A nifty story about a girl and her stomach. Some might see this as a knock against socialized medicine. I won't go that far, because I'm sure the doctors that treated her in Britain knew what they were doing. On the other hand, the more I learn about socialized medicine and how it works in other countries, the more I worry about Hillary Clinton becoming President in 2008. The fact is, the more socialized you make any industry, the les motivation there is for anyone to succeed, or do more than just get by, in that industry.

I got my car back. How much did it cost? A lot! But also a lot less than the first place I took it to was going to charge. Heck, it's even less than the initial quote I got from the place where I did take it, but in the end I think I probably could have saved another $500 if I'd had the luxury of shopping around a lot. At any rate, I now have a new clutch and transmission, and my car no longer sounds like a semi when I'm in 2nd or 3rd gear.

"Why are so many people so upset that women seeking an abortion will be told the facts on abortion, and learn all the risks and dangers before they make their final decision? Fanatic pro-choicers seem to want to protect the cult of abortion against all resistance, with obfuscation of the facts as their number one priority. What sort of agenda must you have to think that it's bad if a young woman facing a major choice is actually advised of all of her choices, and given the proper knowledge to make a decision?"

A letter I wrote to the AJC. When it comes down to it, I'm pro-choice, but not fanatical, and if abortion doctors are required to reveal all the possible side-effects and other options to a patient before they assent to the operation, I cannot see how it could be a bad thing. I do admit to needing to read the remainder of the bill, because I know there is more involved. My letter was in repsonse to people who wrote letters against informing patients, saying it will just scare them. Abortion is a HUGE deal, an operation in which the mental effects may not even show for 30 years or nore, and anyone thinking about getting one should be scared.

A heartwarming story about a woman, a library, and a VERY small town. Most people probably wouldn't understand why anyone would go through so much trouble to maintain a library, but I do.

Crazy story about people with guns. Bitter custody battle, man waits at courthouse for wife and kid with an AK-47, and starts shooting when they show. Wife dies, but when man is about to kill son, a bystander with a gun starts shooting, gets killed, but stops man from killing son.

The father obviously had planned this ahead of time, so even if guns were banned, he could have probably gotten one. The man that stopped the guy from shooting his father was only able to do so because he had a gun. If guns were banned, then the bad guy would have finished killing his fmaily and probably some other people long before the cops showed up to stop him. This is why banning guns is a bad idea.

I've been thinking more about the eminent momain issue and the 5th amendment to the Constitution. The relevent part reads: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This seems to give permission to the government to take private property for public use if just compensation is given. It does not, however, say anything about taking property for private use. In my opinion a Wal-Mart is not a public use, it's a private use. Does the town own Wal-Mart? No, so it's a private establishment. Even if the town will get higher tax revenue, it's still a private company that is getting the private property, so it should be illegal. That leaves room for the government to take property (with just compensation, of course) to build roads and schools and such, but does not allow them to take land and then resell it to a private developer.

Can anybody explain to me how the left (by left I mean various groups like NOW, the ACLU, such like that, not the Democratic Party) is all up in arms attacking Larry Summers, President of Harvard, for saying, and this is a paraphrase, "I might be wrong, but perhaps the disparate numbers of men and women involved in math and science might have something to do with genetic differences in the abilities of men and women," yet at the same time are defending Ward Churchill, who called 9/11 victims "Little Eichmans," on free speech grounds. Why does Churchill deserve free speech protection, and Summers deserves the hook?

My theory? Churchill's statements match up with what a lot of these organizations think (but don't neccesarily say), whereas Summers' remarks are opposite of what these groups supposedly represent. "Free speech for me, but not for thee."

Tom Wolfe on Hunter S. Thompson

Here's a link to stuff about the Supreme Court hearing that I mentioned yesterday. If you go to the main page of the linked blog, you'll find more about it.

Looks like I'm going to get a mention on one of my favorite blogs (one that people actually read!). So check up on The Volokh Conspiracy, and look for Eugene talking about bookstores.

Looks like things went badly for my side in the Supreme Court hearing. My sources (random people online that wrote about it) tell me that the property rights side may only get 3 votes, to 6 for the bad guys. This is why we need more conservatives on the bench, so they'll champion private property rights.

Occuring today is one of the most important Supreme Court hearings of my lifetime. This one is about the power of eminent domain, and the abuse of that power by local governments. The Constitution states that property can be taken by a government if it is for public use and a fair price is paid to the property owner. In Kelo versus New London, Kelo got an eviction notice. The problem? There was no valid public use for the property, the town just decided to seize it and give it to a private developer because they would get more tax revenue that way. Some might say that higher tax revenue is a public use, but if we go down that road, before you know it local governments will be stealing property left and right and saying they are going to get more tax money because of it. Or they might have a Wal-Mart seized because local ownership of stores is a valuable community aspect. This cannot continue. You cannot have a free society in which the government can take whatever they want when they want it. By definition, that is no longer a free society, and that is the road we are headed down.

