Read this, more signs of how the internet is changing the world. The Chinese government can no longer surpress what they don't want people to know.

Columnist Walter Williams suggested, via Instapundit, that a provision be added to the Patriot Act which states that information obtained through the powers granted in the Patriot Act can only be used in court if it can be definitively tied to terrorism. Now at first this sounded good to me, as it seems that the anti-Patriot Act crowd who say it's taking away our civil liberties even thought they've never read the Act, and cannot name a single civil liberty which has been denied to them might be sated by such a provision, but then I realized this could take things the wrong way. Next thing you know we'll have terrorists on the stands with their lawyers saying things like, "According to this Reuters article, he is not a terrorist, he is a militant." Or, "This wasn't an act of terrorism, this was an act of war, and so that evidence cannot be used." All this provision would do is give activist anti-American left wingers (by the way, not saying all activists and left wingers are anti-American) another way to get their "freedom fighters" free.

I've read a transcript of Bush's inaugural speech, and I liked it a lot. He laid out the reasons why he thinks spreading Democracy is so important, and he mentioned the philosophical reasoning behind many of his decisions in foreign policy. Now I've read the reactions to the speech from a variety of people, and some of these people are just ridiculous. Many mainstream media reporters are being deliberately obtuse, trying to find extra meaning to Bush's words so they can then say that Bush wants to go to war with every country that disagrees with the United States. When Bush's people clarify their interpretation, the reporters then say, "Well it's a bad speech if you have to clarify what he was saying." Of course if the reporters would read the damn speech and stop trying to insert their own meanings into it, it's very obvious what Bush was saying. It's a really tough speech to misinterpret unless you really put some effort in to it. But then they might have to admit that Bush is not a stupid idiot, and actually has some meaningful things to say.

I don't know how the elections in Iraq will turn out, but I think it's looking good. I'm very optimistic for the future of that country. I'm also very optimistic that in 50 years people will look back on George W. Bush as a great and strong leader who stood astride history and said, "We cannot let these evils continue." And the world will be a better place for it

Directly from James Taranto's Best of the Web Today:
"In September the Daily Nebraskan, the student newspaper at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, published a column by Derek Kieper that argued against mandatory seat-belt laws:

As laws become increasingly strict for seat belts, fewer people will respond positively by buckling up in response to the laws. There seems to be a die-hard group of non-wearers out there who simply do not wish to buckle up no matter what the government does. I belong to this group. . . .

Telling me to wear my seat belt is the same as making sure I have some sort of proper education before diving into a swimming pool. If I want to dive in without knowing how to swim, that is my right. And if I want to be the jerk that flirts with death and rides around with my seat belt off, I should be able to do that, too.

The Lincoln Journal Star reports the sad ending of the Kieper story:

Kieper, a 21-year-old senior at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, died early Tuesday morning when the Ford Explorer he was a passenger in travelled off an icy section of Interstate 80 and rolled several times in a ditch. . . . Derek, who was thrown from the vehicle, was not wearing a seat belt.

When you flirt with death, you run the risk that death has something more serious in mind."

Sad, but funny in a sad sort of way.

So there is a social security crisis. Or there isn't, depending on who you talk to. All the logic in my body tells me there is a crisis. When SS started, there were 40 workers for every retiree, so the taxes of forty people paid the retirement of two. Not too bad, right? So the government started spending those surpluses. I don't know if it worked this way at the start, but now when the government spends that social security surplus, they replace it government bonds, and this becomes the "Social Security Trust Fund" that you hear so much about. The number of workers per retiree is going down, and soon enough there will be too many people retiring for the workers to pay for their retirement. Then we have to dip into the surplus. But the surplus is all bonds, and you can't spend a bond, so they have to pay those bonds off. How do they do that? They use tax money. So either way it all comes down to the fact that whoever is earning money through work in the next few decades is going to get royaly reamed and have to pay out the wazoo for retirees, and have none left for their own retirement. Are Bush's personal accounts the answer? Maybe, maybe not. Right now he's suggesting that 2% of a person's SS taxes be put into personal accounts for investment. 2% is not a big deal for an experiment, but the left is 110% against this. They just seem to want to wait until the entire system fails and the only way to save things is to raise taxes to like 75%. That way they can increase their control over the people, and increase their ability to use fear to get votes (Vote for us and we'll give you money, don't and the evil Republicans will take it away). At any rate, there is definitely a problem down the road, and many of our politicians seem to want to stick their heads in the sand. You have a problem with the deficit? Well what's going on with social security is going to make today's deficit look like lunch money. At least Bush is trying to do something about it.

