolina and Hillary wins Indiana, and we get to put up with this crap for at least another month. All the while, John McCain sits there grinning like the cat that ate the canary.

Lest I get kicked off Brett's blog roll...

2008-05-05T23:14:00.002-04:00

I've been incredibly busy lately, as usual, but there's something I've been kicking around in my mind lately.

I agree with Barack Obama on precious few issues, but there's one currently floating around lately that he's got it right on. And that would be the lifting of the gas tax.

It's a terrible idea for several reasons. First of all, taxes aren't the reason that gas prices are through the roof. Taxes only make up about 13 percent of the price of gas. The cost of crude oil makes up 68 percent of the price. (Source) With crude prices hovering around $120 a barrel, gas prices are going to go up.

I'm all in favor of lowering taxes, don't get me wrong, but it's going to do -- if I may use a technically term -- precisely dick to lower gas prices.

Lowering gas prices is going to take a lot more than a tax holiday. As such, the anger and frustration of the high gas prices should lay squarely at the feet of the government. Not exclusively this administration, but this administration, this congress, and every administration and congress over the last 30 years.

The energy policy in this country has been one of two things: terrible or non-existent. We complain about gas prices while we simultaneously refuse to explore domestic oil opportunities, increase domestic refining capacity, or increase nuclear power for electricity generation (thus leaving more oil for gasoline.)

Hillary Clinton's criticism of Obama's criticism of her gas tax holiday has been "well at least I have an idea, what's your idea?"

Right. Well. Sometimes no idea is better than a bad idea.

2008-04-01T19:39:00.002-04:00

I'll admit, I actually thought the GMail custom time feature was real, at least initially. For two reasons:

In other news, only one of my coworkers bought my faux letter of resignation. I guess I just wasn't convincing enough.

Um, excuse me, Senator Obama, your halo is slipping...

2008-03-26T18:42:00.000-04:00

Of course I find myself incredibly busy when the news starts getting interesting. I apologize for the staleness of this analysis, but I think it still warrants being said.

The big story recently -- other than Hillary's Bosnia 'misspeaking' -- has been Barack Obama's inflammatory pastor. Obama's response to this has been unusually, shall we say, spinning. Originally, Barack Obama said that his minister was his spiritual adviser -- some much so that he named his best-selling book, "The Audacity of Hope" after one of Rev. Wright's sermons. When it was suggested that his church might rub some voters the wrong way, Obama said that he didn't believe his church was all that controversial. When it surfaced that his pastor had said -- among other things -- that AIDS was created by the U.S. government to oppress minorities, that "America's chickens came home to roost" on 9/11, that God should "damn America, etc., Obama claimed that he had never heard such things from his pastor and that those clips had been taken out of context. When it became widely known that Obama had been a member of the church for some 20 years, that Rev. Wright had performed Obama's wedding ceremony and baptized his two daughters, Obama said that Rev. Wright was like 'a crazy uncle who says things I disagree with.' When calls still persisted for Obama to distance himself from Wright, Obama's last refuge was moral relativism. During his recent speech on racial issues, he said "I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed." He even went so far as to compare his own grandmother to his racist reverend, equivocating her privately expressed fear of strange black men with his pastor's public, illicit hatred.

Precious few media outlets seem eager to call Sen. Obama on his evasiveness, perhaps even lies. Obama has gone from calling Rev. Wright his spiritual adviser, to saying that he hadn't heard him say anything controversial, to saying that he was a crazy uncle with whom he disagreed occasionally, to saying that he had, in fact, heard him say controversial things that he condemned. Sen. Obama's positions have been inconsistent to say the least. According to the New York Times, Obama knew as early as April of 2007 that Jeremiah Wright could become a political liability to his campaign. Why would this be, if he didn't think his church was "controversial?"

As for the claim that the more controversial clips are merely taken out of context -- what context? What context is there to "God damn America" that would make most people say "Oh, ok, that seems reasonable." What context is there to "AIDS is a man-made virus designed by the U.S. government to oppress minorities" that doesn't make that statement completely devoid of logic and reason?

As for the "crazy uncle" justification -- guess what, Sen. Obama? You can't pick your uncles, but you can pick your pastors. So to say that "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother" is absolute bunk. To paraphrase your campaign slogan -- yes, you can. You have every ability to disown anyone you choose, particularly if they say verifiably insane things.

The fact that Obama was then willing to compare the woman who lovingly raised him to a man that spews racist bile, I think, raises serious questions about Obama's concept of decency. Also, to think that "many of us" have had religious leaders with which we strongly disagreed is a total cop-out. Many people likely have had disagreements with their respective leaders, but I don't imagine many would continue attending a church that was so opposed to their sensibilities.

Granted, this whole argument is essentially pointless because it can easily be assumed that Obama's handling of this has been wholly political. I just hope his supporters that see him as some sort of Messiah can recognize this. That's right, Obamaniacs -- your dear leader is a run-of-the-mill politician from the southside of Chicago. Yes, he gives a good speech. But he is apparently also willing to sell out his own grandmother for votes.

One of Obama's main attractions was that he was a post-racial candidate. Associating himself with such hate-mongering race-baiters robs him of that distinction. If the media was half as diligent about exposing this point as they've been with pointing out Hillary Clinton's Bosnia lies, they might have a sliver of integrity left. And really, since when is it news that a Clinton told a lie?

State of the Race: My conservative heart is all atwitter

2008-03-06T18:01:00.002-05:00

At the start of this election season -- which was what, four years ago? -- the conventional wisdom was that Hillary Clinton would coast to the Democrat nomination while the Republicans cannibalized themselves, split the party, and left themselves weakened for the general election. As has often been the case this time around, conventional wisdom has been mind-meltingly wrong.

The Republican nomination has been, for all intents and purposes, settled since February 5th. It was made official this week, but there was no serious challenge to John McCain once Mitt Romney withdrew.

Conversely, the Democrat race is still undecided and -- despite Barack Obama's lead, hype and momentum -- it still isn't likely that he'll win the nod outright. As it stands now, he'll have to pick up some 77 percent of remaining delegates. This task is substantially less daunting than Hillary needing to pick up 96 percent of remaining delegates, but neither of the tasks are the least bit likely to happen. This means that the Democrat race is going to go on at least until the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, and likely longer than that. That's at least another seven weeks of the Democrats' circular firing squad.

The closeness in the delegate count makes the delegates of Florida and Michigan all the more important. DNC Chairman Howard Dean has said that he doesn't want the DNC to have to pay for re-votes in the states because that's millions of dollars the DNC could be using to wage the general campaign. Florida governor Charlie Crist has said, however, that the DNC should have to pay for any re-vote -- after all, it wouldn't be fair for non-Democrats to have to pay for a Democrat election.

All of these developments should have Republicans giddy with anticipation. The conventional wisdom at the start of this campaign -- which, again, has proven totally worthless -- was that Democrats were going to waltz right into the White House. But, as they often do, the Democrats have completely whiffed the hanging slider, opened the door into their collective nose, fumbled in the red zone, bogied the 17th, etc.

Hillary Clinton, in my opinion, has made a huge strategic mistake in trying to characterize Obama as inexperienced with national security. Her "3 am phone call" ad that asked "Who would you rather answer the White House phone at 3:00 in the morning?" could bring her a tactical victory in getting voters to question Obama's experience, but that argument is a strategic failure against John McCain. Hillary might be more experienced than Obama in foreign policy, but John McCain dances circles around both of them. As I see it, Hillary still loses the nomination but this ad has the potential to serve as the pinprick through the heart of the Obama campaign.

Add to that the fact that the media has taken offense to the charge that they're blatantly shilling for Obama -- and have thus started asking tougher questions -- and the shine quickly comes off the Obama apple. If anything shady comes out of Obama's past, he's done. His entire candidacy is predicated on the idea that he's above politics, that he's different, that he's HOPE and CHANGE all rolled into one. Without that, he's got nothing. I mean, people certainly aren't packing into arenas to hear him talk about policy.

I warned before about underestimating the Clinton machine. I still stand by that. Although it appears virtually impossible for her to win the nomination at this point, I'm still not counting her out. She's not above fighting dirty, and her "kitchen sink" strategy against Obama certainly worked in Texas and Ohio. The trouble with that, however, is that Obama will likely respond in-kind -- leaving them both bruised and bloodied for the general election. Meanwhile, John McCain gets to start hammering both Obama AND Hillary. Provided he doesn't say anything incredibly stupid, he should go into the general election at a distinct advantage.

As I said, I still think Obama wins the nomination, but Hillary may have inflicted -- or may yet inflict -- a mortal wound to the Obama campaign.

Thank you, Mr. Buckley

2008-02-28T18:01:00.000-05:00

I was in Germany when I learned that Ronald Reagan had died. Having been born midway through his first term, I never "experienced" Reagan first-hand. I have a smattering of memories of seeing him on television, along with a memory of my grandparents' neighbor saying "Reagan's speech last night was a damn classic." Due, however, to the soulless ravages of Alzheimer's disease, he left public life well before I could have appreciated him.

Having not been old enough to understand President Reagan in his own time, I was left to rely on second-hand stories, transcribed speeches, and later, his autobiography. This led to the creation in my own mind of a larger-than-life, legendary, almost mythical figure. Thus, when I learned via CNN International that he had passed, it was as if I had lost a third grandfather. It was not surprising by any means, but still carried the same sadness and finality -- it starkly marked the end of an era.

A similar event happened yesterday. William F. Buckley, by all accounts the Father of Modern Conservatism, died. He was found at his desk, presumably doing what he loved. It, too, starkly marks the end of an era. Few people outside the realm of conservative politics know Bill Buckley's name, but all people -- whether they know it -- are aware of his influence. Buckley's stated goal with he founded National Review was to "stand athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it." Though there is still little patience for those standing athwart history, there are many more -- millions, I would guess -- people willing to do so. Such is Buckley's legacy. As George Will said: "Before Reagan there was Goldwater. Before Goldwater, there was National Review. And before National Review, there was Bill Buckley."

On a more personal note, Mr. Buckley is a major influence of mine. He was one of the reasons I got into journalism -- particularly conservative journalism -- in the first place. His calm demeanor, his stingingly acute wit and his prodigious vocabulary are all things to which I -- quite poorly -- aspire. The way he could calmly and civilly yet forcefully and utterly dismantle a political opponent is something I can only hope to attain, as well as something I believe is sorely lacking in today's political discourse.

Bill O'Reilly's red-faced confrontations, Sean Hannity's inelegant arguments, even Rush Limbaugh's most intellectual orations appear boorish by comparison. To borrow a term from Rush, Mr. Buckley makes all of his successors look like "rank amateurs."

I never had the pleasure to meet the man personally, but he is universally regarded -- even by those with whom he adamantly disagreed -- as a class act and genuinely decent person. Again, something sorely lacking in today's political climate. Our country, and indeed the world, is vastly different due to William F. Buckley, Jr. having lived. It is all the more dull and vapid without him.

Obama's message: Changeity hopeity changeity hope! Hopeity changeity hopeity change!

2008-02-20T16:38:00.005-05:00

After another series of votes, it seems like Barack Obama is coasting to the finish line for the Democrat nomination. This is where it gets interesting. As it becomes clearer to the Clinton Machine that they're losing, I expect them to get all the more desperate, negative, and vicious. I almost expect any of the following issues to come up in the next two weeks:

Hillary does this, however, at her own peril. So-called "Obamania" is at a point now such that anyone who dare speak ill of it invites the spurn and wrath of its fervent believers. As it stands now, with Obama up by about 150 "pledged" delegates, I see no feasible scenario in which Hillary catches up to him. So, Hillary will unload on Obama but still likely lose. As a Republican, I don't particularly mind. It's the best of both worlds. Hillary goes nuts, the Clintons suffer a total meltdown, Obama wins but is incredibly weakened for the general election. Sounds good to me.

I've noticed an interesting trend lately in the media. Several articles have popped up lately that highlight Obama's lack of substance and the waning of the frenzy surrounding him.

I've thought for a few weeks now that Obama is running the risk of peaking too early. It's hard for me to imagine him being able to keep the fervor at such a high level for the next eight and a half months, particularly with Hillary going down swinging -- presumably below the belt -- followed by five or six months of Republican pounding.

The main criticism of Obama is currently that he lacks substance. I suspect that once he starts attempting to be more substantive -- as he did last night -- people will begin to see that his calls for change and bipartisanship are not reflected in his policies. It should be fairly easy for McCain and the Republicans to poke holes in Obama's plans. With McCain being a spending/deficit hawk, he should have no problem pointing out that the majority of Obama's plans would involve higher taxes, bigger government, a larger deficit, more debt, a slower economy, etc. Those sort of things simply do not resonate with the vast majority of the American people.

Moreover, many people have described Obama as the next JFK. This boggles my mind. Are we talking about the JFK that cut taxes and was adamantly anti-communist? Who said "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country?" Obama has no intention of cutting taxes -- especially if he intends to implement more government programs. He also apparently has no desire to deal with radical Islam -- this generation's version of communism. And he certainly isn't asking what people can do for their country. Quite the opposite -- he's promising people that the government will do many things for them.

If I've learned anything in this election cycle, it's that predictions mean nothing. But it seems to me that the shine is going to quickly come off the Obama apple, and that the younger voters we've been hearing so much about lately will be as dejected as ever come November. I suspect that either one of two things will happen: either Obama rides his rhetoric wave as far as it will go and people tire of it, or he will do his best to be substantive and lose moderate voters, while young voters get bored. It's just as well. Government needs to be run by adults.

The State of the Race -- Everybody wins!

2008-02-13T15:33:00.001-05:00

Full disclosure: I did not vote in the D.C. Republican primary yesterday. John McCain has effectively sewn up the nomination, I couldn't bring myself to vote for Huckabee, and it's a closed primary so I couldn't vote for a Democrat. Not that I would have. At any rate, there was no incentive for me to brave the ice storm, so I didn't.

In reviewing the results from last night, there were no real surprises. Both McCain and Obama swept the three races. It does, however, have different implications for the two parties.

On the Republican side, the winner-take-all, survival-of-the-fittest nature of the contests means that McCain won all of the delegates despite Huckabee's respectable showing in Virginia.

For the Democrats, however, the ~~bullshit~~ ~~pussified~~ proportional nature of their contests means that, despite Hillary's unmitigated ass-kicking last night, Obama didn't exactly land a knock-out blow. Granted, he did well enough to take the delegate lead, but it's not yet convincing. On a side note, I think this is just what the Democrats deserve with their whole "everybody's a winner" mentality. What is this, tee-ball? Sorry kids, there's only one trophy to hand out this time. But I digress.

Hillary has since pinned the fate of her campaign on the Texas and Ohio primaries -- which, to me, sounds suspicious like Rudy Giuliani's "Florida Firewall" campaign that crashed and burned.

Obama currently leads in the delegate count by about 40, depending on who you ask. Given his momentum, the structure of the upcoming races, etc., I really don't see how Obama falls behind in the delegate count. Having said that, however, I also don't foresee him totally running away with it.

This prospect provides an interesting dynamic for both the Florida and Michigan primaries. For those of you who are less politically nerdy than I, you might not be aware that Florida and Michigan do not technically have delegates due to punishment by the Democrat National Committee for moving their respective primaries ahead of February 4th. Hillary Clinton "won" both of these primaries. She won Michigan because she was the only name on the ballot and she won Florida because it was agreed that none of the candidates would campaign there. Which she didn't -- wink wink, nudge nudge.

If Hillary finds herself a few delegates behind come Convention Time, she very well might petition to have the delegates from Florida and Michigan seated. That is to say, have them count for her. Simply campaigning to have those delegates seated, I believe, would cause a major rift in the party. If they actually were seated and it gave her the delegate lead, it would be absolutely incindiary. As a Republican, I'm actually rooting for this outcome. It benefits Republicans for the Democrats to have a contentious, volatile primary complete with burned bridges and bruised egos.

This is to say nothing of the "superdelegate" shenanigans. Again, for those who actually have lives and don't know such things, there are about 840 delegates at the Democrat convention who can vote however they want. These "superdelegates" also have the potential to throw the convention into a tailspin. If Hillary is close in the delegate count at the convention, and a majority of "superdelegates" break for her, she could still feasibly become the nominee -- albeit undemocratically. This, too, I believe would be suicidal for the Democrats. Which is why I'm also rooting for this as a Republican.

As I said before, the roles in this election have been completely reversed. It was supposed to be the Democrats that settled their nomination early while the Republicans cannibalized themselves through their covention. It's much to early to make any sort of prediction, but thus far this election is going better for Republicans -- or, perhaps more accurately, worse for Democrats -- than anyone would have guessed six months ago.

State of the Race, post-Super Tuesday

2008-02-06T18:16:00.000-05:00

If there's one thing I've learned in this election season, it's that predictions mean nothing. At the start of this, everyone assumed that Hillary would walk away with the Dem nomination and the Republicans would cannibalize each other through the convention. As it stands now, things are pretty close to the exact opposite. John McCain has all but captured the nomination for the Republicans -- though not a mathematical certainty, it seems unlikely that any other challenger will be able to mount any sort of comeback -- and Hillary and Obama are locked in a dead heat.

I'd be lying if I said that I was excited about a John McCain nomination, but I'm slowly forcing myself to come to grips with it. When many of my more conservative friends were claiming that they would rather vote third party or simply not vote for a President Giuliani, I told them that they were insane, they shouldn't let the perfect become the enemy of the good, etc. It would be somewhat hypocritical for me to do the same with McCain. There are plenty of things on which I agree with McCain. He's a deficit hawk, and that makes me giddy. The thought of a balanced federal budget makes my nerdy conservative heart flutter. But he's never been that big on taxes, so to think that he'd raise taxes in order to achieve said balanced budget terrifies me. He's also a security hawk, which is another one of my issues. However, his apostasies on immigration, climate change, free speech, etc. are, as yet, deal-breakers for me. If he were to pick a veep that allayed some of those fears, I might be less reluctant to vote for him, but that remains to be seen. If he picks Mike Huckabee as his veep, it makes it that much more likely that I'll be staying home on election day. However, a McCain-Thompson or McCain-Steele ticket is something I could potentially get excited about.

At any rate, Senator McCain plans to address the Conservative Political Action Conference tomorrow. I plan to listen with an open, albeit apprehensive, mind.

On the Democrat side, the race has gone on longer than most people ever thought it would. Certainly longer than I thought. As little as a week ago, I thought the Obama hysteria was due for a harsh dose of reality on Super Tuesday. Not only was Super Tuesday not decisive, it appears that Obama may have eked out a victory. That's huge. It puts a gaping hole in Hillary's air of inevitability and gives Democrats hope that they don't have to vote for Hillary. It's my experience that most Democrats/liberals don't want to vote for Hillary, but are doing/did so because she thought that she was the only one that could win. As Obama shows that he's capable of winning elections, I think more people will gravitate toward him -- particularly in the upcoming primaries and caucuses. The schedule from here on out is much lighter, which means that Obama can campaign more thoroughly in all the upcoming states. That thought should keep Hillary up at night. It also doesn't help that Obama absolutely obliterated Hillary on the fund raising front in the last quarter. Hillary is likely tapped out, while Obama still has resources from which to draw. I'm quite wary of underestimating the Clinton machine, but it seems that the Obama camp has the momentum, the money, and a favorable schedule. Having said that, however, I treat Hillary like a zombie in a cheesy B movie horror flick -- don't turn your back on her, because once you do, her eyes snap open and she eats your brain from behind. Or something like that. Suffice it to say that I won't believe that Obama gets the nomination until he makes his acceptance speech at the convention -- and even then I'll be suspicious.

More on this later.

This is what some people call freedom?

2008-01-22T21:24:00.000-05:00

As you may or may not be aware, today was the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that made abortion available across the country. D.C., as you might imagine, was abuzz with protests both for and against the decision. The biggest demonstration by far, however, was the March for Life. It was easily the largest demonstration I've ever seen while in DC. Conveniently, the march route went directly in front of my office, so I was able to watch out the window (and the roof, for a while) as they marched by for -- get this -- an hour and a half. Bet you won't hear that on the news.

Meanwhile, I was perusing the internet when I came across this curious icon:

The euphemism here is striking. "35 Years of Freedom." Freedom to do what? Let's not pretend it's anything other than what it is -- the "freedom" to puncture the skull of a fetus and vacuum out its brain. The Founding Fathers would be so proud.

Growing up where I did, many people would euphemize the Civil War by saying that it was about states' rights. That argument may have some validity to it at its most basic level, but in the end, what "right" are they talking about?

