Check it out!
http://rogerlsimon.com/archives/00000658.htm

Also...
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/index.html

The Hutton Report was released in England today. For those of you who don't know what the Hutton Report is, it is the conclusions drawn by months of investigation into the events surrounding the suicide of David Kelly, the guy that the BBC says was asked to "sex up" the Iraq WMD reports. The report finds the BBC primarily at fault for any wrong doing, saying that the BBC's twisting of the facts to try to influence events against Tony Blair's government was one of the reasons that Kelly was driven to kill himself. Already the head of the BBC has resigned, and I imagine the entire structure of the government funded netowrk could be in trouble. Perhaps even privitized by the time the fallout is over.

What happens if you are conservative, work in manufacturing, and live in a clsoed shop state? Since most unions are left-leaning, that means your union dues are most likely going to support a candidate for president that you are not going to vote for yourself. How is that fair? It sounds like a stifling of dissent for me. Actually now that I think about it, I find it hard to believe that there can even be such a thing as a closed shop. It seems to me like it should be illegal for any number of reasons.

Gwyneth Paltrow is moving herself and her child to England because she fears the "wierd, over patriotic atmosphere" in the United States. She goes on to say that there is a strong anti-American sentiment in Britain. Since that's the group she wants to join, I guess that makes her anti-American, too. Maybe someone should remind her that the only reason she has the wherewithal to move to Britain is because of America and all the opportunities she has had here. Also, one has to wonder why it's bad for Americans to be patriotic, but ok for Brits to be anti-American. Considering all we've done for the British and the world, I think it's pretty wierd for the Brits to be anti-American.

Have you noticed something strange going on in this country? There seems to be a strange double standard of values and judgements. On the one side, you have students getting expelled from school for writings in which someone dies. On the other side you have Arab politicians and spiritual leaders talking about pushing Israel into the sea and killing the Jews, and a good portion of the United States ignores it and continues to act as if Israel is the only party ever acting in bad faith in the middle east conflicts.

Something is wrong, and needs to be fixed.

http://www.newsgleaner.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10808299&BRD=2340&PAG=461&dept_id=488595&rfi=6

More politically correct junk getting out of hand. Maybe I ought to change the theme of this blog to defeating PC. It shouldn't be about what's politically correct, it ought to be aboout what is the truth.

Anyway, in this case we have a restaurant near Philly called Chink's Steaks. The place was named after it's late founder, Samuel "Chink" Sherman, and has been called such for over 50 years. Most people that knew Mr. Sherman did not even know his real name until the fineral. Now you have a woman who heard the name of the restaurant and has decided people should be offended. She called the ACLU and now has a petition brewing. Shouldn't someone ask the Chinese people that live in the area if they are offended? She was asked why now, after 50 years, is the name a problem. She said it's because it's in a predominately white neighborhood. Personally I wouldn't be offended by a place called "Honky's." I would laugh, and then I'd go check it out and buy a beer.

While reading an article on the democratization of I raq, I realized a serious problem with the idea of handing over any sort of soveriegnty or decision making to the U.N. In the United States we elect our officials,and if we don't like what they're doing we can elect someone else in 4 years. The U.N., however, is beholden to no voting constituency. If we don't like something they do, or decide upon, we have no recourse. Handing over any power to the U.N. removes any right we have to change our government if we don't like the direction they are leading us down. There have always been a lot of reasons to dislike the U.N. and scorn those who feel we should get U.N. permission for anything we do, but this is probably the msot serious to me, and one I had not thought of before.

After much thought I'm beginning to come around to the idea that the United States government should not spend billions going in to space, even with the honorable goal of reaching Mars. Instead they ought to remove restrictions against private entities going in to space. Allow the free market to lead the way. Soon enough you'd have some robots mining material on some asteroid somewhere and using that material to create ships to go to Mars. Who knows how it would work, I just think that letting the market decide will work out much better in the long run than letting a bloated bureacracy like NASA be in charge. NASA seems to have a tendency to enjoy the status quo in which their funding keeps going up to support their pet projects, but little real progress toward colonizing space ever gets done.

Now that the economy seems to be going well, liberal commentators are having so much trouble finding new ways of slamming Bush's economic policies that they are spinning their way to stupidity.

