The blogosphere sure is an interesting place! When I first began reading blogs, I started with the big one, the blogfather, Glenn Reynolds, at instapundit.com. I had thought he was pretty liberal, but was pleased to discover that his political beliefs are just about spot on with mine. It is fun to read people you agree with, I must admit. Anyway, after seeing several references to someone named Andrew Sullivan, I decided to check out andrewsullivan.com. I liked it. Nice man, conservative values, though being gay, he's not exactly religious right (thank god), he supported Bush and the war on "terror" and writes for several publications, Time Magazine probably being the most prominent. Well recently he switched sides and is supporting Kerry. He claims he's not a single issue voter and that the FMA is not why he's switched, and I believe him to a point. Obviously it's a big factor, as well as his doubts about Bush's handling of the war. The funny part is how so many other right-ish bloggers have turned on him. Sure, now he looks wishy-washy, but he's been a trusted blogger for a while, one change of allegiance shouldn't negate years of right wing goodness.

http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?item_id=505604&pageId=1&x=7&y=9

Interesting essay from a liberal on something so few liberals seem willing to consider: "What if George Bush is right?"

The Europeans are actually surprised?!?



http://www.hudsonreview.com/BawerSp04.html

I wonder what the market capitalization of the United States government would be if Congress decided to list on the NASDAQ? The P/E ratio? And I suppose if the Dems are in power, only people with 10 or less shares would get dividends.

My roommate is anti-Bush, but not pro-Kerry. I'm pro-Bush, and anti-Kerry, which makes me feel a lot better about my decision to vote for Bush come November. There are so many reasons not to like Kerry. You could look at the superficiality of his war record, three purple hearts, honorable discharge, etc., and think he was a good soldier. But you dig a bit deeper and see that he was only there for four months. You also find many, many quotes from people who served below him, or were his supervisors while over there, and the condemnation is resounding. He "required constant supervision," he "showed disdain for authority and for the military," he was "devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive," and he "arrived in country with a strong anti Vietnam War bias and a self serving determination to build a foundation for his political future." Then you get to the whole medal throwing fiasco. Depending on whether you ask him on Thursday or Friday, he either threw his own medals, just threw the ribbons, or he threw someone else's medals. Seeing as he still has his, with the ribbons, choice three seems to be correct. And don't forget the allegations of how he got his purple hearts. At least one medic that treated him says one of his injuries was very suspicious, possibly caused by Kerry's own clumsiness while in camp, and barely more than a scratch, but his superior officer awarded him the medal as much to get him to stop whining, and perhaps get him out of that command as soon as possible. Just the type of person we want running the country.

He's a man whose first marriage brought him in to a $300 million fortune, whose second marriage netted him at least a billion, with some estimates as high as $3.8 billion. He's probably never worked a hard day in his life, except for his own self-gratification and glory. He has several multi-million dollar homes all over the country, and jets back and forth in his private plane while lambasting Republicans for their oil dependence.

He refuses to take a stand on any issue except one, he's not Bush. But we all knew that already, and, to me, it's hardly a ringing endorsement. He voted to authorize the war in Iraq before he voted to not pay for the war in Iraq. And a few months he was totally against ever having gone in there, despite having approved of it previously. Must be nice when you can do a 180 on an issue and don't have to live with the consequences. Now that things are going fairly well in Iraq, with democracy beginning to take hold, suddenly he's more of a centrist hawk, especially with the Democratic Convention giving him the chance to move right on the world stage, for a week anyway. He's never given any clue of his stance in the Israel-Palestine situation, and, being a pro-Israel type myself, I cannot understand how any Jew could vote for him when he's as likely to get elected and tell the U.N. that they are in charge of the dismantling of Israel as he is to support Israel. He doesn't have any plan for fighting Islamic terrorism except that it's not a religious thing (then how come all the terrorists are extremist Muslims?), and that he would build more international support. With whom? For what, exactly? The only way to get the French, Germans, and Russians in his corner would be to basically give up some of the USA's sovereignty to the U.N.

Compare all this to George W. Bush. Since Bush took office the economy has rebounded from the doldrums of the post-dot.com era, Afghanistan is having free and democratic elections, with Iraq headed in the same direction. There have been no major terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11. Despite the clamor heard from the left, there is only one single instance of a citizen's civil liberties being taken away, and the Supreme Court has since reversed that (Jose Padilla, in case you were wondering). Bush freed a country from an evil dictator, and lost very few American lives in the bargain. Before his election, Bush seemed to be somewhat of an isolationist, but obviously 9/11 changed things, and he should not and cannot be blamed for reversing on that ideal, instead he ought to be congratulated for adapting to face a threat none of us saw coming. Other than that he has, to my knowledge, done only what he said he would do when he ran for election the first time.

Bush '04!

Yet again, Boortz has made a great point. Ron Reagan was going on and on about the government's ban on stem cell research. The only problem is that they did not ban it, they just refuse to fund it. They also refuse to fund me, does that mean that I am banned?

I've read a lot about this Barack Obama guy. I saw a bit of his speech last night, and read part of the transcript this morning. This guy has it! I may not agree with all of his ideals, but unlike Kerry, he's a man I could respect. Hell, even Neal Boortz is saying that he thinks this guy may be our first black President. Who knows? I do know that if the Democrats would get rid of all their class warfariers and get rid of the people who are still reliving Vietnam, they might have a chance at my vote. And this Obama guy might be the one to take them in to the promised land. Check back in 2012, and maybe I'll be able to say, "I told you so."