The same can be said for the abortion debate. "Pro-choice?" Again, let's not pretend that the "choice" involved is anything other than choosing to have an abortion. Calling that a "freedom," I believe, is wildly misnomered. While I suppose women are currently and technically "free" to have abortions, it is a grotesque expression of freedom. Some people express freedom by holding demonstrations, voting, or blogging. Some people, meanwhile, apparently express freedom by dismembering fetuses they aim to prevent from being born. I apologize for the graphic description, but that's essentially what it is.

A freedom? Nominally, I suppose. It's just tragic that that's what so many people choose to do with it.

Ding dong, the witch is dead

2008-01-07T18:08:00.000-05:00

With the first presidential contest behind us and the next one less than 24 hours away, I thought it might be appropriate to give my own hare-brained analysis of where the race currently stands and where it's probably headed.

First off, the Democrats. It has become resoundingly clear that the Democrats do not want a Hillary presidency. Her third-place finish in Iowa is nothing short of an ass-kicking -- as much as she might attempt to portray it differently. She had more money than Obama, more endorsements, a larger staff, etc. The only things missing were the actual votes. She couldn't even muster enough to get ahead of John "Silky Pony/Breck Girl" Edwards. That's saying something. The Democrats' main reservation with Obama was about his viability as a candidate -- i.e., could he win. With such a strong showing in Iowa, that reservation has largely disappeared and Democrats are no longer 'afraid' to vote for him. He'll likely win New Hampshire tomorrow, further driving a stake through the heart of the Clinton campaign. I don't expect Hillary to drop out any time soon, but her fund raising is bound to start drying up and she'll eventually have no other choice. As a side note, the thought of conceding probably never crossed her mind, so that will be an interesting speech. I haven't mentioned Edwards much because I'm pretty sure he's done. He's not registering higher than third in any upcoming states, and I imagine that most of his supporters are going to jump on the Obama bandwagon in the coming days/weeks. I personally believe he had a laughable candidacy to begin with with the whole "Two Americas" bit. 90 percent of people live in the "good" America, so it's hard to start a groundswell of support with 10 percent of the country. But I digress.

The Republican side is much less clear. Mike Huckabee pulled off a somewhat-surprising victory in Iowa, but his appeal beyond there likely isn't very broad. He won't win New Hampshire, and is likely to received massive amounts of negative press between now and South Carolina (his best chance for another victory between now and Feb. 5th). Full disclosure: I loathe Mike Huckabee. It's nothing personal. He seems like a nice guy. He just doesn't seem presidential. At a time when foreign policy is arguably the most important responsibility of a president, his main response is -- and I'm not making this up -- "I might not know a lot about foreign policy, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night." Spare me. First off, that ad campaign is like two years old. So it's not even a current joke. Second of all, with nuclear-armed Pakistan falling apart, Iran provoking American warships, Hugo Chavez using oil as an economic weapon, and China building up its military, now is not the time for cute little jokes about how you don't know anything about any of those things. I also don't trust him on taxes, the size/role of government, and, quite frankly, the improvement of America's image abroad.

The likely winner in New Hampshire is John McCain. It likely won't decide anything, but it will certainly put Romney in a tough spot, going 0-2 in states in which he heavily campaigned.

Which brings me to Romney. He didn't do nearly as well as he hoped in Iowa, and New Hampshire isn't looking good. He did win Wyoming, however, so, you know, there's that. His next best shot at a victory is in his home state of Michigan. If he doesn't win that, he's probably in trouble. He's got a massive chest, but if he doesn't started picking up substantial victories he'll have to face reality that money doesn't equal votes. Just ask Hillary.

Fred Thompson is, in my humble yet accurate opinion, the best candidate on the Republican side. The only problem is, he's the worst campaigner. And even that might not be totally accurate. It's like he doesn't see the point in campaigning. He doesn't bow at the altars at which conventional wisdom deems he bow. As I explained to a co-worker: "[Primary voters] aren't upset about the substance, they're just upset that he doesn't come diddle their undercarriage." He's the only one who's come out with detailed policy positions, he's just not flashy. And apparently people want flashy. That pisses me off to no end.

Rudy's strategy of sitting out the first few primaries was once thought to be incredibly stupid, but it's actually turning out to be -- at least of this writing -- quite brilliant. With three different winners in the first three contests (Iowa, Wyoming, and New Hampshire) there's no clear front runner, and the rest of the pack is cannibalizing itself. Rudy was hoping to go into Super Tuesday without getting attacked too heavily, and it looks as if he'll do just that. Whether people will still remember he's campaigning is another story.

Ron Paul has been suspiciously absent from my analysis, because, well, I loathe Ron Paul more than I loathe Mike Huckabee. He will never be president. He's nothing more than a gadfly candidate, somewhere between Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. I would say he's the modern-day Barry Goldwater, but to do so would insult Barry Goldwater. His candidacy is a side show. Ron Paul is a rabid constitutionalist, for which I give him credit. I agree with him on several domestic policies. But beyond that, he is, simply put, batshit insane. He wants to go back on the gold standard. Where he plans to get 13 trillion dollars worth of gold remains to be seen. He wants to abolish the CIA and FBI. How he plans to prevent terrorist attacks from happening, say, daily, remains to be seen. He wants to bring every soldier home from abroad. What he plans to do with a few hundred thousand soldiers returning home, again, remains to be seen. He wants to be isolationist -- excuse me, "non-interventionist" -- what he would do when Iran marches into Baghdad, or Tel Aviv for that matter, remains to be seen. On a slightly unrelated note, he's a gynecologist. And, I'm sorry, but I just don't trust male gynecologists. He's a cult of personality that will fade away when the primary season is over.

Judging by his fervent support among college students, I think he serves as the poster boy for raising the voting age to 21. His supporters spam polls, crash parties and campaign events, and otherwise give unrepresentative exposure to their candidate. If they can't garner genuine support through the traditional channels, they shouldn't resort to guerrilla tactics. They're ruining the electoral process by siphoning votes away from reputable candidates.

In summation, I'm not ready to give the Democrat nomination to Obama, but it's his to lose. As it was explained by a favorite radio host of mine earlier today, he's the Prius of presidential candidates. He might not be the best vehicle, but people feel good voting for him. They might not actually be doing any good, but they like how it reflects upon them. Not a single Obama supporter I've met can articulate a specific policy from his platform, but they're sure proud to be voting for him. Why, look how tolerant they are! But hey, God bless them for taking down Hillary.

The Republican race is too close to call, but I could get behind any of them, aside from Huckabee and Paul. For what it's worth, my preferences are as follows:

Thompson
Rudy
Romney
McCain
Huckabee*
Paul*

The next few weeks should be very interesting.

Note: *If either of these are the nominee, I'm becoming one of those bunker-dwellers in Montana.

I can't work under these conditions...

2007-12-06T10:21:00.000-05:00

I check the weather every morning before I leave the house, and this is what I found this morning:

It's not even officially winter yet. Awesome.

Maybe "influential" means something else in Britain...

2007-11-09T18:53:00.000-05:00

So last week, the UK Telegraph put together a list of the "most influential" liberals and conservatives in America. Granted, it's a little strange that a British publication rated American political figures, but it was nonetheless interesting. Interesting in that are-we-talking-about-the-same-country kind of way. The liberal list, in my opinion was more or less right on. I don't think many people are going to argue that Bi|| C|inton is the most influential liberal in America. But, as is common when Europeans attempt to understand American conservatism, they just don't seem to understand how we think. Thus, I thought I would provide a conservative rebuttal to the Telegraph's listing of conservatives.

First off, Rudy Giu|iani is not number one. I take influential to mean the ability change people's minds, or get them to willingly and fervently join your cause. Or, at the very least, the ability to get people to listen to you. Given that Rudy still has problems getting conservatives excited, and given that his conservative credentials are often called into question, it's hard to imagine that he's a very influential conservative at all -- let alone the most influential conservative in America.

The same goes for Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee (numbers 10 and 11, respectively). Few people are ardent supporters of either of these presidential candidates, and they can't, at least currently, get the conservative base excited enough to take collective action.

Nor should Christopher Hitchens (number 27) find himself in the Top 50. He is perhaps influential, but a die-hard conservative he is not. His avowed atheism, criticism of all religion, and other leftist tendencies -- not to mention his own admission that his is not conservative -- would seem to remove him from the list. Having said that, I certainly respect his intellectual honesty and think it's cool that we live in the same neighborhood.

Dick Morris (number 28) is another curious item in the Top 50. To be sure, he is vehemently anti-Hillary -- and for that he should be commended. But as far as his influence, it doesn't seem that he has all that much of it. His political predictions are often wrong (to wit, he predicted before the 2004 elections that the Republicans could possibly win a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate) and he just doesn't seem to hold much, if any, sway in conservative politics.

Andrew Su||ivan. Number 33. Right. A gay-marriage supporter who supported John Kerry in 2004 and is supporting Barack Obama in 2008. I fail to see the "conservative" part of this equation. He has a rather popular blog, so he is perhaps influential. But conservative? Hmm...

Number 39 Drew Carey. He's a funny guy, don't get me wrong. I think I'd like him if we were to hang out. But again...if he's conservative, I don't imagine he's all that influential. Certainly not more influential than Sean Hannity (number 44), who has the second most popular radio show in the country, or Ed Feulner (number 41), founder of the most famous conservative organization in DC.

Number 89 Larry Craig. Given that no one had heard of him before his little bathroom incident, it's hard to believe that he was influential at all. And he certainly didn't become any more influential AFTER his little bathroom incident, so his place on the list seems a little gratuitous. I mean, while we're at it, why not put Mark Foley on here?

Now, there are some people who are on the list who I believe should be higher.

First, Henry Kissinger should be much higher than 95. He's STILL giving advice to presidents, and they listen to him.

Michelle Malkin also has a lot more influence among conservatives than her 93 ranking would imply. She has one of the most popular blogs on the internet, a couple best-selling books, has effective television appearances, and, let's be honest, she's bangin' hot.

Ann Coulter also deserves to be higher than her 84 ranking would imply. She's controversial and off-putting to many people, but people listen and buy her books. And, it doesn't hurt that she looks like this.

There are plenty of others that deserve to be at least marginally higher on the list, but those strike me as the most egregious under-ratings.

I think this whole list, complete with its curious selections, says more about outsiders' understanding of conservatism than conservatism itself. Just because someone is famous and not a flaming liberal doesn't make them and influential conservative. Conservatives, or at least this conservative, are/is much more concerned with a person's ability to articulate and accurately and effectively represent the conservative message -- not simply get on TV. For what it's worth.

How sweet it is...

2007-10-30T15:07:00.001-04:00

I haven't yet come down from the euphoric high that I experienced this past Saturday when my beloved Bulldogs outright embarrassed the jean-shorts wearing imbreds to the south, but I thought I'd share some of my favorite commemorations of this glorious event.

First up, the fact that we made their quarterback, Tim ~~Tebag~~ ~~Douchebag~~ Tebovv cry. From ESPN:

Tebow, who finished with minus-15 yards on 13 carries, did his best to fight back tears while talking to reporters afterward.

Quite possibly the most beautiful words ever written. It's ok Timmy, just let it out. Let it all out. Maybe wearing your Superman costume will make you feel better.

Then there are these gems from the much-discuessed end zone celebration. Hilarious.

And then there's my new favorite song. My favorite verse:

And how.

Finally, I'm not much for Halloween celebrations, but I decided that this year, should we be victorious at the Cocktail Party, I would pay homage to the opposing fans. Being a man of my word, I did so thusly:

Now, if we can just keep up the momentum for the rest of the season, and hope the Vols get upset along the way.

Why I don't sleep

2007-10-24T00:03:00.000-04:00

I've always been a bit of an insomniac, mostly because I can't stop thinking long enough to go to sleep. So, I thought I might share some of the things that have been keeping me up lately -- if for no other reason than perhaps some commiseration.

On a side note, a friend of mine recently made a trip to Baghdad. And by trip I mean a six month tour. So if you wouldn't mind, keep her in your thoughts, prayers, whatever it is you do. Feel free to check her out here.

D. None of the Above

2007-10-03T18:41:00.000-04:00

A comment on my last entry asked who I thought should be President and why, so I thought I would oblige whoever asked. It was a little long for a simple comment, so here goes:

Truth be told, I'm not exceedingly impressed with any of the current candidates for president. In the interest of full disclosure, there are incredibly few instances in which I would ever vote for a Democrat, so I won't go into great detail as to why they don't impress me. Suffice it to say that I don't agree with their core beliefs on taxation, government responsibility/interference, and pretty much all foreign and domestic policy.

On the Republican side, as I said, I'm still waiting to be impressed. I can't seem to get excited about any particular candidate, although there are several that I could get behind should they win the nomination.

My gut tells me that Rudy should be the guy, but he's having a tough time wrapping up the conservative base -- so much so that there's even been talk of a conservative third party should he be the Republican nominee. This, in my opinion, would be incredibly stupid. Does anyone remember what happened the last time dejected conservatives ran a third party candidate against someone named Clinton?

I understand the concern that Rudy is, in the eyes of many conservatives, wrong on abortion (and to a lesser extent, gun control). But what I don't understand is the propensity to either vote for a third party candidate or abstain from voting altogether rather than vote for a candidate with which they agree 80 percent of the time. Given that a third party candidate will never win national office in this country, every vote that isn't cast for Rudy would be a tacet vote for Hillary. So instead of voting for a candidate with whom they don't agree on abortion or gun control, they end up with a candidate with whom they don't agree on abortion, gun control, taxes, health care, foreign policy, education, etc.

Not to mention the fact that essentially the only sway a president has over the issue of abortion is in his (or, God help us, her) appointments to the judiciary. And Rudy has already stated that he intends to appoint conservative judges should he be elected president. So it really should be a non-issue. Unfortunately, it isn't.

For several months, rumors were that Fred Thompson was going to enter the race as the conservative savior. Thus far, I've yet to see anything that would convince me to vote for him over any of the other top-tier Republicans. Granted, he hasn’t yet had a real opportunity to set himself apart from the rest of the field, so I’ll be interested to see how he performs in the upcoming debates.

John McCain just doesn’t do it for me. Don’t get me wrong -- I think he’s an honorable man for all the sacrifices he’s made for his country. But his positions on immigration and his role in the disaster that is campaign finance reform are just deal breakers for me. That said, I think he’d make an incredible Secretary of Defense. I have no reason to believe he would be nominated for said position, but for what it’s worth…

When it gets down to bare bones and brass tacks, I just want a president who is going to keep taxes low, recognizes that the role of government should be as minimal as possible, keep the economy strong (by staying out of it as much as possible), have a firm and direct foreign policy, stop screwing around in Iraq and do what needs to be done to win the war and leave Iraq to the Iraqi people, head off the looming disaster that would be universal health care, balance the federal budget, appoint constitutionalist judges to the judiciary, etc.

I realize that’s asking entirely too much, but my vote will go to the candidate who aims to achieve more of those goals than his opponent. I’m not yet sure who that candidate will be, but I’m listening with an open mind.

What he said.

2007-09-30T12:32:00.000-04:00

It's no secret that I am no fan of Bar@ck Ob@ma, and think that an Ob@ma presidency would be the worst thing for our country since either Jimmy C@rter or Warren H@rding. His glaring lack of experience and apparent detachment from reality, particularly in the current state of global affairs, is nothing short of dangerous. George Wi|| of the W@shington Post illustrates this point rather succinctly by asking Ob@ma a series of questions that to which he presumably has no answer. My favorite such question:

I will try my best to think like Senator Ob@ma and answer these questions on his behalf:

What is your estimate of the numbers required by your policy? Uh...

How, and in consultation with whom, did you arrive at your estimate? Just kinda pulled it out of ~~my ass~~ thin air.

As to fighting terrorists but not insurgents -- how would soldiers and Marines tell the difference? By going up to them and asking them nicely.

If, while searching for terrorists, they make contact with insurgents, would your rules of engagement call for a full force response? You used a lot of military terms there I didn't understand. I'm just going to say no. Or yes. Whichever one sounds better.

You say all "combat brigades" should be out of Iraq "by the end of next year." Even if al-Qaeda is still dangerous? Yeah, pretty much.

Who, after the end of next year, will protect U.S. noncombat forces that you say "will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities" and to "train and equip" Iraqi forces? That's not our problem.

2007-09-26T21:03:00.001-04:00

I realize it's been almost a month since I've posted anything, but I've found myself strangely busy over the last several weeks. I've also found myself with too much to say and unable to distill it into a concise post. But lest you forget about me or think that I've just become lazy, I figured I should show a few signs of life. So, here are a few things I've been thinking about lately:

- I recently engaged in a passionate discussion about national/universal healthcare with an old friend. It is beyond me that anyone can think that: 1. We should be responsible for anyone's healthcare but our own, and 2. That government should provide it.

Let's say for example that there's some citizen out there that smokes three packs a day and lives on a diet consisting mostly of doughnuts and soda. Why should we, as tax payers, be burdened with the cost of subsidizing his treatment for lung cancer and diabetes? That's obviously an extreme example, but the principle remains the same. People who don't take care of themselves have no right to have their healthcare paid for by others.

Beyond that, if people did have a 'right' to universal healthcare (which they don't), what makes anyone think the government would efficiently provide it? As a nation, we already spend $550 billion every year on healthcare, meaning Medicaid and Medicare. Each of these programs serves about 43 million people each, giving a total of about 86 million people. I wasn't a math major, but $550 billion distributed to 86 million people averages out to about $6,395 per person per year. Multiply that out to the roughly 300 million people in the country, and it comes out to slightly less than two trillion dollars -- or, in more relative terms, slightly less than the ENTIRE annual revenue of the federal government. So, essentially, by my crude calculations, so-called universal healthcare would nearly double the revenue needs of the government -- and thus double the taxes.

During the argument, my friend lamented "I'll never be able to convince a Republican to do something for the common good." As if being against government-run healthcare was against the good of mankind. If healthcare is such a basic right, isn't food and shelter a MORE basic right? Why aren't people clamoring for the government to provide universal food and shelter? But I digress. The bottom line is: universal healthcare is a terrible idea for many reasons.

- The reaction of many liberals to the recent testimony of Gen. D@vid Petr@eus infuriated me. Many accused him of being misinformed, or even lying. Yes, he's misinformed. The commanding officer in the region, who literally wrote the book on counter-insurgency, is misinformed. Meanwhile, liberal hacks sitting behind computers know what's REALLY going on over there. And yes, a four star general that was unanimously confirmed by the Senate is lying to the American people. That's a perfectly reasonable assumption. I quote the immortal Borat when I say: ...NOT.

- I find myself judging girls that wear those flat, ballerina shoes in public. What, putting on real shoes was asking too much? The same goes for those brightly-colored rubber shoes. I don't care how comfortable they are. You look like a dumbass.

- I have mixed feelings about allowing the Iranian President to speak at Columbia University. First of all, to have an American institution lending legitimacy to a sworn enemy of our nation by providing a forum for his views -- regardless of their laughable invalidity -- is shameful. Sure, he makes an international ass of himself by claiming that there aren't any homosexuals in his country, but it's substantially less funny to learn why there aren't homosexuals in Iran. I suppose it serves as an example of how detached from reality @hmadinejad is, but I worry that it will lead people to take him less seriously when he says things like he wants to wipe Israel off the map and destroy America. I'm convinced he actually aims to do that, and if he acquires nuclear weapons, he will have the means to do so. Oh, and for what it's worth, we don't owe him any niceties, politeness or pleasantries during his visit. He supports and funds those that literally kill our soldiers. Put more bluntly: Screw him.

- The recent overtime victory of Georgia is the most exciting football game I've seen since the 'Hobnail Boot' game in 2001. I actually injured by back by pulling a certain girl out of her chair and throwing her into the air in an ill-conceived expression of my excitement. Note to self: Leave girls in their chairs.

- Buffalo chicken with blue cheese is perhaps the greatest culinary discovery in the last century.

I’m taking my first vacation in about two years starting Friday. It’ll be nice to get away from the District for a while. Maybe I’ll have more time to blog. We’ll see.

What? Really?

2007-08-28T16:04:00.000-04:00

I honestly have no idea what this could be talking about...

Certainly not things like this:

Meanwhile, downstairs in a District drinking establishment...

2007-08-08T13:47:00.000-04:00

With softball season wrapped up, the interns returned to their respective schools, and my family safely returned home from the District, my life has entered a much-needed lull in which I can be left alone with my own thoughts.