"The Bush administration reports that during the past five months 278,000 jobs have been created. The $350 billion tax cut for 2003 signed by President Bush, which included the $400 rebates to 25 million families, was intended to increase employment through a stimulated economy. That would suggest that every new job since August has cost taxpayers about $1,258,993."

How have tax cuts cost taxpayers anything? In a tax cut the taxpayer has more money, not less, but when you're trying to spin, logic and math take second fiddle to pushing an outdated and historically disasterous ideology.

What happens if there is an election and only half the people on the ballot show up? If you've been following the Democratic cadidates closely, then you've probably seen some of the independent fact-checking going on behind the scenes. Howard Dean has long decried the Bushies for unilateral action against Iraq. First off, the obvious fact that there were something like 40 countries in the coalition of the willing, which is hardly unilateral, but now an even bigger problem with Dean's disdain has been revealed. Dean wrote a letter to Clinton in 1995 in which he very eloquently lays out reasons why the US should unilaterally (and he actually uses the word unilateral) go into Bosnia and help all those people that are being slaughtered and such. In fact, comparing his reasons to the reasons that Bush went in to Iraq, you find Bush had a far more compelling case for unilateral action. The big difference is that Bush is Bush, and a Republican, whereas Dean is a Democrat. At any rate, there are so many contradictions people are finding in comments made now versus even a few months ago by Dean and Wesley Clark that one wonders how much more will come out once the nomination is decided. This summer and fall, the months leading up to the big election, we may find so much evidence of lying and changing sides to pander to special interests groups and hypocrisy (see Dean bashing Bush for keeping secret documents on 9/11 secret while Dean himself has his records as Vermont governor sealed for 11 years because things "embarassing" to his administration might come out), that only the most extreme left wingers will be able to stomach their chosen candidate anymore. I predict Bush will win in a landslide. You may not agree with a lot of what he's done, but the results speak for themselves (economy- improving, Iraq- improving), and, most importantly, he hasn't been caught in a string of lies, hypocritical statements, or flip-flopping. He has integrity, something Wesley Clark's former commanding officer said Clark lacked.

I heard today that the latest Iowa Test of Basic Skills results show that City of Atlanta schools have degraded and are now one of the worst, if not the worst, schools systems in the entire country. I think I've read that the city spends $13,000/year/student, one of the highest rates in the country.

Yesterday I read how people think the money that Bush wants to spend on the space program would be better spent on health care (which, in my opinion, is not the governments' responsibility), or on education. Just look at Atlanta schools to see how throwing more money at the educational system works. I think Atlanta ought to take that extra $3000/year/student over what most successful systems spend, and give it to NASA for Mars missions. If we really try to send people to Mars, and NASA works with school systems to get kids involved and interested in the project, think how many otherwise uninterested minds might suddenly want to be astronauts. Think how many unengaged children might want to learn more math and science so that they might have the chance to go to Mars. Spending lots of money isn't helping kids get more interested in learning, nor is supending them for sending computer messages. So maybe we try to inspire them?

http://www.nightmarecandles.com/Hey!.html

I hate to keep harping on one subject, but more came out about the zero tolerance issue mentioned in my last post. The above link takes you to a website where the student and his parents wrote out their side of the story. The parents are obviously very intelligent and raise their child to be intellectually curious. That sort of quality does not fit well in most public schools. My favorite part is at the end when the kid talks about going to the principal's office after his suspension was over. It sounds like the dude knew he was wrong, but refused to ever admit it in front of a student, even the one that he wronged.

The power of blog!

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004523#zero

Zero tolerance in schools is a big thing for blogging. Such incidents as a girl being suspended for allowing her asthmatic boyfriend use her inhaler when he is havign serious trouble breathing provide great fodder for mockery online. The link above will take you to an article about a kid that got suspended for using a built-in messaging system to say "hey" to all the computers in the school network. Apparantely this is considered hacking in that school, and thus the child was punished. When a "real-world" computer scientist looked at the facts, he found no culpability to the student, saying that if the school didn't want that sort fo thing to happen, they should have disabled the function and installed firewalls. This being a public school, however, the student gets punished merely for being more clever than the teacher, who, by the way, has degrees in sociology and anthropology, but nothing in computer science. Her snobby, holier-than-thou letter is a laugher once the facts are revealed.