I'm not the sort to say something silly like "All Muslims are evil terrorists," but if you read through the Koran, there is an awful lot of talk about killing the infidel and such.

So Mrs. Kerry made a speech the other night in which she said that some things are unAmerican (you can find a transcript easily if you want the exact quote). Then she made a speech at the convention in whcih she talked about how we need to put class and civility back into politics. Then she was confronted by a reporter who wanted her to clarify her unAmerican comment. After a lengthy exchange that msotly consisted if "Yes you did" "No I didn't", she told the reporter to stop putting words in her mouth and to "shove it." A Kerry spokesman later talked about how a reporter from a right-wing rag was spreading untrue information about things Mrs. Kerry said. Funny thing, though...

The video of her speech is available online, and she very clearly says "un-American." And she very clearly lies about it later.

Bush lied by telling the truth, and Theresa Heinz Kerry told the truth by lying. Doesn't make much sense to me, but then little about the left wing does these days.

Test post.

The antidote to those who seem to feel that Europe  has some sort of inborn superiority over the USA. I especially got a kick out of the European woman that said she'd been to San Francisco, but never to California.

http://www.hudsonreview.com/BawerSp04.html



http://www.hudsonreview.com/BawerSp04.html

Some interesting numbers regarding Israel and their Arab neighbors.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040727.shtml

You can bet you won't see this story on the front page:

Yasser Arafat's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade this morning killed a 15-year-old Palestinian Arab boy "after the youth tried to stop them from setting up a Kassam rocket launcher near his family's home," the Jerusalem Post reports:
Members of the Arafat-linked terrorist group were trying to plant Kassam rocket launchers next to the Zanin family residence in northern Beit Hanun, when the family, concerned over IDF retaliation, argued and ultimately struggled with the terrorists.   In the ensuing scuffle, the terrorists opened fire on the Zanin family, killing Jamil Zanin, 15, and injuring 5 others. The Kassam crew gathered their launchers and missiles and left the scene. No Kassam rockets have been launched out of Northern Gaza so far Friday.

It seems Arafat knowingly allowed several Palestinian businessmen to make millions selling concrete to Israel to build the wall that Arafat says is a crime against humanity.  A little hypocrisy, perhaps?

There have been several major protests, as well as high level calls for Arafat to step down.  It probably won't happen, seeing as every Palestinian in the world could hate the guy, but as long as he has the support of the U.N., he won't go anywhere.  The U.N. has a lot more invested in making sure Arafat stays in power than any Palestinian commoner.  Just wait, soon there will be more evidence that the U.N. couldn't care less about the Palestinian people, they just want the Jews to go away, and to make Arafat happy.  Arafat happy means various middle east tyrants are happy, and that means the U.N. gets more money, and that makes them very happy.

Got back from New Orleans last night, where I had stayed with cousin Mike and his girlfriend Corrine, and then with my friend from college, Brian Shedrow.  For all those interested, Mike sent me back to Atlanta with a message:  They will get engaged eventually, so stop bugging them!

Anyway, it was a fun and relaxing trip.  Mike isn't able to fulfill Corinne's idea of a great partner in conversation about literature and writing, so I filled in for an afternoon.  Most of my friends are engineers so I have the same problem she does.  I also discovered, much to my surprise, that her political beliefs closely resemble mine, as do Mike's.  Political debate is a bit boring when everyone involved agrees with you.  Thankfully we had Brian there for one dinner, which gave us an outlet to bitch about Michael Moore and the age of government handouts.  Brian was a bit shellacked by the vehemence displayed.  I mostly ate my burger and watched, since we were at Port of Call, which has to make one of the greatest hambugers in history.

We also checked out Charlie's Steak House, a hole in the wall that was about as sketchy as any restaurant I've ever been in.  The steak, however, was big-time quality.

Now I'm back at work! :(

Jews in the News!

http://jewishworldreview.com/0704/jewz_in_the_newz072104.php3

Can you believe the crap that has been spilling from Max Cleland's mouth lately? Look, the guy fought for his country and sacrificed more than I can imagine for it, but that doesn't give him the right to be a jerk. Now he's telling people that becoming an attack dog for John Kerry is his way of making up for what the Republicans did to him. What did they do? They beat him in an election. He seems to be missing something (besides limbs), and that's the fact that the citizenry made the decision in the election, not the Republican party. So what he's really saying is that he's campaigning for John Kerry to take revenge against the registered voters that took him out of office. I wish he'd come out and say, "I'm trying to get John Kerry elected so I can screw over the people that voted me out of office," because that's what his words and actions imply.

Imagine if you lived in a closed-shop state. You would have to join a union for many jobs, and you would have to pay to that union dues and other verious fees, and that union would then turn around and give a lot of that money to a political party. Guess which one that would probably be? The Democratic Party. The Dems have tons of money rolling in from unions without the input of the individual union members, and I really feel like there's something wrong there. Many larger unions basically act as wings of the Dems and many people who vote Republican are forced to indirectly donate to the people they don't want in office because of this.