There's one issue in particular I've been wanting to mention, but until now haven't had enough consecutive free time to do so. So here goes.

After a recent softball excursion, my teammates and I had gathered at our usual bar -- as we often do -- but in a slightly unusual turn of events, the conversation between one particular teammate and I turned to politics. This particular topic had been heretofore avoided, as both she and I knew that we stood diametrically opposed on the political spectrum. But, having partaken in my fair share of libations, I was much more willing to engage in the debate.

I don't precisely recall how, but we ended up on the subject of the Democr@t would-be presidential candidates.

"Why don't you like B@rack Obam@?" she asked.

"Because he's totally unqualified. He's a first-term Senator, former state senator, and former lawyer. He has precisely zero relevant executive experience. And, long story short, he's not ready for Prime Time and he can't hack it."

She stared at me for a moment, seemingly stunned, as if she had expected me to simply say "Because he's a no-good nigger."

Once she collected her thoughts, she answered with "Oh. Well...that's perfectly reasonable. What about Hi||ary?"

"First and foremost, if she wasn't married to Bill, who would she be? If her last name had stayed Rodh@m instead of C|inton, why would anyone even be considering her for president?"

Thinking she had an opportunity to gain the upper hand in the argument, she countered with "Who would George |3ush be if not for his father?"

"I think that logic illustrates my point better than it does yours, unless you're willing to admit that President |3ush would be an independently viable candidate without the benefit of his father, which I don't think you are." I said.

The conversation didn't end there, but for the purpose of this post, that's all that needed to be said. The main issue is that neither of the top two Democr@t presidentia| hopefuls -- I would even argue that none of the top three -- are qualified for the job. Sadly enough, the most qualified Democrat for the job -- Bill Rich@rdson -- is polling somewhere between Dennis Kucinich and Joe Biden.

Granted, Obam@ is quite a charismatic speaker, but we've tried the charismatic, former state senator before -- with less than desirable results. As for Hillary, the best thing she has going for her is a convenient last name. I defy any of her supporters to point to one significant legislative accomplishment of hers.

It's rather disingenuous to dismiss the Senators' detractors as either sexist or racist. There are plenty of minorities and women that are perfectly qualified to be president -- perhaps even a minority woman. It has nothing to do with sex or race. It has everything to do with experience and ability -- two things the top tier Democrats are sorely lacking.

Quick rundown

2007-07-22T23:07:00.000-04:00

Yeah, I know. It's been almost a month. But I've had a lot going on. I don't even know where to begin. I suppose I might as well start where I last left off.

I went to the NS@ Conference down in At|anta. It's not often that I have trouble explaining things, but I don't think I can justly express what I got out of the experience. It's a foreign concept to begin with for people who don't have a constant struggle with their speech, but suffice it to say that I've never felt more at ease when it comes to speaking.

It also provided me with quite a confidence boost. It might be my own insecurities, but in a group of normal people, I consider myself only marginally charming and entertaining. It seems, however, that when the playing field is leveled by being in a room full of other people that stutter -- I can be pretty cool.

The most poignant example of this phenomenon is probably expressed in the following picture, taken at the banquet:

Chicks dig a guy with a speech impediment.

In other news, my softball team went on a hell of a hot streak under my fearless leadership, and at one point we'd won four out of five games. The streak has since ended, but I have far surpassed my coaching goals for the season.

Also, as most of you know, I recently commemorated the yearly recurrence of my wombic emergence. Many thanks to everyone who took the time to send me well-wishes. It's much appreciated. More thanks to everyone who decided to celebrate with me on a Monday night -- mostly the people (with a few exceptions) in the following picture:

For those who don't know, the people sitting at the table are as follows: To my right, Aaron -- fellow DOL'er; to his right, Valerie, who I met through one of my French friends from last summer; to her right is Chris's friend whose name I don't remember; to her right is Chris, fellow DC D@wg, softball pitcher and general comrade; across the table from him is Brittany (Bethany?), Valerie's roommate; to her right is Blake, another DC D@wg, softball teammate and general comrade; to his right is Wendy, colleague from the EPA, friend, and Ginger Kid; and to her right is Shoni, a friend from Baltimore who apparently enjoys my company enough to drive to DC during rush hour on a Monday -- and then drive me home when I'm in no condition to take the Metro. She gets bonus points.

Not pictured are Kateri (who happens to be the one taking said picture), Tiffany, John, Dan and Jeff -- DOL'ers all.

Having said all that, I have plenty more to say, but it will have to wait for another time. I have a feeling I'm on the verge of some giggle-inducing developments. More details as they become available.

Ahh!

2007-06-28T02:41:00.000-04:00

Apologies for the lack of blogginess. I've been so busy lately it should be illegal, and probably is. To wit, the earliest I got home last week was 9:00. Why? Apparently I've become quite popular and or useful for various endeavors. Endeavors that could advance my career. And thus I shan't pass them up.

I'm currently packing for a weekend trip to Atlanta for the NS@ -- the S is for stuttering, not security -- conference. Should be interesting. I'm sure I'll have more to blog on that when I actually get there.

At any rate, the most eventful thing to happen since the last time I blogged is that the DC D@wgs softball team snapped its 20+ game losing streak. We truly were acting like we'd just won the World Series. So much so, in fact, that some on the team thought it necessary to give the coach (i.e. me) a cooler bath -- as evidenced here:

I thought I was a good sport about it, however, as evidenced here:

During the game, someone took a picture of my while I was at bat. It turned out pretty well, and I have since used it as my F@cebook picture. But, I thought it was too perfect not to use to ridicule myself. So, I analyzed my own swing -- which as it turns out is actually pretty fundamentally sound. As evidenced, for a third time, here:

We also captured our post-game euphoria in this team picture:

That's all I got for now. I'll be more bloggy next week, I promise. For the three of you that care.

I'm so awesome.

2007-06-13T00:27:00.000-04:00

I officially have my own facebook group that I didn't create myself...

I've arrived.

Day 730

2007-06-03T21:45:00.000-04:00

Today is somewhat of an anniversary for me. It was two years ago tonight that I spent my first night in this apartment -- and by extension, D.C.

I feel like I've lost all concept of time because it in no way feels like it's been that long.

I wish I had a profound list of things I've learned or ways I've changed, but I just can't really think of any right now. But I'm sure they're there. Like that W@llflowers song -- I feel just like somebody else / When I ain't changed / But I know I ain't the same.

I didn't really have any expectations when I moved here, so I can't say whether things turned out how I expected. Although I will say that I didn't expect to be here this long. When I first got into town, I was operating under the assumption that I was just going to do my yearlong gig at the Ex@miner and then make a triumphant return to Atlanta. But, incidentally, I find D.C. to be much more interesting than Atlanta.

I decided to stay in D.C. for a reason that I shan't get into and of which am actually rather embarrassed. But suffice it to say that it was a matter of opportunity. Those of you that know me best know that I'm rather economical on my decision making. And the opportunity cost of leaving D.C. was greater than that of staying. Thus far, I don't regret it. Granted, some of my relationships with those back home have suffered or ceased completely, but such is life I suppose. I've also met so many people and forged so many relationships that it warranted sticking around. It takes me a while to get comfortable in a given environment, and I feel like I've just recently started feeling comfortable in D.C. We'll see what comes of that.

At any rate, that's enough self-indulgence for one night. My apologies.

Memorial Day redux

2007-05-28T11:51:00.000-04:00

I wrote this two years ago, which in itself boggles my mind, but since nothing much has changed since then, I thought it was worth reposting:

Any of you that know me know that I'm incredibly patriotic, almost to a fault. I get goosebumps when military aircraft fly over sporting events. I get incredibly angry when people are disrespectful during the playing of the National Anthem. I get all weepy-eyed when I hear songs like America the Beautiful (as sung by Ray Charles), Lee Greenwood's 'God Bless the USA', and even 'The Angry American' by Toby Keith. I cried when Congress sang 'God Bless America' on the steps of the Capitol after 9/11, as well as when two UGA grads waved a flag in Baghdad on Foxnews at 3 in the morning, while the Anchorman said 'How 'bout them Dawgs?'. I have an American flag pinned to my bookbag as well as one in the back window of my car and on my front porch. I've been to Ground Zero on the 4th of July, and to several rallies for our troops.

However, despite all of this, a lot of times I'm disappointed in myself. Today is one of those times. Despite the fact that it's Memorial Day -- a day supposedly set aside for the remembrance of those that gave their life defending this country -- the most patriotic thing I've done all day is watch a special about D-Day on PBS. The rest of my day consisted of going shopping, eating, going to a movie, eating again, and putting stuff in my room into a 'DC pile' and a 'Staying Home pile'.

I didn't visit either of my grandfathers' grave sites, despite the fact that one was a bomber pilot in the Pacific and the other was an artillery gunner in Europe during WWII. I didn't organize/attend any sort of gathering to commemorate the occasion, and quite honestly I haven't spend much time today thinking about the sacrifices of those that gave their lives for their country and mine.

This makes me feel kinda dirty, and in a way unworthy. It's not that I'm at all ungrateful or even lazy -- I think I'm just complacent.

It's because of the men who have died that I don't have to live in constant fear of attack or invasion by a hostile nation. It's because of them that I can go out and spend time with my friends and family in a peaceful nation. It's because of them I can read a book on virtually any subject from virtually any point of view, instead of government produced propaganda. It's because of them that I can speak German only if I want to, nicht weil mein Führer sagt mir ich muß. And it's because of them that I can sit at my computer late at night and bullshit stuff that people can read all over the world.

Someone a lot smarter than I (but incidentally with the same name), said as much, but with more eloquence:

It is the soldier, not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the campus organizer,
who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier, not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the soldier,
who salutes the flag,
who serves under the flag,
and whose coffin is draped by the flag,
who allows the protester to burn the flag.
--Charles M. Province

Sometimes I'm simply amazed at the opportunities and luxuries afforded to me because of the sacrifices of men and women that never knew me, and that I've never known. Forgive me if it's too cheesy, but I can only hope that I'm living my life in such a way that would do their sacrifice justice. I can only hope that our country today is something they would be proud to have defended.

I like to believe that it is, but there are some aspects of our nation that worry me. The collapse of the family unit (as evidenced by the ballooning divorce rate, rampant illegitimacy, and the push for same-sex marriage), the decline of our entertainment standards to the point that popular shows consist of people eating horse rectum and sheep eyes, as well as the exponential dumbing-down of our children by a public school system so bent political correctness and not hurting anyone's feelings that history, the arts, and educational standards have given way to the likes of cultural relativism, pop culture, and social promotion.

No longer are children being taught of the challenges, sacrifices and triumphs of the generations before them. They're taught that our Founding Fathers were racist; and that while there are countries in the world that starve their own people to death and stone women for being raped, America is no better and they have to 'respect the beliefs' of these people, because there is no absolute right and wrong by which to judge such things.

No longer are they taught to aspire to the likes of George Washington, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Abigail Adams. Their heros are now people like Eminem, Tupac, and Paris Hilton.

No longer are children held to rigorous academic standards. Either the bar is lowered taccommodatete lackluster performance, or poor results are ignored altogether and children are advanced anyway in order to prevent from hurting their feelings or making them feel isolated from their peer group.

As this year's Memorial Day unceremoniouslyly comes and goes, I'm left with a few thoughts. First of all, the United States of America continues to be the sole true beacon of freedom, liberty, and opportunity in the world; and those that have given their lives in her defense are truly deserving of a hero's memorial.

Secondly, we have been entrusted with the survival of this beacon; and if we're not careful, its light could fade to the point where it is no longer visible and morally relevant. Not to be overly pessimistic, but looking at the current and future generation of Americans, I'm not convinced that we're up to the task. I'm not convinced that those generations quite understand what they've been given, and I'm not convinced that they would readily defend it -- or understand why it's worth defending -- should the challenge arise.

And finally, I'm not convinced that we're on the right path to justifying the sacrifice of those that gave their life defending our freedom. Given the current state and direction of our nation, would her former defenders be proud of their sacrifice, or would they feel misused?

I would much rather believe the former; but then Paris Hilton gets another TV show, and George Patton and Dwight Eisenhower roll over in their graves.

A lot of things have been pissing me off today...

2007-05-24T23:23:00.000-04:00

If I can stay awake long enough, I will occasionally watch the Dai|y Show. Tonight was one such occasion, and it caused an usual rise in my blood pressure. Former vice president A| G0re was on the show discussing his new book, and made several allusions to the Bush administration blaming S@ddam Hussein's regime for the attacks on 9/11.

This has become a pet talking point for many liberals -- claiming that the Bush administration manipulated the American people into supporting the war in Iraq by placing blame on Sadd@m Hussein for the attacks of 9/11.

One inconvenient truth, if you will, is that this never happened. No one in the Bush administration ever said that anyone in the Iraqi government had anything to do with either the planning or the execution of the attacks of 9/11. It simply didn't happen.

Granted, a sizable amount of Americans thought/think that Iraq did have something to do with 9/11, but that's not because of the Bush administration. A quarter of Americans also think 9/11 was a government conspiracy. Just because people believe it, doesn't make it true.

Now, the claim was made that Iraqi government officials had contact with members of Al Q@eda and S@ddam Hussein has long been a well-documented supporter of terrorism, but never was the claim made by the Bush administration that there was any Iraqi involvement in 9/11.

In fact, if anyone can provide me with an example from a reputable source that anyone in the Bush administration ever did make the claim that Iraq had any involvement in the planning or execution of the attacks of 9/11, I will give you $100. No joke. Prove me wrong, and I will send you a check. On your mark, get set, go.

I should probably stop watching the news for a while

2007-05-24T17:12:00.000-04:00

The headlines of late being what they are, I spend a great deal of time thinking of the challenges that face my generation. Iran is continuing to defy the world community with no real fear of penalty, Islamic militants continue to target our soldiers and innocent civilians in Iraq, millions of people continue to stream unchecked across our borders, government programs teeter on the edge of collapse because of the eroding tax base.

The general method my generation seems to be using to deal with these problems seems to be, well, ignorance. Not ignorance in the sense of being uneducated, but ignorance in the sense of ignoring vital issues in the hopes that they will somehow magically cease to be vital issues.

In dealing with Iran, the preference seems to be to defer the responsibility to an impotent world organization whose mode of operation consists mainly of toothless declarations and resolutions, half-hearted sanctions and general incompetence. Many seem bent on avoiding armed conflict at all costs -- apparently even if it means allowing a religious fanatic set on hastening Armageddon to acquire the most destructive weapons this world has ever known.

When it comes to Iraq, even though the casualty numbers are substantially lower than any other major conflict in which the U.S. has engaged, many have deemed the sacrifice unacceptable and seem perfectly contented with simply withdrawing and leaving the region to its own devices regardless of what broader consequences it could imply.

On immigration, we seemingly feel guilty asking people to come into this country legally and fairly, not to mention assimilate into our society.

Government programs such as medicare and social security are on the verge of collapsing under their own weight, but any effort to reform them is met with either a yawn or violent backlash against reform. People seem to be operating under the assumption that things will just continue to go the same way they always have, regardless of declining birth rates, increased numbers of recipients, etc.

We live in a country that has, in less than 250 years, become the single most powerful nation the world has ever known. But I'm afraid we've become victims of our own success. Americans, and Western people in general, are a comfortable people. We don't like to be bothered with unpleasantness. We would much rather leave others alone and be left alone rather than seek out confrontation. As social scientist Charles |\/|urray once said of socialist Europeans, "the purpose of life is to while away the time as pleasantly as possible." This sentiment is becoming increasingly applicable to Americans, particularly those under 35.

Our propensity to avoid all things uncomfortable has the potential to atrophy the American spirit. And that atrophy could then be exploited by those who wish to do us harm or simply exploit us. Most Americans likely have a hard time comprehending that there's a group of people that would happily detonate a nuclear weapon in one of our cities. But that is an issue that we're going to have to face -- hopefully before we see the smoldering ruins of an American city. (I have a particular existential interest in this, as the most recent tape released by Al Q@eda showed the Capito| building -- a landmark across the street from my office -- in flames.)

Most Americans also don't realize that American power is the only thing keeping the Middle East from totally erupting and that our presence there is for the good of our national security. If it seems chaotic now, just imagine what it would be like if they were left to their own devices. People like to claim that our presence there is actually aggravating the situation, but that just provides a convenient excuse.

On the subject of immigration, Americans are so afraid of being labeled bigots that they're afraid to stand up and demand that those who come here do so legally, and take steps such as learning English to better function in and contribute to our society. The fact of the matter is that an uneducated, easily exploited class of immigrants is a lose-lose situation for both the country and the immigrants themselves.

And Americans simply don't want to be bothered with the idea that our social programs are bankrupt and will require massive tax increases or devastating benefit cuts to remain (or even become) solvent. In its current form, social security is at a 3:1 payer to recipient ratio. That is to say, the benefits of one recipient are divided among three tax payers. When the program was first implemented, the ratio was somewhere in the neighborhood of 12:1. In the coming years, particularly when the flood of baby-boomers begins to retire, the ratio will drop to 2:1. Meaning there will be fewer tax payers to pay for an exponentially increasing bill.

Unhappy thoughts, all. But all issues that will need to be confronted sooner rather than later. I can't help but worry that we're going to wait longer than we can afford to confront them.

Our grandparents' generation came to be known as The Greatest Generation for stepping up when they were needed. I can only imagine what our generation will be called if we don't.

I don't know what you heard about me, but...

2007-05-21T23:02:00.000-04:00

It was recently suggested that those interested blog about eight random facts about themselves. Since I am of weak mind and have no original ideas of my own, I'm happy to oblige. Although, given that it took me two tries to get to 50 and factoring in my general reluctance to talk about all things personal, eight more might be a bit of a stretch. But here goes.

1. I am the most inwardly competitive person I know. I don't yell at teammates or instigate trash-talking, but I have an incredible -- probably unhealthy -- desire to win. I also have an unhealthy tendency to take losses of any of my teams personally.

2. I haven't cried since June of 2004. There have been some close calls since, but it's just not something I do. There's a joke with one of the girls in my office that I'm just going to keep bottling up my negative emotions until one day I spill a soda and just totally lose it. Seems plausible.

3. For whatever reason, whenever I pick up my guitar, the first chord I play is usually a G. I think it has something to do with the fact that the first 'real' song I taught myself was 'Walkaways' by Coun+ing Crows, so it became habit.

4. Few things raise my blood pressure more than seeing Americans wave Palestinian flags. I was recently watching a documentary where a group of American college students were waving Palestinian flags at a protest. The sheer idiocy of that defies description. I nearly had to leave the room. Exactly which part of a society that straps explosives to children to kill civilians; oppresses women and minorities; and threatens the annihilation of an entire nation is worth a show of solidarity?

5. I spend what I believe to be an inordinate amount of time thinking of how my life would be different if I'd made different choices at various times in my life. Kinda like that Ash+on Ku+cher movie. I don't really know why I do it...I don't know that I would change anything. It's just something I do when I get bored. I feel like I made a lot of small decisions that turned out to be majorly life-changing, so it's just interesting to think about what would have happened if some of them had gone the other way.

6. Most every song I know reminds me in one way or another of someone that I know.

7. This one time, at band camp...ok, seriously. My junior year in high school, my room mate at band camp and I decided we were going to stay up all night the first night. It is easily the worst idea I've ever had. Or at least in the top 5. Marching around for 10 hours in f-ing Milledgeville, Georgia, in August, on no sleep, is probably in breach of the Geneva Conventions. It was one of the most miserable experiences I've ever had.

8. This past weekend I was asked out by a woman seven years my senior. I honestly don't expect anything to come of it, but the entertainment factor is priceless. In her defense, she asked before she knew the extent of my vibrant youth. Still provided a much-needed ego boost and a few giggles at the office.

Paris Hi|ton gets some good news...

2007-05-16T15:22:00.000-04:00

Sure, you still have to deal with that burning sensation, but hey, at least it's not the plague!

Note: The doctor in the article is named Skip Virgin. Somehow that just seems wildly appropriate.

Are we really still talking about this?

2007-05-02T14:08:00.000-04:00

I thought I would take a little time out of my lunch break to address something that has been causing proverbial blood to shoot out of my eyes over the last couple of days.

As you may or may not know, yesterday marked the four-year anniversary of President Bush declaring the end of so-called major combat operations in Iraq while standing in front of a now much-parodied banner that said "Mission Accomplished." Detractors of the war -- and the President in general -- often point to this moment in an attempt to discredit and generally ridicule the President and his supporters.