I'm not going to say there aren't any valid public uses for eminent domain. Sometimes a highway needs to be built and there are no other feasible routes. Or perhaps an area has become a blight on a town, full of condemned homes and drug dealers. Seizing that property could do a lot to make life safer in an area. But that's about it. There have been several cases the last few years of private developers (Wal-Mart has done this at least a couple of times) getting meetings with a town council and convincing them that if thewy steal homes from just these X number of people, they can tear down the homes and put up a strip mall and make lots more money to give out in pork, thus buying themselves votes and more terms in office. This, my dear, is the evil face of greed!!

Big news for those of you with Comcast DVRs. Turns out that you can have 30 second skip, you just have to get a code, and program it to a button. It now works here, and it makes the whole system so much better.

A friend, or perhaps now a former friend, of George W. Bush released a bunch of tapes of private conversations he and Bush has in 1998. The New York Times has a summary, but what is both amazing, and reassuring, is that Bush's ideas in private are remarkably similar to what he has actually done and said in public. If wehad tapes of John Kerry in a similar way, I'm sure you'd hear several different stories and personal opinions than what the public got, but then we already know that Kerry was an opportunist and Bush is a lot more genuine. That's why Kerry lost. Anyway, I bet at least 75% of elected national politicianss would come off pretty bad if their private conversations were released on tape.

I was reading a short article about the Jenin "Massacre" that supposedly happened two years ago. BBC journalists told the world that the Israelis slaughtered thousands of Palestinian civilians in cold blood. The American media actually decided to do investigating, and discovered that no more htan 56 Palestinians were killed, and most were armed militants. The Israeli military actually sent soldiers around to all the buildings in Jenin to warn civilians to get out before the bombs started to fall. And why did Israel want to bomb Jenin in the first place? It had something to do with the 130 Israelis that were murdered by suicide bombers, several of which were traced to Jenin, over the month previous. Unfortunately the BBC, if they retracted their lies at all, did not get the word out very well. Even today, Jenin is frequently referred to in Britain as an example of why Jews are Nazis. When asked why things like this happen, why journalists will lie about Israel, but never say anything bad about militant Islamist suicide bombers and their leaders who just want to kill every Jew, a British journalist said "Because Jewish Rabbis don't pronounce fatwas on journalists. Imams do."

Has anyone had any problems with Comcast DVRs? Just last night I paused American Idol to go outside to smoke, and had no problem fast forwarding when I got back inside. If this is true, it hasn't hit me yet. I hope it's not true, because it would tick me off if it is. The law, as far as I undestand it, is that once a cable signal comes into your home, you can do whatever you want with it, as long as it doesn't involve making money. There were suits back in the 80's over the cable companies charging extra money when people split the cable to go to two TVs. Whichever court it was decided that people can do whatever they want with the cable, as long as it is inside their home. I think this should extend to being able to fast forward through shows. Heck, Comcast has already handicapped their DVRs by not having the most usefull button they could have, the 30 second skip ahead button.

I suppose the networks could get around my logic by saying that the flag that makes it so you can't fast forward is added before the signal arrives at my home.

I hope that some sort of scandal arises out of Christo's Central Park gates, only because that could lead to something people have waited over 30 years for, "Gate-Gate."

There was a nifty article in the AJC about Is'mail Muhammed and how his dunking skills are making himt he toast of Sprotscenter highlight reels, to the point where even big-time NBA stars are impressed, and making sure to stay up for Top 10 Plays on days when Tech has a game.

If he can up his free throw shooting to 70% or better, he can make it int he NBA, I think. Even withoout a jump shot, which I don't see him ever getting great at, his defensive prowess combined with his athleticism should find him a niche somewhere, but if he can't make free throws, it almost completely negates his offensive ability.

I got a raise and a promotion yesterday. Add to that the tuition reimbursement program, and I'm almost making ok money. Five years down the road, however, and I should be making really good bank!

John Stossel, of ABC's 20/20, discusses why sahring is bad. It's really a thinly veiled knock at socialist tendencies in government. He's saying that if everyone owns something, then no one owns it and it doesn't get taken care of.

Look at AMTRAK. The US government pays for AMTRAK, so no one really cares about it. If it was privatized, then the owners would actually have incentive to make a profit. As it is now, no one at AMTRAK cares if they make a profit or not because taxpayers will pay for it to continue anyway.