Cynthia McKinney won the primary for the House. Maybe now her Dad will give us new spelling lessons, like "r-a-c-i-s-t" and "t-r-a-i-t-o-r." Triator is not a word I throw around lightly, but when you look at her list of contributors, which includes several very large donations from groups that are associated with anti-American terrorism, it's hard not to think it. As far as the racist part, I have rarely heard speeches filled with more hate than she typically espouses. She's definitely anti-Semitic and anti-white. Martin Luther King Jr. would be ashamed of this woman.

Elton John is actually crying censorship because there are not enough anti-war songs being written out there, and that people get booed if they are anti-war. That's not censorship, that's people disagreeing. Maybe more people would write anti-war songs if more people were against the war. Was it censorship when Linda Rondstadt interupted a concert that people had paid good money to see to tell everyone to go see Michael Moore's movie? No. Was it censorship when she got booed off the stage, when many of the concertgoers stormed out of the theatre and tore down her posters? No. That was people who paid good money to see a show getting upset that she couldn't keep her mouth shut. It would have been censorship if she had been hauled off to jail, but she's free to go play somewhere else, and get booed off the stage anywhere she wants, except the place she played, which said they won't allow her back.

The same logic that allows Elton John to cry censorship in such situations would lead to Pepsi-Cola saying they are being censored because Coca-Cola has a higher market share. They aren't being censored, the consumer is making a choice.

John Kerry and friends like to say that Bush fooled them into authorizing the war in Iraq. Much of the left wing also likes to call Bush a moron. What does that say about the people that were fooled by a moron?

New evidence linking Iran to 9/11 hijackers and the bin Laden inner circle has the blogosphere up in arms, wondering why Bush isn't being more aggressive about opposing the mullahs in Tehran. To me it seems rather obvious. Iran has teetered on the brink of popular revolt for years. Perhaps the plan all along was to turn Iraq into a healthy, growing democracy, and wait the common people of Iran to get jealous and revolt against their oppressive theocracy. Only time will tell if such a strategy was in place, and if it has a chance of working. Give it five to ten years.

There's been so much talk from the left about looking at the underlying causes of terrorism, but their idea of what to do about seems to be to lay down and die, and then Islamofascist terrorists will be happy. Bush, instead, is actually trying to get rid of the underlying causes of terrorism, but it's ridiculous to think he could do it all at once. One country at a time, my friends, and start with the easiest to fix. Hopefully the rest will get the right idea on their own, and if not, well Bush will hopefully have another four year term coming up.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005370

Read it. Covers all the stuff in Iraq that you don't hear in the mainstream press. After reading I suddenly felt so much better about what we've done over there. Iraq might turn around and be a successful and burgeoning democracy with a growing economy in a much quicker manner than it took Japan and Germany after World War II.

Did you hear what Schwarzeneggar (wow, I think I spelled that right on the first try) said about legislators in California? He called some of them "girlie men" because they are holding up legislation in order to pander to special interests. He said they refuse to come out and say that they care more about their special interests groups than the voters they were elected to represent, and thus are girlie men. Not surprisingly, homosexual groups and feminists groups are up in arms, and, not surprisingly, I think they are retarded for being upset. First off, what Arnold said is absolutely true. These legislators are pandering, just like so many across the country, and they don't have the guts to say so. Second, he was obviously using the term to say that they lack guts and integrity, not to say they are homosexual or effeminate. Just like when I said some people are retarded, I didn't mean they have a mental deficiency, just that they are acting stupidly and irrationally.

Ariel Sharon has made a public plea for Jews in France to leave that country, fearing the rise of anti-Semitism there. Chirac, of course, denounced the plea, saying it was none of Sharon's business and that they have lots of anti-racist legislation. Who cares? You can't legislate peace, and Jews are being harassed in rising numbers over there. I read about another incident almost every day. Maybe if they cared as much about changing attitudes as they seem to care aboutm placating their Arab population, then things might change. No, Franc today is not Germany of the 1930's, but it is slowly becoming a haven for Arabs in Europe, many of whom are very hostile towards Jews, and many also seem to resist assimilating in to Franch culture and society. Jews, on the other hand, assimilate into wherever they are, having learned to adapt well to new countries ever since the Diaspora forced them to learn to adapt, or die. It very definitely is Sharon's business. While Israel is a secular government, they are also the standard bearer for Jews across the world, with any Jew welcome in Israel. What happens to Jews anywhere is important in Israel, and rightfully so.

Later edit:

After a couple of hours of reflection, I have changed my mind a it. Sharon's comments were a bit inflammatory, and he probably should have said something along the lines of, "The sovereign state of Israel will welcome with open arms any Jewish citizens of France who are worried about their safety in light of the recent spate of anti-Semetic attacks there."

It looks as if Palestine is falling apart. All of the sudden they are fighting themselves. One terrorist's house was blown up, and Israel has yet to admit they did it, something they are usually quick to do, and it's entirely possible it was blown up by other Palestinians who are, perhaps, fed up with the road Arafat has led them down. The terrorist inside that was wounded was supposedly handling an explosive device when the house blew up, so even if it was Israel who did it, they are pretty well justified.