"We haven't accomplished anything," they say. They also point out that troops are still dying four years after the declaration of the end of major combat.

How selective our hearing, memory, and reasoning become when trying to exploit a political point. A little context would be ever so useful in this debate.

First off, it is certainly worth noting that the President's declaration took place on the U.S.S. Abrah@m Linco|n. This is noteworthy because said ship was returning to port after the longest mission of an aircraft carrier since Vietnam. A mission that they had accomplished.

Which brings us to the subject of the now-infamous banner. That banner was requested by personnel on the U.S.S. Linco|n. Granted, the White House went along with it, but what reason was there at the time to tell those sailors that they could not hang a banner stating that their mission had been accomplished?

It's also worth mentioning that the President's speech said nothing about any mission being accomplished. In fact, in his speech he only says the word 'mission' twice, and in both cases he says nothing about them being accomplished. Much to the contrary, he actually says the mission continues.

Most importantly, I would suppose, is the fact that the subject of the whole declaration was in reference to the war against the Iraqi army -- which by all account we demolished in record fashion. Even with that fact, the President said nothing about the job being done, easy, or quick. Here are some examples, however, of things he actually did say (emphasis mine):

"In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."

"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous."

"We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people."

"The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq."

I could go on about the asininity of arbitrary withdrawal dates, the general laziness of many in my generation or the selective moral outrage so prevalent in today's politics, (i.e., We can't police a civil war in Iraq, but SUDAN?!?! THERE'S a civil war we can get behind!) but that will just have to wait for another lunch break.

As for now, anyone making political hay out of the anniversary needs to grow up, read a little recent history, and practice some intellectual honesty. Otherwise you're just embarrassing yourself.

It's a rough life I lead...

2007-04-22T23:00:00.000-04:00

This weekend was my second opportunity to pretend I actually matter, and attend some of the festivities associated with the Whi+e House Corresponden+s' Dinner. It didn't seem as cool as last year, perhaps because I didn't see as many people that I admire -- or maybe two years in DC really has made me that jaded. But it was still a good time.

Here's the view of the patio at the Washington Hi|ton, with various people pretending to be more important than they actually are. The question I overheard most, and most enjoyed overhearing, was "Who's that?"

Here are three moderately important people, Steve D0ocy (Fox News host), Steve Cent@ni (Fox News reporter and former hostage) and the back of Byr0n York's head (of the N@tional Review).

Here's He|en Thomas (the old, bitter, biased, anti-Semitic reporter) needing three people, a camera man and a boom mic to help her down a step.

Wo|f B|itzer was telling what I can only imagine to be an incredibly amusing anecdote.

L@rry King was mildly annoyed that I left the flash on.

Seinfe|d creator and Curb Your Enthusi@sm star L@rry David seemed slightly more annoyed that I left the flash on.

Former Ido| contestant Chris S|igh (and random purple-earring-girl) was kind enough to look at the camera.

Fox News founder Roger Ai|es was mildly amused to find out that the people snapping pictures of him (my friend and me) worked for the W@shington Examiner -- thus I suppose recognizing us as allies and allowing us to continue. Pretty cool, I suppose.

The all-important Henry Kissinger having a lively discussion with some guy in military attire.

The President's limo arriving for the dinner...

But the best picture of the night, and really the only reason I wore a tux at all, was scoring this shot with Sanjay@ Malak@r -- which, for the record, I'm pretty sure is Hindi for 'no-talent ass clown.'

What was entertaining about this whole thing is that Shery| Crow -- an actual musician with actual talent -- was seated no more than five feet behind us, and no one cared.

What's even funnier is that Sanjay@ won't be back next year, much like Ace. D.C. is a cruel, fickle town...

Misdirected anger, misplaced blame

2007-04-17T12:09:00.000-04:00

When faced with such an incomprehensible tragedy as the one that came to pass yesterday on the campus of Virgini@ Tech, I find myself at an unusual loss for words. There is nothing I can say, and perhaps nothing I should say, that would add anything of worth to the situation. As the saying goes, speak only if you can improve upon the silence.

I don't have the authority, nor the need, to implore you to keep the victims in your thoughts and prayers. As decent people, I'm sure you already are, and probably more effectively than I.

One thing I do feel the need to say, however, is that I think it is sick and disgraceful that many are using this tragedy for their own political points.

Some have used this incident as an opportunity to call for stricter gun control -- and in some cases even place blame on supporters of gun ownership for the tragedy itself. This sort of rabid anti-gun fanaticism is not only inappropriate in the wake of such a baffling act of evil, but it is misplaced in general.

There are cliches about gun ownership -- "guns don't kill people, people kill people," "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," etc. -- but they are no less true. The gun is not responsible for this heinous crime. The gun did not force this sociopath to chain the doors of the campus building while he lined up students and executed them. What law would have stopped that? It was already illegal for him to have a gun on campus. Most notably, it was already illegal for him to murder 33 people and wound some 20 others. Laws are only effective as a deterrent when there is fear of punishment. Judging by the fact that the killer took his own life, it would appear that he had no fear of punishment for his actions.

The argument could be made that had other students been allowed to carry weapons, this whole affair could have been stopped well before the death toll rose as high as it did. Had one other student in one of the classrooms been armed and properly trained, it is reasonable to assume that most of this horror could have been avoided.

It is not the existence of guns that lead to these types of tragedies. It is the misuse of guns.

When an 86-year-old man drove his car through a California farmer's market and killed 10 people, there were no calls to ban vehicles. The car was not responsible for the deaths of those people because, on its own, a car can do nothing to harm anyone. Much like a gun sitting on a table, a car parked in a garage poses a threat to no one. It is only when something as powerful as a car -- or gun -- is misused that it becomes hazardous.

To blame the gun -- and in some bizarre cases, Char|ton Hes+on -- for the deaths of innocent people ignores the true issue.

Had these students been stabbed to death with a knife or savagely beaten with a baseball bat, it would be laughable to blame the blade or the barrell. Yet somehow it is perfectly acceptable to blame the trigger, rather than the maniac pulling it.

2007-04-17T00:09:00.000-04:00

I've heard amputees sometimes wake up and can still feel their missing limb. I had a similar experience this morning.

I'm going straight to hell, just like my mama said

2007-04-12T11:50:00.000-04:00

But this is one of the funniest headlines I've seen in a long time. I shouldn't laugh, I know. But I can't help it.

2007-04-11T00:25:00.000-04:00

I was watching Co|bert last night, as I often do, and this tool was the guest. After prattling on about not using anything with packaging, not eating food from more than 250 miles away and other environmental vagaries, he said he was going to write a book. After being pressed by Co|bert about the environmental impact of said book, Captain Conservation here said he was hoping to print his book on a "renewable material" instead of paper.

After I regained consciousness and cleaned all the blood out of my ear, I thought "Yes, if only we could print our books on a renewable resource. Some sort of material that we could, say, plant in the ground, allow to grow, and then harvest and grind into sheets of paper -- that would themselves be recyclable. Then we could start the process all over again..." But, I realize that's a futuristic pipe dream. Oh well.

This man has a child, people. They're breeding. I find that prospect quite terrifying.

On a totally unrelated note, I enjoy being mentioned in my friends' away messages. Here's one from my friend Allison earlier tonight:

Text convo with Charles:

Him: You're not at McFadden's, are you?
Me: No, home working
Him: Lame.
Me: I know you are, but what am I?
Him: Pure concentrated evil

Gotta love that kid

Yes, you do, in fact, have to love me. (Although, from my experience, that is not particularly true.)

On a somewhat related note, softball season started tonight, and I couldn't be happier. It's like Christmas, or at least what I imagine Christmas to be like. We didn't have a real game or anything, but it didn't stop us from going to the bar and getting lit up on a Tuesday night. Seems like I timed that being-able-to-have-yeast-again thing pretty perfectly.

But for now -- bed. Hooray bed.

Easy like Sunday morning

2007-04-08T04:17:00.001-04:00

Eh, about 4:00 AM Sunday morning, anyway. Merry Ishtar to those celebrating.

Anywho, I've been drinking caffeine against my will for about five hours and I'm wired, so I feel like chatting.

Just a little update in my own life, I was recently in contact with this network, more specifically this show about this. I've not, however, heard back from them and there are no camera crews following me around so I suppose they decided my life doesn't make for good television. I can only agree. Well, that and I wasn't entirely sure how I felt about displaying my most personal matter with a few million people. Might've been therapeutic, I suppose. Oh well.

I've also recently realized that there's a major disconnect between the way others see me and the way I see myself. I told a friend of mine recently that I was shy, and was literally laughed at. So maybe I've gotten good at at least pretending. I still I am, regardless if people find the notion comical.

Having said all that, I think it's time to crawl into bed. The caffeine -- not to mention the alcohol -- is wearing off.

Ok Matt, settle down buddy

2007-04-07T15:32:00.000-04:00

Today marked the first time in my life I've ever seen snow in April. It's a pretty foreign concept, but I woke up this morning to something that seemed a little excessive.

Ma++ Drudge, who has some sort of report or something that just happens to be one of the most powerful forces in news, thought it necessary to put this picture at the top of the page:

Under the headline "SNOW ON THE CHERRY BLOSSOMS!"

Whew, what breaking news that is...

2007-04-03T19:11:00.000-04:00

I've been doing a lot of thinking today (since there's not much else to do on Holy Days, I suppose...) and I've come to the conclusion that the athletic director (and perhaps several attendees) of this ~~institution~~ cesspool of ~~higher learning~~ jean-short-wearing, mullet-sporting and sister-banging has sold his soul to Satan in exchange for sports championships. I can think of no other possible explanation, except perhaps that God is punishing mankind for its many sins.

This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

2007-04-01T20:01:00.000-04:00

Today marked the second meeting of the Department of Labor Country Gentlemen's Rifle Club. It was founded by four of my fellow DOL-ers and I about a month ago when we all discovered that we shared a common interest in flinging lead. Incidentally, the site of our inaugural meeting later burned to the ground. So this time we decided to patron an open-air establishment with moving targets.

You want some of this? Huh? Didn't think so.

This is John, fellow founding member.

Here are four of us loading our guns before one of our rounds. That's Drew on the left and Aaron on the right.

Here's me exhibiting perfect form while Drew and John look on in amazement.

For the record, I hit 65 of 75 pigeons. Woo.

This next picture has nothing to do with shooting, but after our excursion we stopped at this fine institution for dinner. And in the men's bathroom this sign was hanging over the baby-changing table:

I guess it was in the men's room of a Virginia Cr@cker Barrel. Some patrons might need the reminder.

At any rate, any day where I use a 12 gauge is a good day. Now, off to finish ridding my home of dirty, dirty yeast.

Honestly, how many pictures do you need of a tree?

2007-03-31T20:06:00.000-04:00

Today marked the beginning of D.C.'s famed Cherry B|ossom Festiva|, and I gotta say, I couldn't be more excited. I thoroughly enjoy and event that quadruples the city's population while simultaneously blocking off massive stretches of parking. And the traffic -- glorious. To wit, I had softball practice this morning, and it took me an hour and a half to find a spot. It was fantastic. In fact, I was so inspired by the whole experience that I penned the following haiku:

They're just trees, people
Please just let me park my car
Get out of my town

So many Asians
Taking pictures, driving slow
With their blinkers on

Annoying children
Upset about seeing trees
There's no Mickey Mouse

Parking lots are full
Park in the grass, get ticket
Should have used Metro

Walk about a mile
Sidewalks packed while fatties eat
Hot dogs they don't need

Sea of red brake lights
Use the other damn pedal
I want to go home

Respek.

But if we just talk to them, maybe they'll understand...

2007-03-28T21:58:00.000-04:00

"Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us."

People wonder why we can't use non-violent and or diplomatic tactics against militant Islam in the same way it was used to defeat segregation (ala M@rtin Lu+her King), gain Indian Independence from Britain (ala Gh@ndi) or end the Co|d War (ala Re@gan). Quite simply, Southern racists, British imperialists and Soviet communists were, for the most part, rational actors. Even in the case of the Soviets -- who were arguably hellbent on our destruction -- they weren't hellbent enough to sacrifice themselves in the process. The threat of their own annihilation was enough of a deterrent. In short, they could be reasoned with.

There's no reasoning with people who gleefully sacrifice themselves and their children -- with the promise of paradise, no less -- for the destruction and murder of others. They simply have to be destroyed like the cancer that they are.

"Oh, but extremists only make up 5-10 percent of all Muslims." Be that as it may, 5-10 percent of all Muslims still constitutes around 50-100 million people. Or, for those scoring at home, somewhere between the entire population of South Korea and the entire population of Mexico.

So, you know, no big deal.

And now that Iran has taken 15 British soldiers hostage, it seems like they're trying to bait the British (and, by extension, us) into a conflict. Judging by the public's appetite (in both countries) for another war, that actually might be a smart move on Iran's part. So I guess we've got that to look forward to.

Sleep soundly, Metropolis.

2007-03-27T17:14:00.000-04:00

It really is sad how fast my life comes to a screeching halt when gmail goes down. Just sayin'. This can't be normal.

Overkill

2007-03-23T03:17:00.000-04:00

Just like the song. Or maybe just over-stimulation. Either way, it's entirely inappropriate to be blogging at this hour. But impropriety is no match for insomnia, and thus here I am.

Maybe it was the panel discussion on Iraq I had to attend earlier. I found it quite stimulating. Stimulating in the sense that it required more self control than normal to keep myself from leaping across the table and throttling two of the panelists. I don't want to get into it, but suffice it to say that the idea that there is any sort of non-biased media out there is simply laughable -- and those that profess to be such while at the same time pounding your fist into the table and shouting 'disaster' earn nothing but my scorn and disdain.

Or maybe it was the nail-biting basketball games on late tonight. It's probably best that Georgia isn't in the tournament, because then I'd be even more of a wreck. It's bad enough getting worked up over keeping my bracket alive. (Which, for the record, is probably doing better than yours. That's right. I said it. In the immortal words of Stu@rt Sco++ -- booyah.) Now that I've said that, it would be only fitting for UNC, Florida, Oregon and Georgetown all to lose tomorrow. But, as I often do, I digress.

Most likely what is keeping me up are things that I can't, or at least shouldn't, mention just yet -- lest I jinx myself. It would appear that people are -- against conventional wisdom, mind you -- beginning to take me seriously. And against my better judgment, I'm letting them. It's an all-around horrifying experience. Here's hoping they don't find out I'm just winging it.

And here's hoping I don't regret working with sharp objects on four hours of sleep.

2007-03-21T19:14:00.000-04:00

I'm working on a rather somber post about militant Muslims using children as weapons, so as a preemptive apology for that, I thought you might enjoy the following video as much as I did. Although, I'm not sure all of you share my utter despisal of all things R. Ke||y.

Trapped In The Drive-Thru

Is that freedom I smell?

2007-03-09T15:55:00.000-05:00

Sniff, sniff. Hey, I think it is!

2007-03-08T01:03:00.000-05:00

I've been insanely busy lately, so my blogging has been fairly hit and miss. I still don't have a ton of time, but there are a couple of pictures I felt like sharing. So here goes.

Here's New+ Gingrich and me at CPAC. He's signing my book. Cool.

Then, here are some pictures from this event I went to today where President Bush spoke to his political appointees. Tony Snow "opened." He made us do the wave. Twice. I'm not kidding. There were cabinet secretaries doing the wave. You see what happens when media isn't allowed in to these things? Anyway, back to the pictures.

I might actually give a summary later. I've finally gotten to a point where I can lift my head up and look around for a little while, so my blogging might pick up. We'll see.

For what it's worth, I've been hooked on the following songs lately:

Hey There De|i|ah, P|ain Whi+e T's
Alive, Pear| J@m
Sep+ember, Ear+h Wind and Fire
Dixie|and De|ight, Alabama (it's just so damn catchy...)

2007-02-28T10:49:00.000-05:00

Came across the following quote today and thought that the UGA fans who occasionally persue this blog would enjoy it as thoroughly as I did:

"Two thirds of the world is covered by water. The other third is covered by Ch@mp Bai|ey."

Don't know who that is? You hate freedom.

Couple of questions

2007-02-15T18:55:00.000-05:00

These are just a few things I've been mulling over lately. I'm considering them rhetorical, but feel free to submit an answer if you like.

First of all, why was I just forced to switch my account to the 'new' blogger? The old one was just fine. And if it ain't broke...

Second of all, why is Tim H@rdaway making the news with his opinions about gay people? Who honestly cares? Maybe we could get John S+ockton's opinion on immigration or see what Reggie Mi||er thinks about the income tax. You know, while were concerned about the opinions of retired basketball players.

Third, if the warm January was a sign that global warming is real, is the frigid February a sign that it's not happening anymore? I'm confused.

Also, what exactly made Ann@ Nico|e Smith famous?

Just curious.

Like a kid in a candy store

2007-02-07T15:34:00.000-05:00

Well, looks like I'm going shopping.

If passed, it would only stop punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty for 90 days. But it's a start.

And in other news...

2007-02-06T13:44:00.000-05:00

NASA apparently doesn't screen for crazies.

I just want to know the reasoning that went into the diapers. Ok, so she didn't want to stop to go to the bathroom. What about to get gas? I don't know of a car with a range of 900 miles, so I'm guessing she had to stop at some point. And from my experience, you can general go to the bathroom in the amount of time it takes for your car to fill up. Just sayin'...

At this point, the globe can't warm soon enough

2007-02-06T12:36:00.000-05:00

I've never been all that convinced by the whole global warming thing. Is the climate changing? Yes. But that's what climate does. Is man causing it? We don't know. I'm guessing marginally, if at all. In all likelihood, it's a natural cycle.

All that being said, if there is man-made global warming, it needs to hurry up and start warming. This whole going-to-work-when-it's-negative-four-degrees thing is getting old quick.

Thus, working under the assumption that global warming is man-made, I'm doing my part to speed it along. To this end, I've left my car idling even while I'm at work, I leave both of my televisions and computers on 24 hours a day, I sleep with the lights on, I have my thermostat set to 85 and leave the windows open, leave the freezer and refrigerator doors open at all times, and leave the oven set to broil.*

I hope all of you will join me in my quest. This planet has been too cold for too long. It's time to warm it up. Do it for the children.

Notes:

*Ok, that's not entirely true.

A very, very, very, very preliminary look at 2008 (with bullets and everything)

2007-02-03T20:23:00.000-05:00

It's been a long time since I've waxed political, and I fear I'm getting a little rusty. So, I thought I'd give a quick rundown of the 2008 election. I realize it's almost two years away and any analysis at this point is essentially useless because, well, a lot can happen in two years. Two years ago, pundits were still marveling at the President's victory over John Kerry and the Republicans picking up six seats (for a net gain of four) in the Senate and three in the House. Those were the days, eh?

Anyway, for this little shindig, I've borrowed the list of candidates from Congressional Quarterly. Here goes.

Democrats

• Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr.: Not happening. First of all, he's a northeastern liberal Senator with no new ideas. Sound familiar? Also, he has a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth. Again, sound familiar? Plus, I'm not convinced he has the political intelligence to pull it out.

• Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd: See above, minus the foot-in-mouth disease. Actually, to my knowledge he's never said anything of importance. He's Connecticut's 2nd least-boring senator, after Joe Liberman. Now that's saying something.

• Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards: I don't see Americans electing a former one-term senator. No experience. Plus, the whole 'two Americas' thing is getting old. There aren't that many poor people in America and most of them already vote Democrat. The formula doesn't work anymore.

• Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack: He might actually have a shot. Midwestern governor, executive experience. Not a total leftist. Likable guy. We'll see.

• Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich: NEXT!

• Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel: Who? Never heard of this guy. Not a good start.

• Illinois Sen. Barack Obama: Media lovefest aside, I'm not buying the hype. Much like Edwards, he's a first term senator with no executive experience. Everyone's just excited because he's charismatic and good looking. No one knows anything about his politics, and I suspect that once they learn, they're going to be substantially less impressed.

• New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: It's not really looking good for her right now. She's been in the public eye for about 15 years, so everyone knows her. And yet, there's not much excitement about her. Once the campaign actually begins and she starts getting competition, she could be in trouble. Most people don't want to vote for her, which doesn't help.

• New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson: Much like Vilsack, he's a fairly mainstream Democrat with executive experience. Also likable and articulate. Could make a run. It'll be interesting to see.

Republicans

• Attorney John H. Cox of Illinois: Who?

• Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback: Eh, not generating much buzz. Not getting anyone excited.