What is a hero? It's a word that the media throws around a lot, yet each outlet seems to have its own definition. The first time I remember questioning the receiver of the media-annointed hero mantle was about 10 years ago when a man got his arm ripped off by a farm combine and crawled half a mile to his house where he phoned for an ambulance. Is he a hero because he was stupid enough to stick his arm into moving farm equipment? Is he a hero because he tried to save himself by crawling to phone when the rest of us would have said, "I'm not heroic enough to do anything but sit here and die?" Maybe he saved 10 people from a burning school bus between getting his arm ripped off and calling 911, but the news story didn't bother to mention it. Personally I don't think he deserved to be called hero. Perhaps stupid and lucky and a maybe a bit courageous.

Stalin was for years called a hero by the left wing for supporting Communism in the Soviet Union in the face of the evil capitalist west. Even today, after documentation was released by the Russians showing the true evils and mass starvations caused by Stalin, some people still consider him a hero. Most people would call him one of history's greatest villians.

Celebrities like Tom Cruise are often called heros by their fans, as in a 16 year old girl holding a picture of Mr. Cruise to heart and breathily saying, "my hero!" Mr. Cruise, however heroic his characters may be, has probably encountered very few situations in which he could really be a hero.

Howard Dean is called a hero by many for standing up against George Bush and telling it like it is. On the other hand if you really delve into all his interviews and remarks, you realize that he lacks consistency, pandering his comments to the audience he is addressing and changing his platforms depending on which way the wind seems to be blowing. At least Bush is consistent. Some might even call him a hero for making a stand against terrorism. Personally, I don't consider him a hero, merely a decision maker who is, for the most part, insulated from the effects of his decisions.

What about Neal Armstrong? Is he a hero? All he will be remembered for is taking the first step on the moon. That act in itself is not heroic, in my opinion. What is heroic is what he shared with all the astronauts of the time. None of them knew what to expect in space, they were travelling into the unknown, possibly sacrificing their lives for the chance to expand the human race beyond our gravity inspired borders. They trained and worked as hard as any humans ever have, and they suceeded. For that the early astronauts are definitely heroes.

If real, would you really consider Superman a hero? Sure, he saves a lot of lives, but I think I would do the same if I had his gifts. Is he a hero merely because he has powers beyond that of the ordinary man? No, I suppose not. Still, I think Superman is a hero, simply for the inspiration he provides others to do good deeds.

A true hero is the little guy, stuck in a bad position, yet not flinching from his goals in the face of danger. The firefighters climbing the stairs of the colapsing World Trade Centers, the soldiers protecting Iraqis from their own misguided countrymen, and most of the citizens of Israel, merely for getting up and going to work every day, despite the cowardly suicide bombers that have invaded their society for years.

I haven't seen all the details of Bush's new immigration policy ideas, but anything that gives any sort of legitimacy to illegal immigrants automatically gets a thumb down from me. These people have already broken the law, and now we want to make it easier for them? My god, we put small time pot dealers in jail for 20 to life, but break at least four laws by sneaking across the border and working, and we'll shake your hand and congratulate you. The scary part is we already have some of the most relaxed immigration standards of any country in the world, and now Bush wants to make it easier. The rest of the world, in a typical double standard, complains whenever anyone in the U.S. talks about hardening our border laws, calling us racist and uncooperative. I'm tired of it. We ought to lock up the Mexican border, throw out the illegals, and then, once we're clean of such refuse, start all over with sensible and enforceable standards. Most of our population came from immigrants, and I'm not suggesting we cut off all immigration and become isolationist. I just want a system that rewards people for doing things right, and doesn't take my tax dollars to pay for people who are breaking the law.

What follows is a quote from the comments section of John Perry Barlow's (founder of the EFF) blog. Mr. Barlow, a die-hard liberal, started a discussion on the perils of too much vitriol in political debates, got linked by Insta-Pundit, and suddenly had a huge political debate going, mostly wihtout vitriol. The following comment is one of the best summations of the problem with the 9 Democratic comments I have seen.