The Prime Minister, Ahmed Qorei, has twice tried to resign, and Arafat has refused to recognize the resignations. Qorei seems to be sick of trying to do a job that Arafat won't let him do, mainly bring peace to the territories. It's in Arafat's best interest to continue the violence, because as soon as peace occurs, he loses a lot of power and influence, and most importantly, income.

There are two different people claiming to be the security chief for Gaza. This will probably lead to more infighting. I almost wish Israel would move up on their plan to completely remove themselves from the Palestinian territories. I want to see what happens when they give Arafat what he says he wants, which is Israel out. At least that's what he tells the west he wants. When he talks in arabic it seems to be more along the lines of, " All Jews dead."

So what does all this mean? Who knows, but it's a busy time over there, and it will be interesting to watch the developments. Hopefully no more Jews over there will die simply for being Jewish.

Last week I chatted with a woman I had met online on a dating service. We seemed to get along well, had similar interests, and were both intelligent. She decided we wouldn't work out, and her stated reason was that I was not sophisticated enough. After looking it up in the dictionary, I'm even more confused. My idea of sophisticated is that I think for myself, I understand more of the world than a simplistic black and white view, and that I'm intelligent enough to adapt to a variety of situations. Her idea of sophisticated seemed to be that I know what kind of wine to drink with certain types of food, and that I wear Armani suits. First off, I don't really like wine, and, if anything, think it detracts from a good meal instead of adding to it. Also, I'd love to wear Armani suits, but that's more to do with my low income, not my "sophistication." $5 and a boatload of sophistication will buy you a meal at McDonald's. $2000 and an 8th grade education will buy you an Armani suit. I guess she'd be ok with a guy who dresses in an Armani suit, inherited a million dollars, who always has a piece of hay sticking out of his mouth, and uses the word ain't all the time. I've decided that when a woman says she wants a guy who is sophisticated, she really wants a guy with a lot of money. The dictionary, by the way, says that sophisticated means:

1. altered deceptively
2. deprived of genuineness, naturalness, or simplicity

I guess I'd rather be natural and genuine than sophisticated, no matter what a woman I like says she wants.

I was thinking about hate crime law, mostly because someone else was talking about them and got me thinking. Hate crime, as far as I understand it, is a crime that is motivated by hatred, prejudice, and bigotry. Although I do wish those sort of feelings did not exist, I fail to see why beating a guy because he's black is worse than beating a guy because you want to take his wallet. In a way it's like the law is saying, "It's ok to commit a crime if you have a good reason, like theft, but not if you do it jsut because you don't like the victim." In addition we're now making judgements based not on actions or events, but on the judge's view of what the person was thinking at the time. How does the judge really know? I could get the crap beaten out of me on the way home from work, and the guy who does it could either say he's an anti-semite, or that he just felt like kickng the crap out of someone when I happened by. Either way I've in some serious pain, but if he can convince the judge that he really likes Jewish people, he'll spend less time in jail than if he really hates Jews. That makes no sense, the guy ought to be punished the same no matter what. A murder is a murder is a murder, no matter the motivation.

I read an interesting article on the youthful part of the right wing, the kind of people that have been described as "South Park" Republicans. Much of the article was right on with what I have said before, except this guy got paid to write it, and wrote it months after I did. Anyway, one thing he mentioned is that these new conservatives may end up having to ally themselves with Democrats, as the religious right is unpalatable to them, and myself as well. If the Libertarians would wake up and get serious, they could steal most of these people and perhaps turn themselves into a valid party with an actual chance at running the country someday, but as long as they keep nominating far-out wackos like Michael Bendarik (spelling?), they're never going to attract people like me. I'd like to be Libertarian, but they don't seem to live in reality. Anyway, over the next 10-20 years there will be a real schism on the right between the religious right and the non-bigoted right. Sorry, but I can't help but consider people who are so against equality for gays as being bigots. And while I'm not a fan of abortion, there are obviously times when it is neccesary and correct. What will happen is either the Republicans will move left, a bit closer to the center, leaving the religious right in the dust, or the Democrats will move to the right towards the center, so as to pick up the "South Park" Republicans, and lost the far left wackos whose influence is making Kerry so scary to so many of us.

A girl was suspended froms chool for taking a motrin for menstrual
cramps. She was also supposed to be sent to juvi. for a while,
but her family sued the school baord. A judge ruled that the
whole affair was nonsense and they could not make her go to juvi.
The school board refuses to listen and feels like she deserves more
punishment. That's as much as I know for now.



Some day some kid is going to go to his doctor, find out he's got
diabetes big time, and go to school with insulin. It will be
confiscated by a teacher, and the kid will die or go in to
ana-something or other shock, and zerrro tolerance policies across the
nation will hopefully be rethought. It may take several deaths or
severe injuries first. I thank god I went to high school before
Columbine, and that the teachers and administration there cared more
about kids than their own sense of self-importance. It really
does seem like teachers and administrators in public schools have the
idea that the school is theirs, and the students are just
visitors. They need to be reminded that they are there for the
kids and no other reason, and that they can be replaced.

I just read about a case where a high school girl was suspended, and,
pending her family's suit, supposed to have to switch to a juvi.
school, all for taking motrin for menstruel cramps. Thankfully
the judge said this was nonsense, but the school board doesn't feel
that the month and a half suspension that has already been served is
enough punishment.