• Texas Rep. Ron Paul: Again, who?

• Arizona Sen. John McCain: Interesting case. Widely popular, but not with the Republican base so much. He could still pull it off if he can establish conservative credentials, such as distancing himself from his God-awful campaign finance law.

• Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani: Much like McCain, he has the problem of not appealing to the base of his party. He's quite liberal socially, but a fiscal and legal conservative. Also a bit of a foreign policy hawk. His main challenge will be getting the evangelicals to look past the gay marriage/abortion thing.

• Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy G. Thompson: Eh.

• Former Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore III: Eh.

• Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: This guy has potential. He knows the issues front and back, and can debate articulately and effectively. Also has executive experience. Only drawbacks are his potential inconsistencies and the fact that he's a Mormon. The former can be taken care of fairly quickly, and the latter might not even be an issue. Plus it doesn't hurt that he vaguely resembles Ronald Reagan.

• California Rep. Duncan Hunter: Surprisingly, he's actually generating a bit of buzz among the base. At least more so than any of the other congressmen. If he gets some more facetime on television, which he's trying to do, he could gain some legitimate traction.

• Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo: More or less a one issue candidate. The one issue being immigration. And there's not enough agreement in the party for that to be enough for him to get the nomination, let alone win the general.

• Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: Nice guy. Kinda laying low right now, which is probably a good thing. But I'm pretty sure the "southern Governor" bit only work for Democrats.

• Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia: Says he's not going to announce his intentions until Fall of 2007. Probably not a good idea. But he is one of the smartest conservatives in the country, so he might know what he's doing. If he does get in, he could probably get substantial support in short order. He's also been out of the public eye long enough for most people to have forgotten about his baggage from his Speaker days.

• Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel: Too liberal for the party. Not happening.

Whew. That was fun.

Pointless post #349

2007-01-28T19:12:00.000-05:00

For some reason, I seem to get most inspired by irritation. So, here's a list of things that have been irritating me lately -- and my thoughts about them.

People on American Idol that say they're 'unique.' Really? We're all unique. Unique doesn't sell records. Good sells records. You're not good. You suck. Go home and get a job.

Anyone voting for the non-binding resolution against the troop build up in Iraq. Non-binding resolution? Whew, don't strain yourself on that one. If you're really against it, why not balls up and vote to cut off funding for it? Don't want to deal with the political consequences? Wow. Your constituents must be proud.

People who don't say 'Bye' or something similar at the end of a conversation. Dunno why. Just irks me. Seems impolite.

People who insist on saying Iraq is like Vietnam. Read a history book. The only thing similar is the hostile media and extreme left who seem to have a vested interest in our failure.

Uninformed people in general. I was trying to have a discussion with a person who believed that the American government executed Saddam Hussein for his involvement in 9/11. I don't even know where to begin correcting that. This person also was seemingly unaware that we toppled the Afghan government shortly after 9/11. What's the point of being literate if you don't read?

Hi||ary C|inton's presidential announcement. Seriously, I threw up in my mouth a little. "Let's chat"? Yes, let's. Is that really how you would run the presidency? Iran and North Korea are threatening with nuclear weapons, and you want to chat? Spare me. You want to chat, go on Opr@h. You want to lead the free world, better man up. Figuratively speaking, of course.

People making a big deal about the fact that both Super Bowl head coaches are black. If I was either of those coaches, I would be incredibly offended. What, is it that unbelievable that a black man could coach a football team to the Super Bowl?

That's all for now. But tomorrow's Monday, so I'm sure there will be plenty more things to irritate me.

Wait, what day is it?

2007-01-11T00:15:00.000-05:00

I've been sitting on this post for a good two weeks. I'm not sure why. But, while it still has some semblance of timeliness (10 days is still good, right?) I thought I'd go ahead and post it. So, with apologies to Brett, here's a year in review of my life, circa 2006.

Resolutions from last year that I kept (out of three): Roughly 1.5. This is, about half of each one. It's a work in progress.
Books I read: About 10, give or take.
Most interesting books read: America Alone, Misquoting Jesus, A Brief History of Time, Blink
Jobs I had: Two (counting my current one)
Job interviews I had: 7
Percent increase in income this year over last year: 72.34
Number of UGA football games I attended: 1
UGA's record when I am in attendence: 36-9
Pounds gained: Roughly 15
Softball games won with the UGA team (out of 12): 0
Number of games of flip-cup won after softball games: Substantially more than 0
Softball games won with the Examiner team (out of 10): 4
Ben Folds concerts attended: 2
Non-family visitors: 2 (Jessica and Michelle)
Weddings attended: 2
New names in my cell phone directory: 23
Inches of snow: About 12
Famous people I met/had pictures/attended events with: Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Bill Bennett, Dick Cheney, Michael Steele, Elaine Chao, George Allen, Bill Kristol, others I don't remember
Songs I became obsessed with: Go|den S|umbers as performed by Ben Fo|ds; How +o Survive a Broken He@rt by Ben |_ee; H@lf Acre by Hem; Overki|| by Co|in Hay, Proof by I @m K|oot; Kyrie by Mr. Mister (mostly just the part after the bridge)
Copies of the Book of Mormon I received: 1
Copies of the Book of Mormon I read: 0
Falcons games attended: 1. We lost. Shocking.
Events I attended that I had no business attending: Countless
Place I went that I never thought I'd go: The French Embassy
Best Purchase: iPod
Places outside downtown DC that I spent significant time: Georgetown, Silver Spring, College Park (MD), Athens, Fayetteville, Tybee Island, Port Canaveral, my car
New Favorite Show: Scrubs
Most infuriating phrase: It's a tie between "pwn" and "w00t" with "do me a solid" getting honorable mention.

Ok, that's enough random facts. I could go into all the stuff I've learned over the last year, but I'll spare you. A lot of it is too personal for this medium, anyway. If you're just dying to know, talk to me.

As for this year, no earth-shattering plans, just more of the same. Although there are a few specific things I'd like to work on. First, I'd like to get better at saying what I mean. I mean what I say just fine, but I feel like I have a tendency to bite my tongue and keep things to myself more than I should. I would also like to make an effort to leave, and thus expand, my comfort zone.

Oh, and maybe blog on a more regular basis. Been dealing with some kind of creative drought -- just like Brian Wilson did.

Is today good? I can do it. I'm not really doing anything...

2006-12-26T09:49:00.000-05:00

Well, here's a bit of post-Christmas cheer. Personally, I don't really see the point of the whole 30 days thing. I mean, why put off until tomorrow what can be done today?

On the minimum wage

2006-12-22T01:08:00.000-05:00

I'm sure I've commented on the minimum wage before, but I don't feel like looking for it. And since it's coming up in the media again, I thought it was worth a fresh look.

As part of their first legislative actions, the Democrats have pledged to raise the minimum wage. And, as seems to be getting more and more frequent, President Bush is just bending over and taking it. But that's another issue entirely.

As a free market conservative, I essentially have to be against minimum wage laws. Of course, this often gets me branded as a money-grubbing, greedy, evil, soulless shell of a human being. But, I'm able to ignore such labeling because I know I'm right nonetheless.

Conservatives in general have done an absolutely pathetic job of framing this debate, but it's not entirely our fault. Any time an emotional (i.e. liberal) argument is countered with an intellectual argument, it will always be a losing proposition for the intellectual.

In this case, liberals talk about wanting to help those less fortunate, and say how it's only a dollar or two, and how people need to be able to eat and feed their families, etc. And Americans get all misty-eyed and go along with it because we're naturally a compassionate people. So when conservatives start talking about economic principles, production possibilities frontiers, Laffer curves, etc., people just tune out.

But it's still a debate worth having on the off chance that someone might listen and be swayed.

First and foremost, it is not the government's concern as to the wages paid by private businesses to its private employees. Look at it from the other side. What if the government sought to impose a maximum wage? What if the government went to a section of the workforce and said 'Sorry, you're making too much money, so we're imposing a law to lower your salary.' There would be riots. Not to mention the fact that the vast majority of the American people would think the idea of a maximum wage is absolutely ridiculous. Which it is. But why is the idea of a minimum wage so widely accepted?

Also, wages should be based on the worth of the work. If the government raised the minimum wage by $2.00, is the work done by the people in those job going to be worth $2.00 more? Not likely.

From an economic standpoint, artificially raising wages actually loses jobs. Now, I know some of you are going to say 'But millions of jobs were created after the last raise in the minimum wage.' That's true, but it's likely that the job growth was actually stifled by the wage hike and more jobs would have been created without it.

For example, say there are five employees working for the current minimum wage. Working at $5.15 an hour, eight hour days and five day weeks, each employee makes $206 a week, costing the business a total of $1,030 per week. Now, say the wage is raised to $7.15 an hour. That raises the business' total cost to $1,430. So, where is the business going to get the $400 dollars to cover the salary gap? Raise prices? That hurts business and leads to less revenue. More likely, the business would just fire two of the employees. So, while three people have been helped marginally, two others have been hurt immensely.

More over, as employers are forced to artificially raise the wages they pay, they'll be less likely to hire lower quality workers. Why hire someone at $7.00 an hour when their work is only worth $4.00? What a minimum wage law essentially says is that anyone whose work isn't worth the minimum wage shouldn't be employed. That's asinine.

People also shouldn't kid themselves about how many people would benefit from such a wage hike. Only some five percent of the workforce makes less than $7.15 an hour. And, as I mentioned before, how many of those workers would end up losing their jobs due to the hike?

The bottom line is that minimum wage laws have no business in a free market economy. But beyond that, it's just bad policy in that it hurts many of the people it supposedly tries to help.

And, as always, if you don't want to work a minimum wage job, be a better employee. Read a book or two. Get that GED. Show up for work on time and actually work hard. It can't be that hard if 95 percent of the country manages to do it. Not to be a jerk or anything, but come on people.

Pretty much

2006-12-20T09:21:00.000-05:00

This more or less sums up my feeling on the current situation in the Middle East. [Insert Diety here] help us. What worries me is that I'm afraid it very well might cost us 50 million lives when all is said and done. Maybe more, given that the potential for the use of nuclear weapons goes up exponentially the longer this drags on.

Here we go again

2006-12-09T16:40:00.000-05:00

About this time last year, I commented on the 'War on Christmas.' Well, like the rash after that weekend in Vegas, it still hasn't gone away.

I don't have anything new to say on the matter, except that there's a certain faction of these 'Christmas warriors' that seriously rub me the wrong way. They're the people that boycott stores that don't utter the phrase 'Merry Christmas.'

Really?

I've got no problem with people, or stores for that matter, wishing me a "Merry Christmas" even though I don't celebrate it. But I do have a problem with people who are angry that stores don't wish them a "Merry Christmas." That's just asinine. Heaven forbid an establishment wouldn't just assume that everyone wants to be wished a "Merry Christmas."

Is "Season's Greetings" too offensive? What about "Happy Holidays"? Are we really going to start pitching fits when stores don't acknowledge our holidays exactly the way we want them to? When did Americans become so whiny? (And why am I asking so many rhetorical questions?)

And now for something completely different

2006-12-06T21:48:00.000-05:00

In an effort to keep my head from exploding, I'm going to get off the whole 'The world is going to hell' thing for a little while. In the meantime, I found this video quite amusing. You might've already seen it, but it's still worth posting.

We're not winning! We're not winning! We're not winning!

2006-12-06T02:04:00.000-05:00

Number 23,492 on my list of Things I Hate About the Media popped up today. During his confirmation hearings today, Secretary of Defense nominee Rober+ Ga+es was asked if the U.S. was winning in Iraq. He gave a simple two-word answer: no, sir.

Now, it seems to me that the answer to such a loaded question would be just a titch more complex than that. But ok.

Naturally, the media proceeded to breathlessly plaster the misleading headline, literally, all over the world. And of course, in an attempt to appear prophetic, nay-sayers everywhere started a chorus of "See? I told you so." (Personally, if you've been saying we weren't the war since it started, I don't believe your opinion counts. Yeah, I can say it's going to rain every day for two weeks. If it happens to rain on day 14, it doesn't make me brilliant.)

But more to the point: what constitutes "winning" and, if we haven't yet attained it, how do we get there?

Since the beginning of the war, I've had disdain for those who expected this venture to be quick and easy. There was a noticeable amount of squawking recently when it came to be that we have been in Iraq longer than we were involved in WWII.

This in and of itself is misleading. We fought WWII until we'd forced the surrender of the Axis powers. At the time, this took about four years and cost about 300,000 American lives. Bear in mind that this is only major combat operations. In terms of how long we were actually in theater, that number is running about, oh, 65 years, because we're still there.

For some perspective, we toppled the Hussein government in right around three weeks with less than 200 combat deaths. Granted, over the last four years there have been about 2,900 American deaths (about 2,400 from actual combat). But that's still more than 100 times less than the sacrifice during WWII. In fact, more American servicemen died in a botched training exercise than have died in the entire Iraq campaign.

Granted, military success can't solely be measured in casualty numbers. But it can hardly be argued that we aren't militarily winning in Iraq. (For what it's worth, Rober+ Ga+es made a similar clarification during his testimony.)

All that said, the political progress in Iraq has certainly left something to be desired. Are we winning? Maybe not. But nor are we losing. Yet. We're simply not trying. We're not doing what needs to be done in order to win. We're trying to fight a war without upsetting anyone, and all that does is upset more people.

The enemy is using our political correctness against us. They use mosques as sniping posts. They use women and children as human shields. They intentionally target civilians in order to insert an air of chaos into their society.

We cannot overcome this if we continue our current modus operandi. As I said, it doesn't mean we're losing. It means we need to change the game plan to one that will speed victory, as opposed to forfeiting.

It's probably a good thing that the Defense-Secretary-to-be recognizes that the current game plan isn't working. But now it becomes a question of what the game plan should be. Do we do what needs to be done to win, or do we pack up and go home?

Many of those who take Ga+es' opinion as a validation of their peace-at-any-cost worldview likely hope that we take the latter option.

If that's the path we take, however, you can be sure that there will be bloodshed on a scale that we have not yet seen in Iraq. And that blood will be on the hands of those who lead our retreat.

Hey, aren't you married to what's-his-face?

2006-12-05T08:12:00.000-05:00

Many people are upset about the things Gwene+h Pa|trow recently said about Americans. For those unaware, she essentially (and by that I mean 'directly') said that we are less civilized and less intelligent than our English brethren.

I don't see the big deal. If I got upset about every American celebrity that spoke ill of America, I wouldn't have any time to get upset about the Foreign celebrities that speak ill of America. Not really, but you get my point. Unless you're uncivilized and stupid.

People, and even celebrities, will always find something to harp on about America. Why? Because in a country of 300+ million people, we've probably got someone you can hate. Ignoring for the moment that it is the very same 'uncivilized' and 'unintelligent' populous that allows Ms. Pa|trow to live the life that she does, if she has disdain for such people there are certainly plenty in America. There are also, however, plenty of exceedingly brilliant Americans that would take exception to the actress' characterization.

America is a one-stop-shop for stuff that pisses people off. If, like most of Europe, you hold disdain for prudish religious types, America was founded by them. If, like Islamic extremists, you have a homicidal rage for secularists with licentious morals, there are plenty of those in America as well. Hate war-mongering conservatives? Hate tree-hugging liberals? Hate black people? Jews? Country music? You'll find plenty of all of it in America. It comes with the territory of being a 'melting pot.'

Personally, I find it a bit unintelligent to over-generalize a nation as large and diverse as America. But maybe that's just me.

I've heard several people saying that they plan to boycott Pa|trow's movies. I was all in favor of that until I realized that I had, in fact, never paid to see one of her movies in the first place. (Incidentally, I had a similar realization when people vowed never to buy another Dixie Chicks album.)

Dear Great Satan America

2006-11-29T18:37:00.000-05:00

As you may or may not know, the president of Iran wrote us a letter today. The sheer absurdity of it all defies description, but since snide remarks are one of my specialties, I decided to provide you with the letter complete with my commentary. My comments are in bold, as if you needed that explanation. It's pretty long, so bear with me:

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
O, Almighty God, bestow upon humanity the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers.

Noble Americans,

Were we not faced with the activities of the US administration in this part of the world and the negative ramifications of those activities on the daily lives of our peoples, coupled with the many wars and calamities caused by the US administration (Yes, because before Bush was president, there were no wars in the region) as well as the tragic consequences of US interference in other countries? (Excuse us for raining on your authoritarian, iron-fisted, unjust parade.)

Were the American people not God-fearing, truth loving, and justice seeking, while the US administration actively conceals the truth and impedes any objective portrayal of current realities; (You mean like how there's no free press, politicians must be approved by religious leaders and dissenters are tortured to death? Oh wait, that's your country...)

And if we did not share a common responsibility to promote and protect freedom and human dignity and integrity; (You could start by letting religious minorities, you know, live. And then maybe consider letting them practice their religion without being, you know, tortured to death. And then maybe think about giving women rights. Sort of a human dignity 'starter kit.')

Then, there would have been little urgency to have a dialogue with you.
While Divine providence has placed Iran and the United States geographically far apart, we should be cognizant that human values and our common human spirit, which proclaim the dignity and exalted worth of all human beings, (I'm just going to go ahead and assume you don't mean Jews, as you don't really consider Jews to be human beings) have brought our two great nations of Iran and the United States closer together. (No, I'm pretty sure it was the oil and your repeated threats to our allies. Otherwise we couldn't care less.)

Both our nations are God-fearing, truth loving and justice seeking, and both seek dignity, respect and perfection.

Both greatly value and readily embrace the promotion of human ideals such as compassion, empathy, respect for the rights of human beings, securing justice and equity, and defending the innocent and the weak against oppressors and bullies. (Again, you must not be talking about Jews, given how you as recently as last week called for the destruction of Israel, which would constitute about five million Jews.)

We are all inclined towards the good, and towards extending a helping hand to one another, particularly to those in need.

We all deplore injustice, the trampling of peoples' rights and the intimidation and humiliation of human beings.

We all detest darkness, deceit, lies and distortion, (Ok now you're talking about the Jews...)and seek and admire salvation, enlightenment, sincerity and honesty.

The pure human essence of the two great nations of Iran and the United States testify to the veracity of these statements.

Noble Americans,

Our nation has always extended its hand of friendship to all other nations of the world. (Except Israel, which you apparently don't consider a real country. Nor Iraq, when you were at war with it for about a decade.)

Hundreds of thousands of my Iranian compatriots are living amongst you in friendship and peace, and are contributing positively to your society. (And the second they set foot back in Iran, they will be thrown in jail and tortured to death.) Our people have been in contact with you over the past many years and have maintained these contacts despite the unnecessary restrictions of US authorities. (You mean like making sure they're not planning acts of terrorism? Yeah, totally unnecessary.)

As mentioned, we have common concerns, face similar challenges, and are pained by the sufferings and afflictions in the world.

We, like you, are aggrieved by the ever-worsening pain and misery of the Palestinian people. (The who?) Persistent aggressions by the Zionists are making life more and more difficult for the rightful owners of the land of Palestine. (The Jews are making it harder on themselves?) In broad daylight, in front of cameras and before the eyes of the world, they are bombarding innocent defenseless civilians (who are being used by terrorists as human shields), bulldozing houses (of said terrorists), firing machine guns at students in the streets and alleys (who throw rocks at them), and subjecting their families to endless grief.
No day goes by without a new crime.

Palestinian mothers, just like Iranian and American mothers, love their children (but less than they hate Jews), and are painfully bereaved by the imprisonment, wounding and murder of their children. (But celebrate when they blow themselves up in the name of Jihad) What mother wouldn't? (I'm guessing yours.)
For 60 years, the Zionist regime has driven millions of the inhabitants of Palestine out of their homes. (Might wanna check the math on that...) Many of these refugees have died in the Diaspora and in refugee camps. Their children have spent their youth in these camps and are aging while still in the hope of returning to homeland. (And driving all the Jews into the sea, or so says the charter of essentially every Palestinian organization.)

You know well that the US administration has persistently provided blind and blanket support to the Zionist regime, has emboldened it to continue its crimes, and has prevented the UN Security Council from condemning it. (Yeah, because the UN Security Council is an objective organization.)

Who can deny such broken promises and grave injustices towards humanity by the US administration? (Anyone with a reasonable thought process.)

Governments are there to serve their own people. No people wants to side with or support any oppressors. But regrettably, the US administration disregards even its own public opinion and remains in the forefront of supporting the trampling of the rights of the Palestinian people. (Again, what Palestinian people?)