"I am a registered Independent, and am very uncomfortable with many of Bush's domestic policies- I disagree with him on taxes, the environment, veterans benefits, and many other issues. I am, however, very concerned with national security against terrorists, and feel that the war on Iraq was a necessary step towards securing us against terrorism."

"Why is this important? Because within my circle of acquaintances, there are many people, registered Independent and Republican, who do not agree with Bush on domestic issues and feel that he has acted arbitrarily on many things, but feel compelled to stand by him because they feel that the Democratic Party does is not credible on national security. Thus, I (and they, I believe) am not going to be amenable to a campaign designed to convince me that Bush is evil, nor am I going to be impressed by comparisons between Bush and Hitler. Whenever a Democrat makes such a statement- or worse, tosses off a remark about concentration camps, as though everyone should of course think that way, and that anyone who doesn't is stupid sheep- it gets easier for me to hold my nose on Bush's domestic record. I'll do it all the way to the ballot box, too."

"If, however, a Democratic candidate could establish to me that he or she recognizes that terrorism is a major threat to our country and that they have a credible plan to combat it- by which I mean something other than "do the opposite of whatever Bush did"- I would be very interested indeed, especially since that candidate would likely have very different views on domestic policy."

"While I can't speak for all swing voters, I can say that extremism is not a good way to sway me, but reasonable statements that display more thought than a simple "do the opposite of what Bush does" might very easily do so. Until I found your site, I despaired of finding such a voice in the Democratic Party, particularly since Howard Dean became the front runner. The discussions going on here, however, give me some hope."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/155107_firstperson05.html

An idea so stupid that it defeats itself. If we followed the rules this guy wants, then he hinself would not be able to vote, because the whole article comes off as so moronic it's hard to believe he got paid to write it.

So often liberals excuse the fact that Bush is popular, has good ratings, has a proven record of success, by saying that the people who favor Bush are just too stupid to understand the real world. I find it strange that none of them can imagine someone might have a different opinion except through stupidity. I admit that some very intelligent people disagree with my views. That doesn't make me or them dumb, it just makes us different. Liberals want everyone to be the same, and I sure hope that never happens.

I don't understand why so many people apologize for Stalin, for Castro, for Hussein, for all the evil things those people did, whether it be for the ideal of communism, or the glorification of a dictatorship, but the fact is, a lot of liberals out there think that way. They hate George W. Bush, a man who fights for American ideals of freedom and liberty for all, not just a chosen few who agree with him, and they revere someone like Stalin, who killed something like 20 million of his own people. I guess that's all right as long as you aren't a capitalist. Obviously I understand that not all liberals and left wingers feel like this, I just wish I understood how any of them could.

So how about that whole 2003 thing? I did pretty decent. Finally moved out of my parents' house, got a decent job that has a good future, got myself a nifty TV, made some new friends, lost touch with some old ones. Got very interested in politics and started this blog. I lost a cousin/friend to a state where they let you drink whenever you want, but I gained a different cousin and his wife. The Braves didn't win it all again, and the Hawks got worse than ever. Still no girlfriend, though I did learn that I'm not at all interested in at least 30 girls I've met through the year that I went out with, or at least hung out with. The Lord of the Rings movies are now all out, but I'm still waiting for George R.R. Martin to finish the next book in his series, an epic which will eventually go down in history as one of the coolest things ever put on paper.

What to look for from me in 2004? Hopefully a lot more blogging, maybe some real stories to be published in some sci-fi pulp mags, less credit card debt, a more fashionable wardrobe, and I want to get my six pack back!

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/01dmv.html

Read this. Be prepared to laugh and to be disgusted. Notice how someone pulls out the "children" crap. Would you rather have health care for the children of Georgia, or save a few minutes waiting in line? I fail to see how driver's license centers had anything to do with my health care when I was a kid. My parents got me health insurance, so even if there was never a line for a license, it wouldn't have made me die or anything. If the government wants the "children" to have health care, they should encourage parents to get health insurance. And I am so sick of politicians pulling out the "children" crap! It's such a typical politician answer, no specifics, just help the children and if you ask how, if you ask for specifics, then you look like an asshole for not wanting to help the fucking "children."