Eventually some kid is going to go to the doctor, find out they have
severe diabetes, come to school with insulin, have it confiscated, and
then either die or go into severe shock, or whatever that is called for
diabetes sufferers, and the school is going to get the pants sued off
of it. Then zero tolerance policies will be forcibly rethought
throughout the country, but I really think it will take a death to make
such happen. Maybe even several. I suppose this all started
with Columbine, but thank god the administration at my high school
cared more about the kids than their own sense of self-importance.

http://redstate.org/story/2004/7/15/19628/9470

So Clinton, while somewhat lacking in integrity, actually seems to go against his party line. Unlike most of the Democrats today, he doesn't ignore the fact that everyone and their mother thought that Saddam was a serious danger with WMDs up until Bush actually decided to do something about it.

The Clinton administration did about as much as you can ask for during peace time; they didn't screw much up.

Just read something I find pretty funny. I'm not sure that you can really take this as a sign of anything significant, but remember how the left kept saying that the real reason we went to war with Iraq was to help was for oil and the bottom line of big corporations, with Halliburton being the poster-child for such conspiracy theories? Well it turns out that Halliburton is reporting a loss for the last two quarters. Among the big winners since the war began: The Nation, a far-left journal, which is reporting a profit for just about the first time in its existence. Turns out Bush went to war in Iraq to help struggling left-wing magazine publishers raise their bottom lines.

Columnists make me so mad sometimes. Charles Krauthammer, who I generally agree with, wrote an op-ed on the International Court of Justice's ruling ont he wall in Israel (previously I had referred to it as the International Criminal Court, I was wrong). In the op-ed he mentioned that amongthe ICJ's assertions they claim that it's a violation of international law for Jews to be living in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. That, of course, is inane, seeing as some have lived there continuously for 3,000 years. At any rate, what pisses me off is that I have seen no such assertion mentioned in any other report or article on the ICJ's decision, and Krauthammer just throws it out there in a sentence or two among many without any further information. Both left and right like to make statements without anything to back it up. It's common knowledge that the ICJ ruled that the wall is illegal, so you can mention that without anything backing it up. This case, however, strikes me as an interpretation of the ICJ's decision, as opposed to something explicitly stated, and Krauthammer ought to back up his words with logic or facts.

The Letters to the Editor section of the AJC today was just chock-full of bigotry and bias. First you have several opponents of gay marriage wondering why the debate isn't remaining civil. The problem is that it's an equal rights issue, something that is int he Constitution, and thus does not engender civil debate. The only possible reason to be against it is bigotry. It would be one thing if opponents were following my suggestion of Civil Unions replacing marriages in the eyes of the government, seeing as marriage is a religious institution and really shouldn't be considered by the government at all. They are not, however, and most have made it clear that they are against gays having the same rights as the rest of us. Bigotry, plain and simple.

Then you have some dumbass complaing about how our leaders are paying attention to Iraq and ignoring "important" issues like gay marriage. Then someone writes that our leaders need to stop wasting time on gay marriage and worry more about the upcoming expiration of some assault weapons ban. Maybe they decided not to worry because banning assault weapons does nothing productive except add another minor crime to the list that would be attached to any criminal who uses one to commit crime. If they want an assault weapon, they'll get one, legal or not. It's not like someone who is going to rob a bank with an assault weapon is worried about a ban.

Then there's the guy who is pissed off that Bush is supposedly using some churches to energize his base. Is that right? No, but until black Democrats stop using their churches for the exact same thing, as they have been doing for years, it's hypocritical in the extreme to bitch. "Separation of Church and State," which, by the way, is not specifically in the Constitution, is a myth. It is belied by marriage, by religious groups getting tax breaks, by "Under God," and so many other things.

Here's the Ayatollah Khamenei telling it like it isn't. He actually says that American and Israeli groups are behind the acts of terrorism, and the kinapping and beheadings in Iraq. This is the same guy that heads one of the worst totalitarian regimes in the world.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iran-Iraq-Terrorism.html

So the FMA failed in the Senate. No big surprise here. I honestly think that the feeling on this in the Bush camp was that there was no way in hell that it would pass, so they could sate their bigoted religious right by submitting the bill, and not piss off everyone else by actually having it pass. Granted, most people will disagree with this theory, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

The recent ruling by the International Court in the Hauge leaves me confused on several fronts. First off, does anyone really expect Israel to pay any attention to what this court says, when they have repeatedly refused Israel a seat on the court, yet readily give spots to any terrorist-sponsoring country that wants in? Then you have an international left wing that wants the Palestinians to have their own state. Fine. So Israel should have every right in the world to build a fence along its borders to keep out people who aren't Israeli. It's called territorial sovereignty. I could maybe understand the ICC saying that Israel needs to change the route of the barrier so that it does not infringe on alleged Palestinian land, something the Israeli Supreme Court has already said itself, but the ICC is saying the entire wall must come down. That's tantamount to someone saying that the French were breaking the law when they set up the Maginot Line to protect against Germany. Of course that didn't help the French since the Germans just went through Belgium instead. The number of sucide attacks has been significantly reduced since the wall started going up, and even several Palestinian communities laud the wall, as now they don't have to worry about terrorists attracting shootouts to their neighborhoods. Just ahout everyone who lives in the area and is not a terrorist likes the wall. Let's remember that if the Palestinian leadership wasn't encouraging young men to throw their lives away to murder the Zionists, no one would ever have wanted a wall in the first place.