Let's take a look at Iraq . Since the commencement of the US military presence in Iraq , hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, maimed or displaced. (Might want to check that math, too.) Terrorism in Iraq has grown exponentially. (Thanks to the money from your country) With the presence of the US military in Iraq , nothing has been done to rebuild the ruins, to restore the infrastructure or to alleviate poverty. The US Government used the pretext of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq , but later it became clear that that was just a lie and a deception. (Did you get Cindy Sheehan to help you with this letter?)
Although Saddam was overthrown and people are happy about his departure, the pain and suffering of the Iraqi people has persisted and has even been aggravated. (Again, because of the funds from your country.)

In Iraq , about one hundred and fifty thousand American soldiers, separated from their families and loved ones, are operating under the command of the current US administration. A substantial number of them have been killed or wounded (by bombs built and paid for in your country) and their presence in Iraq has tarnished the image of the American people and government. (Yes, because before we were in Iraq we were loved and adored by the rest of the world.)

Their mothers and relatives have, on numerous occasions, displayed their discontent with the presence of their sons and daughters in a land thousands of miles away from US shores. American soldiers often wonder why they have been sent to Iraq . (Yeah, it's called freedom of speech. You should try it.)

I consider it extremely unlikely that you, the American people, consent to the billions of dollars of annual expenditure from your treasury for this military misadventure. (There are plenty that do)

Noble Americans,

You have heard that the US administration is kidnapping its presumed opponents (a.k.a. terrorist operatives) from across the globe and arbitrarily holding them without trial or any international supervision in horrendous prisons that it has established in various parts of the world. God knows who these detainees actually are, and what terrible fate awaits them. (Can't be any worse than the fate of religious minorities and political dissidents in your country)

You have certainly heard the sad stories of the Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib prisons. (They embarrassed the terrorists! The humanity!) The US administration attempts to justify them through its proclaimed "war on terror." But every one knows that such behavior, in fact, offends global public opinion, exacerbates resentment and thereby spreads terrorism, and tarnishes the US image and its credibility among nations. (I don't even know where to begin with that one...)

The US administration's illegal and immoral behavior is not even confined to outside its borders. You are witnessing daily that under the pretext of "the war on terror," civil liberties in the United States are being increasingly curtailed. Even the privacy of individuals is fast losing its meaning. Judicial due process and fundamental rights are trampled upon. Private phones are tapped (that's perfectly legal...), suspects are arbitrarily arrested (like who?), sometimes beaten in the streets, or even shot to death. (That has nothing to do with the administration, that's just poor law enforcement decisions)

I have no doubt that the American people do not approve of this behavior and indeed deplore it.

The US administration does not accept accountability before any organization, institution or council. The US administration has undermined the credibility of international organizations, particularly the United Nations and its Security Council. (The UN undermines its own credibility by doing things like condemning Israel but ignoring blatant human rights abuses) But, I do not intend to address all the challenges and calamities in this message.

The legitimacy, power and influence of a government do not emanate from its arsenals of tanks, fighter aircrafts, missiles or nuclear weapons. (But it sure as hell helps) Legitimacy and influence reside in sound logic, quest for justice and compassion and empathy for all humanity. (Good thing we have both, huh?) The global position of the United States is in all probability weakened because the administration has continued to resort to force, to conceal the truth, and to mislead the American people about its policies and practices.

Undoubtedly, the American people are not satisfied with this behavior and they showed their discontent in the recent elections. (So you're saying you're a Democrat?) I hope that in the wake of the mid-term elections, the administration of President Bush will have heard and will heed the message of the American people.

My questions are the following:

Is there not a better approach to governance? (What, Sharia law? No thanks.)
Is it not possible to put wealth and power in the service of peace, stability, prosperity and the happiness of all peoples through a commitment to justice and respect for the rights of all nations, instead of aggression and war? (We'll do that just as soon as you and Kim Jong Il and all your other buddies stop developing nuclear weapons.)

We all condemn terrorism, because its victims are the innocent. (But you've got no qualms about funding terrorism, apparently)

But, can terrorism be contained and eradicated through war, destruction and the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents? (That's the plan)
If that were possible, then why has the problem not been resolved? (Because you continue to teach your children to hate)

The sad experience of invading Iraq is before us all.
What has blind support for the Zionists by the US administration brought for the American people? (You're right, we should just abandon Israel because it upsets despots like you.) It is regrettable that for the US administration, the interests of these occupiers supersedes the interests of the American people and of the other nations of the world.

What have the Zionists done for the American people that the US administration considers itself obliged to blindly support these infamous aggressors? Is it not because they have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors? (Yes, we're beholden to Israel because Jews control all the money, Hollywood and the media. Mr. Gibson, is that you?)
I recommend that in a demonstration of respect for the American people and for humanity, the right of Palestinians to live in their own homeland should be recognized so that millions of Palestinian refugees can return to their homes and the future of all of Palestine and its form of government be determined in a referendum. This will benefit everyone. (Except Israel. But they don't deserve to exist, right?)

Now that Iraq has a Constitution and an independent Assembly and Government, would it not be more beneficial to bring the US officers and soldiers home, and to spend the astronomical US military expenditures in Iraq for the welfare and prosperity of the American people? (Actually no, because we don't trust people like you with a vulnerable Iraq. And secondly, it's not the government's responsibility to ensure its citizens' prosperity) As you know very well, many victims of Katrina continue to suffer, and countless Americans continue to live in poverty and homelessness. (Right, and bringing home the troops from Iraq would solve all of that.)

I'd also like to say a word to the winners of the recent elections in the US : (Please, by all means...)

The United States has had many administrations; some who have left a positive legacy, and others that are neither remembered fondly by the American people nor by other nations. (Like Jimmy Carter's)

Now that you control an important branch of the US Government, you will also be held to account by the people and by history. (Which is why they will not be reelected.)

If the US Government meets the current domestic and external challenges with an approach based on truth and Justice, it can remedy some of the past afflictions and alleviate some of the global resentment and hatred of America . (Yes, if we just surrender to everyone else's demands, everyone will love us) But if the approach remains the same, it would not be unexpected that the American people would similarly reject the new electoral winners, although the recent elections, rather than reflecting a victory, in reality point to the failure of the current administration's policies. (Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then...) These issues had been extensively dealt with in my letter to President Bush earlier this year. (Yes, because that was so influential in our policymaking.)

To sum up:

It is possible to govern based on an approach that is distinctly different from one of coercion, force and injustice. (I'm glad you can admit that. Now if you could just implement it.)
It is possible to sincerely serve and promote common human values, and honesty and compassion.
It is possible to provide welfare and prosperity without tension, threats, imposition or war. (That's great. I'll forward it along to Kim Jong Il.)
It is possible to lead the world towards the aspired perfection by adhering to unity, monotheism, morality and spirituality and drawing upon the teachings of the Divine Prophets. (Someone get the ACLU on the phone...)
Then, the American people, who are God-fearing and followers of Divine religions, will overcome every difficulty.

What I stated represents some of my anxieties and concerns. (Well I hope you feel better...)

I am confident that you, the American people, will play an instrumental role in the establishment of justice and spirituality throughout the world. (I'm pretty sure we already have, but thanks for the encouragement) The promises of the Almighty and His prophets will certainly be realized; Justice and Truth will prevail and all nations will live a true life in a climate replete with love, compassion and fraternity. (And without those pesky Jews, right?)

The US governing establishment, the authorities and the powerful should not choose irreversible paths. As all prophets have taught us, injustice and transgression will eventually bring about decline and demise. Today, the path of return to faith and spirituality is open and unimpeded.

We should all heed the Divine Word of the Holy Qur'an: (Ooh ooh, read the part about Jews hiding behind rocks and the rocks saying 'there's a Jew behind me, come and kill him!' I'm sure you have that page dog-eared.)

" But those who repent, have faith and do good may receive Salvation. Your Lord, alone, creates and chooses as He will, and others have no part in His choice; Glorified is God and Exalted above any partners they ascribe to Him. " (28:67-68)
I pray to the Almighty to bless the Iranian and American nations and indeed all nations of the world with dignity and success. (Except, of course, Israel. You can't pray for both its success AND its destruction, can you?)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
29 November 2006

Weekend Upd@te

2006-11-23T22:49:00.000-05:00

...except it's Thursday, and Tin@ Fey is in no way involved. Which is a shame, really. 'Cause she's...nevermind. This post is going to be a little more personal than usual, so uh, consider yourself advised...or whatever. As the name of the blog implies, what follows truly are random musings. And with about a dozen various guns behind me, I suppose I can be considered armed for the time being. So here goes:

The trip to Georgia was another exercise in torture survival. The 670 mile trip that usually takes around 10 hours actually took around 14. For those of you scoring at home, that's averaging less than 50 miles per hour. In other words, that's like going 670 miles down S@ndy Creek Rd. (for those of you in Atlanta) or Highway 78 (for those of you in Athens) or the GW Parkway (for those of you in D.C.). You get the drift. Maddeningly slow. It never ceases to amaze me how simply unqualified so many drivers are. You would think there'd be like, some sort of test that people had to pass in order to operate a vehicle. I was able to enter some weird zen-like state, however, so it didn't bother me too much.

I have this strange condition where I don't really get homesick until I actually go back home. But once I do, the homesickness comes all at once and with compounded interest. That moment was last night somewhere around exit 106 off of I-85, between Highway 316 and Ple@sant Hi|| Rd.

I'm not entirely sure what it is, but something about suburban Atlanta is strangely comforting to me. I suppose it could be because it's where I lived for the first 22 years of my life, but even so. I wouldn't say I'm so much drawn to Georgia as much as it's the one place (or at least one of the few) that I feel comfortable. I got the sensation that I could completely uproot from D.C., and reestablish myself there (here?) and not particularly regret it. I obviously have no plans to do so anytime soon (at least until the Bush administration) but it was a new feeling, and one that I'm ok with. Anyway. Just for what it's worth. I could elaborate, but another time. I now digress.

Things are different being home. All the neighbors have moved or are moving. (Not that the neighborhood is going downhill by any means. They're just getting older and want to live in smaller houses with smaller yards.) Jackie still isn't quite Jackie. She can walk fairly well, but her legs still aren't strong enough to run or jump. Vets say it might be a year before any of that.

My cousin Tony also lives here now. Those of you that know the story understand the kind of baggage that brings. Those of you who don't can ask me if you like. It's just not my place to make it public knowledge in this forum.

My family (and most everyone else) seems to think that because I work for the federal government that I'm somehow vital to the functioning of our democracy. As untrue as this may be, I really see no reason to tell them any different.

I finally saw "Th@nk You For Smoking." Loved it, as many people told me I would. Nick N@ylor is my hero. During one particular scene, I made the comment that that's the kind of father I see myself being. I was surprised to hear my own mother agree. I'm not sure if this is good or bad. Your insight is welcome. On a side note, I still don't really get the whole Charles-looks-like-Ad@m-Brody thing. I mean, yeah, one of the pictures on his website totally looks like me. But...eh. I'm under-whelmed.

My mom has this weird habit of not getting film developed for literally years. This week she developed a roll of unknown film, only to find that it was from my college graduation. For reasons I don't particularly feel like getting into, I found it oddly depressing. Go figure.

Anyway. That's enough musing for now. I'll do something more substantial at some point.

Athens tomorrow. Seriously looking forward to that. Then back home Saturday night just in time to drive back to D.C. Sunday. In case you were wondering.

2006-11-21T23:31:00.000-05:00

Yeah, so I haven't posted in a while. To those even minorly inconvenienced by this, I apologize. This whole having-a-job thing makes it difficult to sit in front of a computer for any substantial period of time. Anyway. Enough excuses. Here's a little update.

I went to my sixth Ben Fo|ds concert this past Wednesday. It was great, as I've come to expect them to be. My official summary will come later.

I'm also leaving in about 8 hours to drive back to Georgia for the weekend. The weather is supposed to suck the entire time, so I have that to look forward to.

I hope to go to the game in Athens, but we'll see how that works out.

Otherwise, it's pretty much the same old stuff. As far as Thanksgiving, I have more things to be thankful for than I can could possibly enumerate, as much as I might complain at times.

Hope everyone has a pleasant holiday. I'll be back in D.C. Sunday night. In the meantime, Go Dawgs.

Initial reactions

2006-11-08T01:32:00.000-05:00

Obviously not a good night for Republicans. Pretty much what I expected, though admittedly slightly worse. All of the votes haven't been counted, but as it stands now, Democrats will end up with a decent majority in the House and at least tie in the Senate, or maybe even get a one-seat majority.

But, liberal celebrations and conservative depression, I think, is slightly unwarranted. In the Senate, the new Democrats aren't much different from the Republicans they replaced. In Rhode Island, Whi+ehouse replaces an anti-war, anti-tax cut, pro-abortion Republican. In Pennsylvania, they're getting an anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-gay marriage Democrat to replace their anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-gay marriage Republican.

So, I really don't see much changing after the election. Granted, it's only a few hours removed, so that can certainly change. But I don't see much getting done in the next two years. I also think the Democrats now have ample opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot for 2008.

I do hope, however, that Republicans get the message and cut the crap. Go back to 1994 and do what you were elected to do. But I'm not betting on it.

I'm going to bed.

11th Hour Election Thoughts

2006-11-06T14:47:00.000-05:00

With less than 24 hours to go before the polls open (and with many people voting early) I thought it was appropriate to offer some last minute thoughts (and maybe some predictions) on the whole thing.

First of all, for dorks like me, this is like watching the BCS Championship when a team I actually care about is playing. Starting at about 7:00 tomorrow, I'm going to be glued to my computer, obsessively checking the returns. I can't wait.

I'm sure I've said before (but am currently too lazy to actually link) that this election cycle is going to be quite a dirty one, and that certainly came true. Particularly in Virginia. From the commercials I've seen lately, all an uninformed observer would know is that George A||en has had his picture made with the President and that Jim Webb is a chauvinistic pervert. I have to say that I'm actually pretty disappointed in A||en's campaign. It just doesn't seem like it was run very well, and he handled his bad PR about as poorly as possible. If he'd stuck to issues, he'd be up double digits. Alas, he didn't, and the race is much closer than it should be. It's a shame, really.

In Maryland, however, I've been pleasantly surprised by Michae| Stee|e. His campaign has been almost flawless and he says what he means. A month ago, I wouldn't have given him much of a chance. But given his recent endorsements, he actually has a chance to pull it off. Either way, it's going to be closer than anyone would've thought.

As far as predictions go, things are much too volatile right now to make any meaningful guesses. Though in the interest of full disclosure, back in March I predicted that Republicans would probably lose about ten seats -- falling short of the 15 the Democrats need to take control of the House. For the sake of consistency, I'll stick with that -- with the qualifier that it was made seven months ago.

While I'm a little wary of making predictions of what this election is, I'm a bit more comfortable making predictions about what it isn't. It isn't going to be a massive 1994-style election. While the Democrats have a decent chance of claiming control of the House (a net of at least 15 seats), I would be absolutely shocked if they ended up with a 10 seat majority (a net of 25 seats). That is to say, the Democrats might gain a nominal majority, but their governing authority will be virtually nonexistent.

In the Senate, the chances for a Democrat take over are substantially lower. For a Democrat takeover, they would essentially have to run the table against every vulnerable Republican. If Stee|e wins in Maryland, they can forget it. It's more likely that the Senate will end up 50-50 (which becomes 51-50 with Cheney's tie-breaking vote) or with a smaller Republican majority.

Generally, it is highly likely that we will not know the outcome on election night. It could be several days before we know who really controls the House and Senate.

All in all, I wouldn't believe the hype of a massive Democrat wave. But, as usual, I could certainly be wrong.

Eh, just for fun, I'll go ahead and say I think the House will end up 220 Republican, 215 Democrats, give or take a few seats. In the Senate, I'll say 51 Republican, 47 Democrats, and two Independents (Lieberman and Jeffords).

We'll see.

Most importantly, go vote. But, do me a favor and only vote if you know who you're voting for. If you don't know anything about your candidates other than the D or R next to their name, please abstain.

That is all.

Close enough for government work

2006-10-30T13:44:00.000-05:00

To give you an idea of the kind of people with whom I work (not directly, but in the same building), check out this exchange between two unidentified employees overheard this morning in the hall.

Unidentified employee #1: What time is it?
Unidentified employee #2: About 9:30.
Unidentified employee #1: 9:30? Oh! I forgot to set my clock back. I thought it was 10:30. Wow, I actually got to work on time for once.

Your tax dollars at work. Well, sort of. "At work" might not be the best description.

(And for the record, I'm on my lunch break. No tax dollars going to waste here.)

Sheer brilliance

2006-10-26T11:40:00.000-04:00

This is the funniest thing I've seen in a while. It's something the whole family can enjoy -- provided that family roots for an SEC team that hasn't made a pact with Satan himself. (Tennessee tried, but as it turns out, Phi| Fu|muer has no soul to sell.)

Thanks to Brett, via WDH, via DawgRun.

We evil Republicans want you to suffer

2006-10-24T17:27:00.000-04:00

Some of you might be aware of the political ads featuring Michae| J. F0x and his support for stem cell research. In each instance, he endorses the Democrat candidate over the Republican because, he claims, that the Republicans oppose stem cell research. These ads have generated quite a bit of controversy, mostly because they're wildly inaccurate and misleading.

First of all, there is no Republican that I know of that opposes stem cell research on the whole. There are, however, different forms of stem cell research. I'm certainly no expert on the practice, but as I understand it there are three main forms. One involving the stem cells from adults, another involving the stem cells found in umbilical cords and another involving stem cells harvested from human embryos, i.e. fertilized human eggs.

The point of contention is in the last form of research in which human embryos are destroyed in order to obtain the stem cells. This gets into a rather questionable area of ethics, given the debate over when life begins, what constitutes life, etc. Most, if not all, opponents of embryonic stem cell research do so on the grounds of their belief that the destruction of the human embryo constitutes the destruction of a human life. To my knowledge, there are no credible opponents to the other forms of stem cell research.

Thus, characterizing opponents of embryonic stem cell research as opponents of stem cell research in general is incredibly unfair and inaccurate -- especially given the implication that opponents of embryonic stem cell research would rather have people suffer from diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer’s, etc.

Moreover, some Democrats have been grossly irresponsible in characterizing the debate over embryonic stem cell research. First of all, such research is not illegal, nor is there any talk of such. There are, however, limitations on federal funding for such research. But the research can still be pursued with private and, presumably, state funds.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, Vice presidentia| candidate John Edw@rds claimed that "If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." That statement is/was so outrageously inaccurate that it defies description. First of all, medical science is not even close to curing spinal cord injuries, with or without stem cells, embryonic or otherwise. Secondly, to imply that the Bush administration's policy on stem cells was somehow responsible for the continued paralysis of people like Christopher Reeve borders on slanderous.

There also seems to be emerging conventional wisdom that stem cells will lead to cures for diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. At least in the case of Alzheimer's, this does not seem to be the case. This is not to say, however, that there will never be a cure -- simply that it will not likely come from stem cells. There have, in fact, been remarkable advancements in the treatment of this disease that have nothing to do with stem cells.

I haven't seen any data on embryonic stem cell use in treating Parkinson's disease, but I can't imagine the prognosis is much different.

I understand as well as anyone the desperate hope for a miracle cure for the world's most debilitating diseases. But I'm afraid that, in some cases, such desperate hope can cloud the judgment of those affected. People want so desperately to believe that stem cells will lead to a cure to whatever affliction they may have that they will ignore the ethical questions of such a cure -- and even ignore the medical evidence that such a cure is unlikely.

Many supporters of embryonic stem cell research point to Nancy Reagan's support as evidence that it is a cause that conservatives can join. Politicization aside, Nancy Reagan deeply loved her husband. I would imagine that she would have supported any measure possible to cure his disease. (For those of you living under a rock for the last 15 years, or maybe just disgustingly uniformed, Ronald Reagan suffered from Alzheimer’s.)

The same is true for Michae| J. Fox. He so desperately wants to be cured of his disease that he will grasp onto whatever hope he can find, regardless of its medical validity.

All in all, to mischaracterize such an emotional, ethical issue is the dirtiest of all the dirty politics. It really is a shame that one of the few issues that enjoys broad bi-partisan support has to be politicized in such a manner. People like Michae| J. Fox would do well to take a cue from L@nce Arms+rong, who remains diligently non-partisan in his lobbying for medical research.