Some guy at Sportsline.com talks about how awesome Muhammed is for my Yellow Jackets.

Arnold's "State of the State" speech in California. I tell you what, I was a fan before, because I thought he was fiscally conservative and socially liberal. After reading this speech, I'm even more of fan. The guy looks at his state and see problems and tries to find solutions. He doesn't pander to special interests or lobbies, he doesn't care if he seems heartless. He's a got huge budget problem to fix, and he's darn well gonna get it fixed. Up until today, I was against changing the Constitution to allow him to run for President, but, more than any other politician I've seen, he seems to get it.

I think the key may be that he's not a politician, but unlike other celebrities that have been elected to public office, he's also not beholden to his party, nor is he playing it safe. The only people he's beholden to are his constituents, and he knows that what's best for them is not higher taxes, nor tax cuts, nor welfare, nor pork, but proper budgeting to attract business and create wealth for everyone.

Schwarzenegger For President, 2012!

My sister Courtney's new furniture designs.

I saw a discussion where a bunch of people were talking about how the tsunamis might be a starting point for a new era in the global war on poverty, that now people in the west might begin to make sacrifices in order to save the rest of the world from poverty. Some, however, felt that western capitalism requires the rest of the world to remain in poverty. These people do not understand the first thing about economics.

Free trade creates wealth. The more a country is involved with trade, the more wealth they will accquire. Before I go further, let me remind you that there are plenty of countries that could be well off as we speak, but their despotic leaders took that wealth for themselves and squandered. Iraq, for instance, has made billions and billions and billions of oil, but little of it went back in to the country. That's not the fault of the west, that's the fault of Saddam and the people that preceeded him. At any rate, there was a little reported World Bank report released recently that showed that poverty the world over is slowly being decimated. The report showed that last year was a banner year, with more people around the world rising out of pverty than ever before. What was the reason for this? Worldwide economic growth through free trade. It's not about the West giving money to the poor people, it's about the poor people finding something to give to the world in exchange for money or goods and services. And it's working, but it would go against the quasi-socialist agenda of many left wingers aroudn the world to admit this, and that's why you haven't seen this report discussed in your local paper. Believe me, if it had said the opposite, it would be on the front page.

A cowardly anonymous person commented to my previous entry that I have 0 comments on almost all my posts. Fortunately for me, I don't care. I've known a LOT of people over the years that write diaries, but not a single one has ever opened theirs up for comment. Yet they keep writing anyway. So to whomever wrote that comment, fuck off. You don't have to read if you don't like, because I write this for me, not for anyone else. On the other hand, if you do read it, maybe you'll learn something, like how to not be a jerk.

P.S. If you'd bothered to scroll down more, you might have noticed that there are a few comments here and there. Furthermore, at least I'm putting down my thoughts. If I'm ever famous, I'll have a goldmine to publish as a book, even though since I began there are many things I wrote that I no longer agree with. Anyway, if you think you can do better, start a blog and try, and I will wish you luck. Otherwise, shut the hell up unless you have something constructive to say.

Hmm... I guess I'm getting defensive. Oh well. I'll be right here writing more for at least the forseeable future, even if the only comments I get are from anonymous cowards.