I just read an opinion piece by Orson Scott Card, a science-fiction writer for whom I have tremendous respect. He wrote Ender's Game, and if you only read only sci-fi novel in your life, make it this one. At any rate, the piece was on drug legalization and how we shouldn't do it. I agree and disagree. The problem is that he puts all illegal drugs into one category, and that's not fair. Cocaine, heroin, even LSD, I hsve no problem with the illegality of such substances. Marijuana, on the other hand, has proven medical benefits, and even if it didn't, it's certainly has less of an effect on a person's behavior than ritalin, or percosett, or any number of other "legal" drugs. That's the problem with people who feel all drugs should be illegal. They really mean all illegal drugs should be illegal. I'd much rather have someone driving around town on pot than on most prescription drugs. And I'd rather see someone take marijuana to relieve glaucoma or fight nausea brought on by chemotherapy, then see any kid put on ritalin or adderol, drugs whose long-term effects are less known than pot. I was in a college freaternity in the last ten years, and that makes me much more of an expert on the effects of drugs on behavior than Orson Scott Card, who admits to only once knowingly being in the same building as illegal drugs, and that was just pot. Pot is not illegal because of problems it causes to people's health and behavior, but because of the problems the government faced taxing it in the early 20th century, and the fact that, at the time it became illegal, it was associated with jazz musicians, an undesirable group among the law-making elite of the time.

Sometimes I want to smack Alan Dershowitz around for his opinions, but I've never been able to fault him for flaws in his logic or half-truths or any of that sort of thing that is so rampant in partisan opinion pieces these days. Here's one I readily agree with:

http://jewishworldreview.com/0704/dershowitz_hague_ruling.php3

John Edwards, candidate for Vice President of the United States, said, in several verifiable quotes back in 2002, that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States. Even Bush NEVER said imminent, yet was accused of doing so and called a liar because of it. Since Edwards actually did say it, why doesn't the press call him a liar? Because he's not Bush. It's not about what's right or wrong anymore, it's merely about who is for Bush, and who is against.

The other difference is that Edwards could say whatever he wanted and it didn't matter. He didn't have to do anything about it. Bush, on the other hand, had to act upon intelligence and actually do something. It's easy to say things when there are no consequences, but a lot harder to stand by what you say when it really means something. In that respect, Bush passed with flying colors. Edwards, on the other hand, is able to go back and criticize Bush for acting on what Edwards himself had said. That should tell you something about the integrity and honor of Mr. Edwards.

Partisanship has reached an ugly level. Granted, this is the first election in which I am paying big time attention, but even so I don't remember things being so ugly leading up to any previous election, and most of the ugliness is coming from the left. Just lookup Whoopi Goldberg's comments from a Democratic fundraiser last week if you really want to the see the ugly side of partisanship. Some of the things she said are simply indefensible, and far worse than what I read from the right about Clinton in the 90's. The worst I saw was that Clinton was a liar (since verified as liar even under oath), and a sex fiend (self-admitted, even while married), with few morals (I'd say the first two items illustrate that). The worst I see about Kerry from the right is that he sucks and wants to destroy marriage and is anti-American and French. Whoopis and friends, one the other hand, seem to enjoy comparing Republicans to genetalia.

So it seems that John Kerry's lack of interest in his job as Senator (he's attended 14 of the last 120 Senate votes) is already extending to international affairs. He said on Larry King Live last night, when asked about Tom Ridge's press release regarding possible terror attacks preceding the election, that he was offered a briefing about the intelligence that supported the possiblity of attacks, but he did not have time. Then he went to some gala where Whoopi Goldberg insulted the President. I guess that's a lot more important than knowing whether or not terrorists are planning to kill Americans. This is the guy people want running the country. I can't wait to see what happens if he's elected and a major world event conflicts with an appearance on Leno. We already know where his priorities lie...

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/181422_robert09.html

The above links to an article about a recently returned veteran of military action in Iraq who was marching in a parade and was saddened to hear people calling out, "Murderer," "Baby killer," and that sort of thing. That's something I never understood about anti-war protesters, even back in high school when I thought I was all anti-war and liberal. You might be against a war, and think that the people in charge are criminals for starting the war, but people like the kid in this article are just soldiers. They would be soldiers if there hadn't been a war also. They're just doing what they are supposed to. That excuse doesn't work if your boss is telling you to shove people into gas chambers, but if you're told to go to Iraq and patrol around looking for insurgents, well I think it's a pretty valid reason to not blame the soldier even if you disagree with the war. The far left that indulges itself in such hatred doesn't deserve the freedoms they have. They sure as hell wouldn't be enjoying life so much if it weren't for those soldiers they hate. In a lot of countries they'd be shot or imprisoned or totured for such actions, and it's only because of those soldiers that the place they live in is able to allow such hatred in the name of freedom.

That's another thing... People like Michael Moore who shout censorship every time someone disagrees with them don't understand what real censorship is. Being able to have your voice heard all over the country claiming that Disney is involving itself in censorship because they decided not to buy your movie is not censorship. It's the very opposite.

The International Court has decided that the security wall that Israel is building violates international law and must be dismantled immediately. Too bad they never decided that suicide bombing is illegal.