Good riddance to bad rubbish

2006-10-20T16:13:00.000-04:00

Two and a half weeks out of the election, conventional wisdom says that things aren’t looking good for the Republicans. Actually, conventional wisdom says that Democrats should be picking up in the neighborhood of 40 seats, given that it’s the midterm election of a president’s second term. But there are no credible sources predicting that.

That said, I’ve never been much for conventional wisdom. So I don’t think it’s as bad for Republicans and people would have you believe. Don’t get me wrong – times certainly aren’t good for the Republicans. But I’m not buying into the whole doomsday theory. Of course, I could very well be wrong and the Democrats could pick up both the house and the senate. I guess we’ll see.

There are a couple of races in which Republicans are at a disadvantage that I just can’t be too upset about. One is more of an active dislike, the other is more of a passive discomfort.

The first race is that of Linco|n Ch@fee, Senator from Rhode Is|and. I’ve never much liked him as a senator. His credentials as a Republican have long been in question, and beyond that, he’s simply inconsistent (or, perhaps more accurately, unreliability). And if there’s one thing that absolutely irritates me it’s inconsistency. So, my reasoning is, if he doesn’t normally vote like a Republican and his support for the party is unreliable, I see no point in keeping him in the senate. So if he ends up losing, which is looking more and more likely, I hope the door doesn’t hit him in – well, I just hope to the door doesn’t hit him.

The other race is that of Pennsy|vania senator Rick S@ntorum. Now, I probably agree with Rick S@ntorum on most things. But there is just something about him that makes me uncomfortable. I can’t explain it any other way than he has a certain “creepy factor.” There are certain ways of presenting the Republican opinion so as to not be creepy and off-putting, and it just seems to me that he doesn’t do this effectively. I don’t actively want him to lose, but if can’t advance the cause without being divisive, his liability outweighs his contributions.

Having said that, I don’t consider myself to be a member of the disaffected conservatives who wish to see the Republicans lose power simply to “teach them a lesson.” Granted, the current Republican administration has done plenty of things that disagree with. But I agree with the Democrats even less and on more important issues.

It’s somewhat to nature of the American political beast that the choice is always between the better of two crappy options – a giant douche and a turd sandwich, if you will. But until the system changes, which is highly unlikely, we have to work with what we’ve got. The Republicans are wrong on plenty, but at least the majority of them understand the conflict we’re in. Democrats have offered no viable alternative (the operative word being “viable”) to the current situation, and thus have nothing for me.

I will say, however, that if the Democrats blow this election, they might as well pack it in. If they can’t beat the Republicans when they insist on beating themselves, they’re obviously not resonating with the American people and need to seriously reconsider their platform.

Also, in the event that the Democrats do win the House and or Senate, they won’t have much to celebrate. Their majorities will like be so narrow that they will not be able to enforce what little legislative agenda they have. And in the Senate, the Republicans will likely just filibuster anything the Democrats propose. Payback’s a bitch. Also, they will be nowhere near the 3/4 majority to override a presidential veto. Sure, they might be able to call for investigations on the administration, but we saw how well that worked last time.

There will, however, be much more political maneuvering for 2008. So I guess we have THAT to look forward to.

You can't win 'em all (trust me on this one)

2006-10-15T15:43:00.000-04:00

Wow. Just wow. I wish that was all I could say, but brevity never has been my strong suit, so allow me to elaborate.

I never really had high hopes for the Georgi@ football team this year. We just couldn't seem to get it together. We kept barely squeaking by against opponents we should've been absolutely destroying. It was only a matter of time before it caught up with us. It just so happened that it caught up with us against Tennessee.

I also think we had a serious lack of confidence which lead to some, shall we say, uninspired performances. I think the loss to V@nderbilt will only compound this. I hate to say I've already written of our season, but at this point we're only playing for pride and I don't really like our chances. Granted, with our luck we'll win out, beat Florida and Auburn, and it won't matter because of the loss to Vandy. Though I have to say, if we keep playing like we have been, we'll be lucky to win two more games. I really hate to say things like that, and I'm probably committing some sort of blasphemy, but that's how I see it.

I will say that I don't think the blame for our failures can fall at the feet of one person. There's been a recent swell in ridership on the "Fire Wi||ie Martinez" band wagon, but I haven't yet bought my ticket. As I see it, our main weakness on defense is our safety corps. Our pass rushers are great, our linebackers and corners get the job done, but our safeties are young and inexperienced, and have a tendency to get burned. They just can't stop passes yet.

We also aren't clicking on offense, but that'll come in time as well. The problem we have there is the quarterback(s) with the most talent don't have the experience, and the quarterback with the most experience doesn't have the talent. This will hopefully be resolved next year.

In the meantime, I'm considering this a "rebuilding year." We're officially pulling a Tennessee 2005 -- starting the season in the Top 10 and just absolutely tanking.

Personally, I can't be too upset. We've played in three of the last four SEC championship games and won two of them. We've come within two points of a national championship. We've gone a combined 44-8 in that span. It's hard to keep that up year after year.

So I say we cut the Dawgs a little slack this year. I mean, we can't win all the time. This is the SEC. A real football conference.

All that said, however, if we suck like this next year I'll start getting annoyed.

Another U.N. failure

2006-10-12T21:40:00.000-04:00

Well, is there anyone who DIDN'T see this coming? When are we going to stop referring to this organization as the "United" Nations? More importantly, when are we going to recognize the impotence of this organization? When North Korea tests another nuclear weapon? When Iran tests a nuclear weapon? When Tokyo, Tel Aviv or Los Angeles disappear under a mushroom cloud? Incredible. Absolutely incredible.

655,000? Really?

2006-10-11T15:14:00.000-04:00

A new "study" was released today claiming that 655,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed since the start of the Iraq war. That sounded wildly inflated to me, so being the dork I am, I ran the math to see how many deaths that would be per day.

The study allegedly takes data from the start of the Iraq war through July. By my calculations, that is 1,229 days (March 20, 2003 -- the start of Oper@tion |raqi Freedom -- through July 31, 2006.) Thus averaging out to 533 deaths per day.

This, to me, sounds absolutely incredible. And not the good kind of incredible. I'm talking about incredible as in lacking credibility. An average of 533 deaths per day extrapolates out to nearly 4,000 deaths per week and nearly 16,000 deaths per month. And that's on average. Presumably there would be times with more than that. I just don't buy it. Say what you will about the Bush Administration's secrecy or the press' incompetence on covering the issue, but if 16,000 were really dying every month...it would be all over the news.

The survey method of the study also seems slightly, uh, less than reliable. Apparently to gather this information, the surveyors interviewed some 1,849 households. Gee, interviewing people instead of relying on a body count? How could that possibly leave room for error? Call me cynical, but I find it hard to believe that everyone interviewed was absolutely precise and, well, honest. Even if one person exaggerated by, say, one death, that would add more than 2,000 deaths to the total figure. Now say for the sake of argument that one percent of the households interviewed exaggerated by one death. That would add almost 38,000 "fake" deaths to the final figure. So you see how quickly the number can inflate and become completely inaccurate.

Granted, tens of thousands of civilians have verifiably died since the start of the war, and that's tragic. But it's also pretty tragic that such a number would be inflated and used as a political tool less than four weeks from an election.

Thoughts on the generic ballot

2006-10-10T19:16:00.000-04:00

Before I start, just as an update on the whole Nor+h Kore@ thing: apparently we're still not sure if the weapon the Koreans tested was nuclear. In layman's terms, it just didn't have the power expected from a nuclear weapon. So I'm still skeptical about the whole thing. But even if they just 'pretended' to set off a nuke, they still deserve an unmitigated ass-kicking.

Anyway, on to what I was actually writing a post on.

Various media sources have been breathlessly reporting on the gap between Democrats and Republicans in the so-called "generic ballot" poll. For those of you that are slightly less dorky than I am, the generic ballot poll essentially asks the question: In the upcoming election, are you more likely to vote for a Democrat candidate or Republican candidate?

Historically, Republicans have never done well in this poll. In 1994, when they picked up 50+ house seats, they only lead in the poll by seven points. Currently, Democrats are leading in the various versions of the poll by an average of about 15 points.

Granted, things aren't good for Republicans right now, but I think that number is wildly inflated.

With the current scandal going on right now, the question might as well be "In the upcoming election, are you more likely to vote for Mark Fo|ey, or anyone but Mark Fo|ey?" Of course there's going to be a little backlash against the party of a politician mired in such a disgusting scandal.

If America had a parliamentary system, I'd be more worried. But seeing as how congressional elections are quite isolated (roughly 435,000 voters per district) I don't see the generic ballot being all that accurate.

Actually, when asked about their own Representatives, 60 percent of those polled approve of the job their representative is doing. So even if there's a 60 percent incumbent retention rate, Republicans would still have a 220-215 majority. At least by my math, which could definitely be wrong.

All that said, it's entirely possible for the Republicans to lose the house. At this point, I'd almost say it's probable. I just don't think it's going to be a rout. Granted, the election is still four weeks away, and a lot can happen in four weeks...i.e. North Korea.

So it's still up in the air. I just wouldn't get too excited/depressed (depending on your political persuasion) over the generic ballot.

Update: The world is still going to hell

2006-10-09T00:05:00.000-04:00

Well, scratch everything I said before. Apparently we are now confirming that the North Koreans did test a nuclear weapon.

There's not much else to say at this point. But it's going to be interesting, to say the least, to see what happens in the morning. I'm not feeling very optimistic about the U.N.'s ability to handle this.

My advice: buckle up. And maybe get a helmet.

Breaking news: The world is going to hell

2006-10-08T23:29:00.000-04:00

Not that any of you come to me for breaking news, but I get some weird joy out of doing stuff like this.

So the North Koreans are claiming they tested a nuclear weapon. As it stands now, I'm not sure I buy it. Here's why:

- The U.S. Geological Society is saying they haven't detected any seismic activity on the Korean Penninsula in the last 48 hours. As you might imagine, detonating a nuclear bomb underground tends to make seismographs wiggle a little bit. There are no reports of such wiggling.

- The North Koreans are claiming that no radiation leaked from the site. Riiiight. Nuclear bombs are designed to release radiation. That's their whole purpose. The fact that no radiation was released from the site seems a little fishy to me.

- The North Koreans aren't plastering video of the test all over the place. If they're so proud of this, as they say they are, I would think they'd be breathlessly parading out the proof. Since they aren't, I'm a little suspicious.

- No one can confirm the test as of yet. The only source we have that's saying the test went forward is the North Koreans. Normally things like this would race around the world. The longer this takes to confirm, the less likely it is to be true.

More on this as it happens, but those are just my initial reactions.

Ok ok, I'll post. Just stop hitting me.

2006-10-06T13:09:00.000-04:00

I apologize for the distinct lack of bloginess lately. After the repeated “what the hell?” e-mails and my demotion by Brett, I figured I should get my act together.

In my own defense, my blogging remission is not because I don’t have anything to say, but rather that I have too much to say and not enough time to say it. Aaaanyway…in an effort to catch up, here’s what been going on lately:

Started my job at the Depar+ment of L@bor Tuesday. So far so good. They’ve got me working on an archiving project. I’ve now become a self-hating bureaucrat. I’ve got mixed feelings about this, but I’ll get to it later.

Something that’s been irking me lately has been the whole midterm election thing. I said before that it was going to get really low and dirty, and it has. I was watching the UGA/O|e Miss game with some of the DC Alumni, and a campaign ad for one of the Maryland candidates for Senate played during halftime (the fact that we were actually in Virginia notwithstanding). It just seemed utterly unnecessary. I know the political persuasion of very few of my alumni friends, and I’m fine with that. We’re there to watch football, drink alcohol, and make fun of each other. I’m perfectly content leaving politics out of it completely.

What’s been irritating me most, however, is the whole “George A||en is a racist” campaign. Granted, there was the whole “M@caca” incident, where he referred to an opposing political operative – who has Indian ancestry – as “M@caca.” Apparently, the word was used by European settlers to (negatively) refer to native populations in Africa.

Now, call me cynical, but I find it quite hard to believe that Senator A||en knew this and then used it in such a way – particularly when he knew he was being video taped. As I see it, it’s just an incredibly unfortunate coincidence. Of course, it probably wasn’t the best idea to make any remarks on the man’s ethnicity at all. But to think it was some roundabout racial slur, I think, is a bit of a stretch.

Then there are the accusations that Senator A||en used the “n-word” back in the 70’s, as well as stuffed a severed deer head into the mailbox of a black family.

Now, I don’t know if these things happened or didn’t happen. I have my doubts about the severed deer head. First of all, there’s no police report of any such thing ever happening. It would stand to reason that such an incident would at least be reported. I could be wrong. At any rate, there’s no proof that it actually happened.

As far as using the “n-word” in college, that at least seems plausible. It’s not that much of a stretch to think that some college kids from Virginia, particularly football players, may have said some politically incorrect things. But there’s a difference, at least in my opinion, between making racial jokes and being a racist. Hell, Rober+ Byrd, right next door in West Virginia, said the “n-word” – on television no less – in 2001. And he’s in his 30th term as senator. (Don’t look that up.)

Most importantly, why are these accusations just now coming out? George A||en has been a congressman, a governor, and a senator before. It just seems a little too politically convenient that this is just now coming out. What, did these people just all of a sudden remember that George A||en is a horrible racist? That’s like remembering a priest molested you once the Catholic Church starts settling lawsuits. It smacks of opportunism.

At any rate, thus far it looks like A||en will only win reelection by five points instead of 15. That’s a shame. He probably also spent a little more money than he hoped, putting him a little behind for his presidential bid. But, it could be worse.

More to come on the election as a whole. In the words of M@tt Drudge: “Developing…”

Tuesday morning

2006-09-11T02:34:00.000-04:00

I didn't sleep well last night. It was much too hot in my dorm and we don't have air conditioning. Pretty typical for Georgia summers, I guess. My bed is uncomfortable and the sun has already brightened up the room enough to render sleep impossible. From across the room, I can see I only have a few minutes before my alarm clock goes off, so I begrudgingly jump down from my bunk, turn it off and start gathering the various items in my shower basket for the trip down the hall.

As I enter the bathroom on the third floor of Myers Hall, I pass my friend Adam as he leaves.

"How's it going?" I ask, as I often do, expecting a normal, nonchalant answer as he continued past me. Instead, he stopped.

"Did you hear?" he asked with an unusual seriousness.

"Hear what?" I ask back, genuinely uninformed.

"Someone bombed New York and Washington."

"What do you mean bombed?" I ask. My firsts thoughts are of military planes of a hostile nation flying over Manhattan and Washington and dropping actual ordinance on strategic targets. Who could possibly be doing that? Iraq? Iran? There's no way they could logistically accomplish that. We would've seen them coming. The only ones close enough are Mexico and Canada, and they're certainly not invading us. The more I think, the more I realize that the prospect of America being under attack by a sovereign nation is, at best, wildly unlikely.

"Who was it? Do we know?"

"Well, they think it was...guess who..."

"Bin Laden or whatever his name his?"

Adam nods.

"How many people are dead?"

"I dunno. Probably thousands."

"That's insane."

"Yeah. Yeah it is. Well listen, I gotta go, but I'll see you."

"Yeah man, see you."

After he left, I was alone in the bathroom. It was eerily quiet. I was feeling an unusual mix of emotions, at least by my standards. I was a little confused, a little angry, and honestly a little scared. Most of all, I had simply no idea what to do. I was at a loss for all things. Words, thoughts, comprehension.

So, I did what I usually do when I'm in a situation beyond my comprehension or control. I prayed. I don't pray nearly as habitually as I probably should, or maybe would like, but it seemed like an appropriate time to do so. I prayed that whatever was happening would not be the prelude to a massive global conflict, though somehow I knew then that it was.

I didn't personally know anyone in either New York or D.C. (or, more accurately, Arlington, Virginia -- the site of the Pentagon) so I wasn't worried about the immediate safety of a loved one. The closest thing I had was my girlfriend in College Park, Maryland. So my first semi-coherent thought was to call her and make sure she was alright. I wasn't particularly worried -- that is, until I tried to make a call only to find that the phone lines were not working. I was eventually able to contact her via the internet, and she was, as I hoped, perfectly fine -- though a little shaken, she said.

Having verified that my own microcosm of life was as intact as possible, I decided I would at least try to fulfill my scholastic responsibilities and attend my statistics class.

I sat down in the back of the class, and my professor began the class by saying it would be permissible for people to leave their cell phones on, particularly if they were waiting to hear from someone, making the remark that her daughter was stranded in Paris due to the shutdown of air traffic.

Being unable to concentrate on anything, much less standard deviations and the like, I returned to the Myers Hall lobby where a group of students were gathered around one of the big screen televisions. They were staring at the screen in disbelief. No one was saying a word. I joined them and we sat in silence, save for my occasional -- and inappropriate -- attempts to break the silence.

We uniformly gasped as the towers collapsed. There were no words to express the emotion, but we all felt it and knew it was mutual.

I spent the rest of the day in a haze, with the occasional conversation that consisted of little more than “Can you believe it? Me either.”

Later that evening, in an impromptu show of unity, the members of Congress gathered on the steps of the Capitol building to make a statement which turned into a singing of “God Bless America.” I cried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I’ve commented many times before on the feeling after 9/11, but it certainly bears repeating. Despite the horrific events that occurred that day, there was a certain purity that came from it. On that day and the days immediately following, there was a unity and camaraderie in America and even around the world that I had never seen before nor in the five years since.

It’s simply unfathomable to me that we’re five years removed from that day. My perception of time from that day is absolutely bizarre. Parts of it seem as vivid as yesterday while others seem to be viewed through the fog of a previous life.

This anniversary brings to mind several adages I’ve heard over the years. First, “forgive and forget.” We’re always told that decent people are supposed to forgive and forget. I can’t. Not about this. I will never forget what happened that day for the rest of my life. And as far as forgiveness, I don’t see that happening either. Forgiveness implies that the guilty have asked forgiveness. That, to my knowledge, has no happened. In fact, it would seem that the exact opposite has occurred. Not only are they not sorry, but their goal is to do inflict even worse disasters upon us. What part of that warrants forgiveness?

I have much more to say on this subject, but I fear that it will be too tainted by politics to be appropriate for today. So, I will commence with that at another time. In the meantime, I ask that if you feel so compelled to comment on this post that you refrain from making political statements. At least give me the illusion that we’re unified enough to respect this anniversary without politicizing it. Thank you.

Free speech! Free speech! Free speech!

2006-09-07T17:20:00.000-04:00

Funny. Michae| Moore can make a "documentary" railing against Presiden+ Bush's alleged incompetence leading to the 9/ll attacks and Democrats get all giddy. But someone makes a made-for-TV docu-drama somewhat critical of the C|inton administration's handling of terrorism, and they get all offended. Who's stifling free speech now?

Can you imagine the uproar if Presiden+ Bush demanded that Michae| Moore change or pull his movie (even though it was full of misrepresntations)? It would've been not only riotous, but justified. Presidents (former or otherwise) shouldn't be allowed to demand changes to films they don't like -- regardless of their content. That, by definition, truly is censorship. And shouldn't be happening.

2006-09-05T00:29:00.000-04:00

For finding this and sending it to me, Allison is my new hero. At least until the novelty wears off.

Crikey

2006-09-04T00:53:00.000-04:00

S+eve Irwin, otherwise known as "The Crocodi|e Hun+ter" was apparently killed by a stingray. It's a very sad thing and I'm sure his family is devastated. But at least he died doing what he, presumably, loved.

All that said -- and I'm probably going to sound like a tool for saying this -- but damn is that ironic. A stingray? Who would've thought?

The funniest thing I ever saw him do was tackle the F|orida G@tor on that Spor+scenter commercial. That was brilliant. I can't find it on YouTube, but I'm sure several of you know what I'm talking about.

At any rate, he seemed like a decent guy. It's a shame he had to go like that.

In other news that should come as no surprise to anyone...

2006-08-28T16:23:00.000-04:00

I think we all saw this coming. Nothing about the 'confession' made any sense. This guy was just a nutjob. Can we talk about something else now?

Duh, part II

2006-08-25T11:41:00.001-04:00

Just as I suspected. They didn't even wait for the resolution to be presented. To their credit, Russian officials at least admit that sanctions don't usually work. But their solution of not even trying is quite a curious one.

At this point, I can't really blame Iran for pursuing nuclear weapons. Because all indications are that they're more or less going to get away with it. Same thing with North Korea. They can even fire missiles with no consequences.

I'm not trying to be alarmist, but I'm afraid the Western world is falling victim to its own apathy.