Ya'll or y'all? I suppose y'all makes more sense, but it seems like I've always seen ya'll in writing. Someone I argued the point with said that only southerners wrote ya'll, and everyone else wrote y'all. Isn't it a southern word, though? Why should we care what the rest of the country thinks, it ain't their word. I'm going to have to find out if Faulkner ever used the word, and how he apostrophied it, because as far as I'm concerned, when it comes to southern words, what Faulkner says is definitive, and most scholars of southern lit would agree with me, I'm sure.

Regarding my ealier note on the disgusting article in the opinion section of the AJC that compared allowing gay marriage to allowing Hitler to take voer Europe, someone wrote in today talking about how biased the AJC was because they only printed letters denouncing the article. In this instance I found it hard to believe that anyone could agree with her, and the editors put in a little note saying that of the scores of letters they had received on the issue, not a single one was favorable.

Also, much more exciting to me than being published in the AJC, I was published on Instapundit.com. For those who don't know, Instapundit is the blog name for Glenn Reynolds, perhaps the most well known and influential political blogger of them all. I wrote a short letter to him, and he put it ont he site and remarked on it, and mentioned my name. Go me! So go to the page and search for my name.

I find it very interesting how the conservative versus liberal dynamic has changed over the last year or so. Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit and Blogfather, would have been called a centrist before the war in Iraq. He has no problems with gay marriage, he's pro-choice, and he appears to think that much of the religious right is just as whacko as I think they are. But he supports the war, and now, whenever he is referenced in the media, he is a "conservative blogger." That's a ridiculous notion, you can't just call someone conservative simply because they support an end to the tyranny of Saddam, but to much of the media if you support the war then you must be all about the Republicans. It's simply not true, and such attitudes seem to belie the media's supposedly nuanced, non-black and white, outlook on the world. It's become us or them, the same sort of thinking they have previously derided the right for in its good versus evil type thinking.

Check out the letters to the editor in today's AJC. One of their columnists, Shaunti Feldhahn, or something like that, wrote an article about defending marriage by not allowing gay marriage to happen. She went on to compare allowing gay marriage to the appeasement that allowed Hitler to rise to power. It was one of the most ridiculous, insulting things I have ever read, and every single letter in the paper completely reamed her. Some on the right have complained that the AJC's editorial pages are too left wing. I think they just wanted a normal right wing viewpoint, not a psycho-fascist bigot of a right winger.

Stright from Andrew Sullivan, gay, Republican, and living with AIDS for many years, if you've never checked out andrewsullivan.com, do yourself a favor and do so.

THE ENEMY IN IRAQ: Two new developments. Another horrifying mass murder by the "insurgents," i.e. Jihadists and Baathists. This time, they underlined their message by murdering fourteen mourners at a funeral for a public official that the Jihadists murdered earlier this week. They kill and kill again. This particular incident cannot in any way be attributed to the presence of the Coalition forces. It's designed to terrorize Iraqi civilians into a new dictatorship. You have to believe that most Iraqis can see this for what it is. In fact, I do believe it. After the transfer of sovereignty, you can see the potential contours of the struggle that will now define that country and the region: terrorists versus democrats, Jihadists versus Muslim patriots. Remember this has never happened before. In the police states of most Arab countries, there's no democracy to fight for or against. But now there's a chance that there will be. And so we will get tough Arab democratic leaders (like Allawi) cracking down on terror; and we will also get new vigilante groups targeting the Jihadists. Here's a fascinating quote from a video made by a group of viglantes who are now targeting Zarqawi:
"We swear to Allah that we have started preparing ... to capture [Zarqawi] and his allies or kill them and present them as gift to our people... This is the last warning. If you don't stop, we will do to you what the coalition forces have failed to do." (My italics).
Notice what these people must have absorbed to put the battle in that context: that the coalition did indeed liberate Iraqis from tyranny, that they have been unable to prevent terrorists from exploiting the subsequent power vacuum, but that Iraqis themselves will now do the job. The silver lining of the U.S. failure to pacify Iraq just widened a little.
- 12:17:10 AM

http://www.techcentralstation.com/102203D.html

Nifty article on harassment law. Or is it harrassment? I can never remember. Anyway, after reading the article, I wondered about something. Women are supposed to be equal to men in the eyes of the law, except in cases involving gender-specific physical attributes. Well I don't know of any men that would ever sue for overhearing sexual comments, yet women do it all the time. Why is it that women are allowed to make a lot of money by being offended by something that is not offensive to men? That's not equal, and this doesn't involve physical attributes, it involves feelings. Maybe women should stop being so offended at people being people?

I love the last part of the article, taken from South Park. Harassment law tells us what we can and cannot say at work. Controlling speech is fascism.

The 2004 World Series of Poker coverage has begun on ESPN. The tournaments actually took place in May, so I already know who won, but it's still fun to watch and learn. I have a weekly game going on Wednesdays, but it's pretty amatuer. If anyone has a game with no more than a $25 buy-in, I'd love to come play sometime.

Thanks to the team time trial, Lance Armstrong has moved into the position he has come to own, first place in the GC, and holder of the Yellow Jersey. Unfortuantely, due to some new rules that seem to have been implemented specifically to make it tougher for Lance to win his 6th GC title (GC being general classification, as opposed to the winners of the sprint and climbing competitions), he only picked up 20 seconds on the second place team, despite crossing the finish line 1'07" faster. The Tour has decided that no more than 20 seconds will seperate each placing, so the 21st and last team can only lose a maximum of 7 minutes to the first place team. US Postal is the best team on the tour, so it was not much of a surprise that they finished 1st, nor that Lance, who had been 16 seconds behind the Yellow Jersey (I'm not sure that should be capitalized, but why the heck not, it's probably the most famous shirt in the world), moved up to 1st overall.

I ran the Peachtree Road Race today. 10k (6.2 miles), hot weather, and I developed a really bad blister about 1 mile in. Every step I took hurt, and one point I even thought about quitting, but I wanted the damn t-shirt. Finally I finished. When I was able to take off my shoes, the people I was with remarked that they couldn't believe I was able to finish at all.

I say it every year, but this time I mean it! Next year I'm going to be in much better shape.

I just saw Spiderman 2.


I liked it.

Regarding the mass murders in the Sudan, which are reaching genocidal levels, Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN, shows us why the UN is useless.

"But U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said the United Nations should not be blamed.

'We should avoid the situations where we allow member states to hide behind the secretary general, use him as an alibi for their own inaction,' Annan told the Addis Tribune in Addis Ababa, the capital of neighboring Ethiopia."

Gee, I though the U.N.'s original purpose was to keep things like this from happening, but instead they just try to pass the buck again.

Due to the teacher that had "relations" with her 14 year old male student, there has been a lot of talk about the age of consent in the blogosphere. When I was working at a bookstore, I frequently met very attractive girls of high school age. I never went out with any of them (except one, but she was 18 and a month from graduating), but I was often tempted, even going so far as to try to find out what the age of consent in Georgia is. I was unable to find a defintive answer at the time, hearing 16, 17, and 18, depending on the source, and the actual laws involved are so diverse, relating to various cases on sodomy, privacy, stautory rape, etc., that actually finding a final answer in a law was near impossible. I never got my answer. Now I see there's a website that has the age of consent for all 50 states and many countries. It says 16 for Georgia, but I easily found another source that said 17. I still don't know, but wouldn't it be nice if the government would make it a bit easier for someone to find out if what they want to do is illegal or not?

The following was taken directly from www.blackfive.net:

"Who Wrote This On September 15, 2001?
'That we, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants. I know it's a hard thing to hear right now, but if I and others don't say it, I fear we will soon be in a war that will do NOTHING to protect us from the next terrorist attack.'

That was Michael Moore four days after 3,000 human beings were murdered - basically, it's our fault that we got bombed. Amazingly, a few days later he wrote:

'When we decide to help improve these billions of people’s lives, we will pull the rug out from under the terrorists who need those they send to their deaths to be poor and exploited and angry at us. The multi-millionaire bin Laden isn’t going to give up HIS life! When all the people in the Middle East have food on the table, a decent home, a good job, and democratic control over their own lives, who among them is going to be convinced to sacrifice his life by crashing himself into a tall office building?'

Sounds like the Iraq plan, doesn't it?"

The man has a point. It sounds like Bush has been trying to do exactly what Michael Moore wanted the U.S. to do, go out there and help to improve peoples' lives. Getting rid of Saddam improved a lot of peoples' lives. Now people like Michael Moore get mad because we've pushed the terrorists into action. That's bunk, we were already in their sights, and the people who say they feel more unsafe because of the Iraq invasion have short memories and are very naive. No terrorist out there in the entire world thought after 9/11, "Gee, we killed a lot of Americans. Go us! I guess we're done with this terrorism thing and hating America now." Iraq did not change a thing, the same guys that planned 9/11 were most likely already planning more attacks when we invaded Iraq, and I just can't understand how someone would think otherwise. It's somewhat like the Israel/Palestine question. Several Palestinian leaders have said, time and time again, that their goal is to push Israel into the sea (the DEAD sea), and they are not believed. Well several Al Queda guys, among many other terrorists, have said they hate America and want to kill Americans, and they said it before we invaded Iraq. They weren't believed then, but now they are believed because people can blame it on America. Before it was a blind, evil hatred, which much of the left wing refuses to admit exists, but now it's directed against the imperialistic Americans, and it's so easy for them to believe that people hate America.

I'm all for free speech, and I'm not the sort to call John Kerry, or anyone else, un-American simply because they disagree with George Bush's administration. I'm not sure what it would take for a left-winger to call anyone un-American. Perhaps they would consider the 9/11 mass murderers as un-American. Well after seeing the text of a speech he gave in Germany, I now consider Michael Moore un-American. A direct quote:

"Should such an ignorant people lead the world? How did it come to this in the first place? 82 percent of us don't even have a passport! Just a handful can speak a language other than English (and we don't even speak that very well.) ..."

And another:

"They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet . . . in thrall to conniving, thieving smug [pieces of the human anatomy]," Moore intoned. "We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

He's not criticizing US policy here, he's saying that Americans are dumb and ignorant. That's anti-American, un-American, un-Patriotic, whatever. In other interviews he's said how he really loves America and wants to see us do right, etc. When he calls Americans dumb and ignorant, I don't think he's showing that he loves America.