Where have all the hurricanes gone?

2006-08-25T00:12:00.000-04:00

Remember last year how everyone was clammoring about how the unusually active hurricane season was caused by global warming and that it was only going to be worse this year? Anyone? Anyone? Bue||er? Bue||er?

Well, this time last year we were tracking Hurricane Ka+rina, i.e. the 12th named storm of the season. This year...we're on tropical storm Debby. We haven't even had a hurricane yet, let alone a major hurricane.

Not that I'm complaining, mind you, I just think it's interesting that there were so many apocolyptic predictions of this season that haven't yet come to pass. Of course, I might've just put a jinx on the whole thing. But did global warming suddenly disappear? Or could it be that the whole thing was just a little overblown? The term "alarmist" comes to mind.

Just a thought.

Say it with me now...

2006-08-22T16:21:00.000-04:00

DUHHHHHH. How many times are we going to go over this? I'm guessing just enough times for Jerusalem and or Tel Aviv to disappear under a mushroom cloud.

Simply for the sake of tradition, here are my (reiterated) predictions for the foreseeable future:

We ask Iran nicely to stop enriching uranium.
They say no.
We try to get sanctions passed through the U.N. Seucri+y Counci|.
Russia and or China block them outright or get them watered down enough to where they don't matter.
All the while, Iran is enriching away, moving toward a nuclear arsenal that they will use.

At the risk of sounding cliche, I'm reminded of the saying "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."* And we're just sitting there.

Notes:

*This quote is frequently credited to British political philosopher Edmund Burke. All indications are, however, that he never said it. Regardless, it still sounds good.

Sensory overload

2006-08-22T01:20:00.000-04:00

Ok, so I have quite a bit to say at the moment, but -- as is usually the case with speaking rather than writing -- I'm having a significant amount of trouble coherently expressing it all. So, while I work on that, here's a short and sweet update on the various goings on in vie de Charles. (Did I just use a French phrase?)

- Had two job interviews in the last two weeks, and probably going to set up another one tomorrow. Stressful. I can't wait for this process to be over.

- Flag football season is starting up. I'm excited. I've never played organized football before, and it's looking like I might actually have to train a bit if I want to be of any use to my team. We had a practice on Sunday, and after like two plays I was laying in the grass trying not to heave. It wasn't pretty.

- For the last couple of weeks, I've been obsessing over Ben Fo|ds' rendition of "Go|den S|umbers." I highly recommend you check it out. Right now.

- I've been keeping a journal of my dreams for about a month now. The results have been interesting. More on this later.

- I never even watched an episode of "F|avor of Love," but I still want to punch every person on that show in the face. Right in the face. Just line them up and run out like I'm at the Superbowl, but instead of high-fiving, punching them in the face. That show exemplifies everything wrong with America. Well, almost everything.

- I have a new look. Unusually short hair and no facial hair. The former was an accident, the latter a recommendation. I'm still adjusting, but I think I like it. I've been told I look like a hitman when I'm wearing a suit. I kinda like that.

- I am absolutely furious with the situation in the Middle East. Peace does not mean the absence of war. It means the presence of victory. This is not peace. The situation is actually worse in the long term because of it. Yet another U.N. fuckup.

- Emo is the worst thing to happen to music in 35 years. At least. Just something I've been thinking about lately.

- I've been craving an Arby's milkshake lately. I don't know why. The closest Arby's is in Georgetown. I'm not sure I'm craving one that bad.

- Old habits die hard. Seriously. Someone beat me with a rolled up newspaper. Please.

Tell me all your thoughts on God (again)

2006-08-19T02:37:00.000-04:00

I don’t attend organized religious services nearly as often as I probably should, and not nearly as often as I would like. First of all, it’s difficult for me to find an organization in which I feel comfortable. Second of all, it’s difficult for me to go to such places alone. At any rate, as a means of somehow of atoning for what I perceive to be religious laziness, I try to dedicate as much as possible of my Friday nights/Saturdays to some sort of religious/spiritual thought. It at least makes sense in my head.

Anyway, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about two religious concepts. Or, more accurately, two extremes of the same concept. Namely, praise and blasphemy.

I’ve always found both concepts a little curious. I’ll start with the idea of praise. I’m sure we’ve all been at a party or some other social gathering where substantial quantities of alcohol have been consumed and then there’s always “that guy” that comes up to you like “Hey man. Hey. Hey. Man. Dude, you...you are the man. Seriously. You’re the man. I mean that. You. Are. The man.”

Such an exchange, to me, seems similar to that of mere human brings attempting to praise a perfect, all-powerful being. In a way, it just seems unnecessary to me. I would imagine that an all-powerful, omnipotent being certainly wouldn’t need a bunch of lowly sinners singing his/her/its praises.

So that raises the question, in my mind, as to why we do it. It seems to me that God doesn’t need reminding of his own perfection and greatness, so what’s the point? Is it for our own benefit? I’m open to suggestions.

In the same vein, I find the concept of blasphemy somewhat curious. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not big on insulting God. But if it happens, as it does from time to time, I don’t take it as personally as many people seem to. And I certainly don’t feel the need to riot and set buildings on fire. Much in the same way that I don’t believe mere mortals can effectively praise an all-perfect being, nor do I believe we can hurt the feelings of an all perfect being. To go back to my drunk guy analogy, if a drunk guy were to come up to me and call me a douchebag, I wouldn’t be particularly upset.

I’ve said before that my belief in the Old Testament makes me more partial to the more hell-fire-and-brimstone version of God. So I certainly believe that God is capable of being angry. I just don’t think it’s necessary for people like me to defend him. I take the approach that if someone wants to piss off God, that’s between them and God. Much in the same way that if someone wants to slap a hornets nest, they can do so at their own peril.

Anyway. Those are my thoughts for the evening. If it sounds a little convoluted, give me a break. It’s 2:30 in the morning. If you have any thoughts on the matter, feel free to share them. As I said, I’m open to suggestions.

My humble abode

2006-08-16T00:48:00.000-04:00

Some of you have already seen my apartment, so you can ignore the rest of this post. Some of you also don't consider me important enough to visit, so you can ignore the rest of this post as well. But several of you have asked for pictures of my place, which I can only assume comes from some morbid curiosity with the behind-the-scenes aspect of my life. And since I'm not motivated enough to send them to each person individually, I figured I'd just post it here and let you get it yourselves.

First off, here's the view from the front door. The kitchen is on your immediate left.

The aforementioned kitchen.

A better view of the living room, with my assorted decorations and propaganda.

My sparsely decorated bedroom.

Where all the magic happens. Or something. I think I'm obligated to say that. It's Swedish foam, so it doesn't transfer motion. (And no, that's not a euphemism for something.)

Random view from the bed. And yes, I still have my Ka+ie Frye poster.

My matching Spongebob shower curtain and bathmat. I like to stay in touch with my inner child.

And that's pretty much it. If it seems kinda small, it is. But hey, it's "the District." Space is at a premium.

Weekend at Fide|'s

2006-08-13T13:52:00.000-04:00

Apparently Fide| Cas+ro has released a picture of himself holding a newspaper in an attempt to prove he's alive.

Now, I'm no conspiracy theorist, but my first thought when I saw the picture was "That looks photoshopped."

And I know a thing or two about photoshopping newspapers into people's hands. I did a similar thing last year for the GuardDawg as a joke advertisement, as evidenced here:

So I'm not sure I buy it. Just to prove my point, here's what I think the picture should look like:

That was way too easy.

Hava nagila venis'mecha, bitches

2006-08-10T12:11:00.000-04:00

As many of you (or at least the ones from/in Georgia) know, Cyn+hia McKinney was defeated in her primary. I am, as they say, pleased as punch.

It should come as no surprise that I absolutely loath that woman. And not because she's a Democrat. More because she's an anti-Semitic, race-baiting, ignorant, conspiracy-theorizing, partisan hack. In my humble opinion, she's an embarrassment to her race, her state and her party. All of which should be glad to see go.

Perhaps what irked me most about her was her utter arrogance and self-importance. She seemed to think spouting conspiracy theories and tactless attacks constituted "speaking truth to power," as she put it. As if it made her a hero. Please. Everybody and dey momma hates Bush and says mean things about him. Saying it on TV doesn't make you brave or special. It makes you petty. Get over yourself.

Not that I needed any more motivation, but the incident between her and the Capitol police officer only further cemented my disdain. She was just so flabbergasted that the officer didn't recognize her that she found it appropriate to physically assault him. Apparently not taking into account that she was not wearing her security clearance pin, had drastically changed her hairstyle and is, according to congress.org, the 408th most powerful person in the House. Not exactly prominent. For a little perspective, roughly 96 percent of people in the House are more important than she is. She's 120 slots LOWER than D.C.'s delegate who doesn't even get to vote. That's some pretty mind-boggling ineffectiveness.

In typical McKinney fashion, the failure of her campaign is being blamed on everyone and everything except for the candidate. Republicans. Voting machines. The Jews?

Yes, the Jews. She also blamed the Jews for her loss in 2002, so this is nothing new. Apparently, in addition to being responsible for all the wars in the world, some Jews still took time out of their busy day of controlling the media and hoarding all the world's money to vote Cyn+hia McKinney out of office.

After her concession speech, one of her campaign staffers had the following exchange with a news producer:

"You wanna know why she lost? Israel. Zionists. People like you. Put your yarmulke on and celebrate."

I think I might. Good riddance.

I'll take potpourri for 600, Alex

2006-08-04T00:46:00.000-04:00

There's entirely too much going on in the world right now to write an individual post on each one, so I'm just going to give a brief summary of my feelings on various current events. If you'd like me to elaborate on any of them, just let me know and I'll see what I can do.

- War in the Middle East: Israel shouldn't agree to a ceasefire until Hezbullah's ass has been sufficiently kicked. There's been far too many 'ceasefires' in the Middle East that have turned out to be little more than breathers for militant groups to reorganize and more effectively attack later on. It's time to change the status quo. And for what it's worth, no, I don't think it's the end of the world.

- Heat wave: It's hot. That sucks. But honestly, it doesn't seem that bad to me. Growing up in Georgia, it certainly wasn't unusual to have triple digit days in August. Hell, that was when we had band camp. But it does highlight the shortcomings of our energy situation. We really need to work on that.

- Me| Gibson's "fucking Jew" rant: I'm not as upset about this as most people seem to be. Any time I hear anything anti-Semitic, or any other kind of racism for that matter, I just chalk it up to stupidity and move on. I don't feel the urge to boycott his movies or anything like that. I never saw P@ssion of the Chris+, but not because I don't like Me| Gibson. Just not my kind of movie. In a way, I feel like I can't be too mad at him. If I had a Holocaust-denying father, I'd probably say some questionable things about the Jews when I was drunk, too. That said, he sounded like an absolutely bigoted moron and deserves to be as embarrassed as he is. He also deserves whatever happens to his career, at least on the individual level. I'm not much up for organized boycotts, but if people make the individual choice not to see his movies or whatever, he deserves it.

- Fide| Cas+ro: Apparently the Cuban dictator needed to have some surgery and deemed it necessary to relinquish, at least temporarily, power to his younger brother. First of all, I hope the scalpel was rusty and that the doctor didn't know what he was doing. That said, some people think he's already dead. I can kinda see their argument. There's so much celebration going on that if he was in as good of shape as he claims to be, he would be on television crapping all over everyone's good time. So I dunno. It's hard to say. If he is dead and his brother takes over, I don't think it will be very long before communism falls in Cuba. I know his brother is supposedly more radical and all that, but I just think the anti-communist elements in Cuba would be so emboldened by Cas+ro's death that they would overwhelm the regime before it could get its grip back. But that's just my opinion.

- The mid-term elections: The Democrats have a huge opportunity to make big gains in congress, but in typical Democrat fashion, they're blowing it. Case in point, the primary race in Connecticut. If Joe Lieberm@n loses his primary race to anti-war extremist Ned Lemon+, the Democrats can pretty much give up on the idea of winning back congress. However, it looks like Cynthi@ McKinney might lose her primary as well (please oh please) so maybe they're getting a clue. Though somehow I doubt it.

- The new Geic0 commercials: Burt B@charach's is the only one that's tolerable. Litt|e Richard and Ch@ro make me want to throw things at the TV. Bring back the lizard. He was funny.

Memories

2006-08-01T04:49:00.000-04:00

Yeah, I'm not sleeping again. My sleep schedule is so bizarre lately. As are my dreams. But that's not the point of this post. Actually, this post has no point. I'm just rambling in hopes of making myself sleepy. I've been thinking a lot lately about my memory. Some of you know that my memory has a tendency to be bizarrely photographic. As in, it borders on creepy. I vividly remember things that happened from when I was maybe two or three. I remember miniscule details. I remember things I hear, in many cases word for word as if replaying a recording.

This has its advantages and disadvantages. Remembering detail comes in handy when dealing with females. Put simply, chicks dig a guy that remembers things. It also helps my writing to be able to recall and better describe events.

Of course, with so much of my brain dedicated to memories, I have a tendency to daydream or zone out and not pay attention when I probably should be.

It also gives me a tendency to hold grudges. With remembering so vividly things that are said to me, when something upsets me in one way or another, it tends to affect me much more than it probably should. For example, I still get a little twinge when I remember things that were said to me in elementary school. I'm no psychologist, but I'm pretty sure such a thing is neither normal, healthy or productive. That whole adage "forgive and forget" becomes surprisingly difficult when "forget' is taken out of the equation. I should probably work on that.

In much the same way I still remember things that are said to me and remember the feelings associated with them, I do the same thing with things I say or do that I regret. Again, I still get embarrassed/feel guilty for things I said or did literally decades ago. I'm pretty sure that's not healthy, either. There's got to be a difference between having a conscience or being self conscious and beating yourself up over something no one else likely even remembers years after it happens.

I could use one of those flashy things from Men in Bl@ck. And maybe some prescription sleep aid.

Bummin'

2006-07-27T01:33:00.000-04:00

Ok, I feel a little out of the loop because apparently this happened a week ago, but UGA basketball player Kevin Brophy was killed in a car accident. I didn't know him personally, so I can't exactly claim to be devastated by the news. But I'm still more upset than most people would think I should be. Being in the band, I had to attend each home game for the men's team when I otherwise wouldn't have. (I mean, let's be honest. We weren't very good.) In doing so, I started to feel like I knew the players in a way. Brophy wasn't a first stringer (as I recall) and he certainly wasn’t one of our bigger players (though he did have a pretty mean three-point shot), but he always played hard and seemed to really enjoy playing. And that earns my respect.

More importantly, he was by all accounts just a decent human being. It’s always tragic when a young life is ended, particularly when it’s so unexpected. But it seems to me to be somehow even more tragic when that young life meant so much to so many people. I’m trying my best not to be sappy and overdramatic because like I said I didn’t know him personally. But it still upsets me. And that’s all I feel qualified to say.

Th@nk you for smoking

2006-07-19T02:27:00.000-04:00

I feel like I should preface this by saying that I don’t smoke. I’ve probably smoked less than a dozen cigarettes in my entire life, and I smoked my first cigar after beating Florida -- and it was one of the worst nights of my life. No one told me you’re not supposed to inhale. I have since smoked three cigars, all for celebratory purposes. I think habitual cigarette smoking is disgusting, and one of the least attractive things a girl can do.

All that said, I find the extremist anti-smoking campaign to be absolutely infuriating. The most recent example of such is a commercial in which a Brillo-headed activist enters a mattress store and asks the clerk if there are any warning labels on mattresses. After the clerk rightly asks what the hell this weirdo is talking about, the weirdo replies “In 1981, a tobacco company executive said that maybe sleep should be banned since the majority of people die in their sleep.”

The commercial ends with the activist sarcastically asking “A tobacco company saying we should ban sleep?”

That doesn’t even make sense! Nowhere in the commercial is smoking even mentioned. Gee, banning sleep, I’m sure whoever said that was totally serious. Not to mention that it was said 25 years ago. So, we’re using a joke from two and a half decades ago to blast tobacco companies? Really? That’s the best we can do? Wow.

I’m also staunchly opposed to smoking bans imposed on private businesses. For what it’s worth, I don’t really buy the argument that it hurts business, because all indications are that it doesn’t. But it’s the principle of the matter. Business owners should be allowed to run their businesses as they see fit. If they want to allow people to smoke, they should have that right. If people don’t want to be exposed to smoke, they aren’t being forced to patron or be employed at said business, anymore than they’re being forced to enter the smoker’s home.

If the government wants to ban smoking in its buildings, that’s the government’s business. But government has no, well, business, telling citizens how to treat their private property.

I’m also sick of lawsuits against tobacco companies for selling a harmful product. It tells you it’ll give you cancer right on the package! It’s been there for 40 years! What more do you people need? If people still want to smoke, by God let them kill themselves. But anyone who started smoking after 1965 has no right to claim that they didn’t know smoking was bad for them, and therefore has no right to punitive damages.

It infuriates me when corporations are held responsible for the bad decisions of individuals. It also infuriates me when 25 year old quotes are taken out of context in an attempt to make an entire industry look evil. I have several friends that smoke, and I think it’s disgusting and stupid and wish they didn’t do it. But hey, this is America and you can be disgusting and stupid if you want to be disgusting and stupid. If, however, you get cancer, emphysema, or any other disease, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Hmm...all this indignation makes me want a cigarette.

De|ight in War

2006-07-17T19:46:00.000-04:00

"De|ight in war is a merit in the soldier, a dangerous quality in the captain and a positive crime in the statesman." -George S@nt@yana.

My philosophical persuasion tends to get me branded as a trigger-happy warmonger, but I like to think I'm slightly more passive than that. As I see it, there are two extremes on the matter: the far Left, that believes that nothing is worse than war and that it should be avoided at all costs; and the far Right, that would rather go to war than pursue diplomacy. It seems to me that there are far more members of the left extreme than the right, but they both nonetheless exist.

I tend towards the right side, though I am not as gung-ho on military force as some might expect. I tend to agree more with John S+uart Mi||, who said that "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse." I also agree with Niccolo Machiavelli when he said that "War cannot be avoided. It can only be postponed to the advantage of others."

It goes without saying that I believe that war should not be avoided at all costs. War should definitely be avoided, sure, but not when the results from the avoidance of war are worse than they would be if the war had actually taken place.

There comes a time when people must realize that negotiation and diplomacy serve no purpose and that war becomes not an agent of aggression, but a necessity for survival. With recent developments, I'm believing more and more that Israel is reaching this point.

Granted, it is my firm belief that Israel's negotiations and diplomacy with the Muslim world have never served any purpose. But with the advent of weapons of mass destruction and what seems to be the imminent nuclearization of Iran, Israel now faces its largest existential threat to since its 1948 inception -- and was drawn into a war for its survival the day after.

During the last few years, we've been told that if Israel only pulled out of Gaza, there would be peace. Or if Israel would only pull out of Lebanon, there would be peace. Both have since come to pass, and neither have led to peace -- much like every other supposed proposal for peace from the Muslim world.

The stated goal of many in the Muslim world is the complete destruction of Israel, so I fail to see how negotiations or diplomacy will ever be useful. Thus, Israel shouldn't bother with them anymore. It should only do what is necessary to ensure its own survival. If that entails invading Lebanon, bombing Syria or preempting Iran, well, they shouldn't shy away from it. Unlike their adversaries, Israel need not destroy the entire Muslim world to achieve security.

Aw shucks

2006-07-17T03:35:00.000-04:00

Ok, so it's my birthday. Or at least it was til about three and a half hours ago. I am now the ripe old age of 23. It feels suspiciously like the spry, young age of 22. I'm still the youngest member of my peer group, but I'm hoping that maybe now people will stop saying 'aww...' after I tell them my age.

I've never been much into birthdays, so don't feel too guilty if you forgot/didn't know. That said, I really appreciate all of you that took the time to say something. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. You're way better at that than I am. I am a notorious birthday-forgetter.

It was a pretty uneventful birthday, but I'm ok with that. The Braves won, I set a new record time on Minesweeper, won about $15,000 in fake money poker and learned some new songs on guitar. Could've been worse.

I was hoping to write about all the stuff I've learned over the past year in one of those numbered posts that people seem to like so much, but uh...I can't really think of anything that I know now that I didn't know a year ago. If I think of anything, I'll let you know.

I can't really complain about the past year, though. I've done more things than I ever thought I would and had a hell of a time doing them. Naturally, there are things I wish I could've improved over last year, but they'll all come in time, I'm sure. All in all, not bad. Steady as she goes.