The fact is, people will never care about anything as much as when that thing is theirs and theirs alone. Expand this more into a larger economic paradigm, and you realize how little chance socialism has of ever suceeding anywhere, and how much more sense free market capitalism makes.

Here are some pictures from that big "art" project up in NYC's Central Park. I put art in quotes, because I haven't figured why exactly a bunch of orange gates qualifies as art, but the "artist" paid for it out of his own pocket with no help from the city other than permission,and hotel bookings in the area have been way up, so who am I to complain?

Anyway, the pictures were taken by my sister Courtney, and her husband Lane. They live in San Francisco now, but previously lived in NYC for a year or so.

I talked to AAMCO yesterday. I wish I could have recorded the conversation, the guy was really weird, and some of the things that were said were definitely worthy of many laughs. When I asked him for a worst-case scenario type of price, he went through his entire autobiography of automotive-related jobs, which took about five minutes, and finished with, "And I've never seen a transmission that was totally gone."

Anyway, they're going to take it out, take it apart, and get back to me on what all needs to be fixed/replaced. It's gonna cost a lot, but any car that is cheap enough for me to afford without financing is probably not very reliable, and I really don't want monthly payments anymore.

I've spent some of the morning reading about transmissions on How Stuff Works. It's a great site, with tons of info, and well written, too, with good illustrations.

My roommate has a new group blog that he wanted me to mention, so that all two of the people that read this blog will check his out.

Today sucks. Yesterday I found out that my car probably needs the transmission rebuilt (that's not cheap), then I went to a party and had a bit too much to drink while drowning my sorrows, and then I had to come in to work early. It's 7:05 now, I got here at 6:45, and I feel like I'm gonna pass out.

Many reasons for Israel to NOT withdraw from the "occupied territories."

There are so many double standards here, it's ridiculous. The Palestinians say that they need a Palestinian only state to make a go of things, yet if Israel then decided to have a Jewish only state and kick out all the Arabs, they would be crucified on the world stage. But the Palestinians are applauded for their own efforts of racial purity. That's just the beginning of it.... Read the article, it will horrify you.

Today is the first day of the ultimate Jeopardy tournament, in which hundreds (I think I read 250 or so) of former champions will square off for the chance to take on the all-time champ, Ken Jennings. Blood will fly!

The difference between the Dems and the Republicans these days is very simple (and this is not an orignal thought of mine, it's merely exapanding on something I read somewhere). The Republicans under Bush have goals and convictions and beliefs, and whether or not you agree with those beliefs, you can count on the Bush administration sticking to them, even when 50% of the country and much of the rest of the world disagrees. The Democrats, on the other hand, seem to only be united by one thing, their disdain for Bush. You have the "way-out-there" wing of the party led by Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer, and Ted Kennedy. These are the people that refuse to open their eyes and accept reality; that most of America is not nearly as far left as they are, and never will be because they believe in America, not in socialism. In the case of Kennedy, you also have a vehicular homocidist who used his wealth and influence to get out of jail free. Then you have the opportunist wing, led by John Kerry and John Edwards and Al Sharpton. These are the people who will do or say anything in order to gain influence or power. They will change their opinions (and all are on record for doing so) if they think it will help their careers. In the case of Al Sharpton, you can add that he's a race-baiter who drummed up a riot against an innocent and caused 7 deaths, but used his wealth and influence to get out of jail free. And finally you have Joe Lieberman, who is about the only major Democrat that has my respect right now (Zell Miller, too, but he's mostly retired now).

Growing up I had always heard that Democrats were liberals, and were always seeking to change things for the better, and Republicans were conservatives who followed the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" creedo. Now the Democratic leadership seems reactionary, virulently against anything changing anything (especially if Bush might get credit for doing something good), and against bringing freedom and democracy to the world (maybe not in theory, but in actual fact they have done what they can ever since Vietnam to avoid helping bring down tyrants and despots and help bring people freedom, and seem more than ever against such for the Iraqis). The Republicans seem to be the liberal ones. If you actually read the defnition of liberalism:

"1 the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties"

You see that I am right. First off, the whole religion thing seems absent and even facing hostility from the far left, whereas Bush frequently mentions that his faith is a player in his decisions. The second part involves free trade, something the Republicans favor, whereas the Democrats bemoan such (outsouricing jobs, which is a hallmark of free trade, seems to be the devil to most left-wingers these days). I think we can ignore the gold standard part, seeing as the world has passed beyond that. Finally the last part. Though many decry Bush for taking away our civil liberties, no one has yet been able to tell me of a instance when a citizen of the United States was not given their civil liberties by the Bush administration. The belief in the essential goodness of the human race can be illustrated by Iraq. The Dems were against going in there, for one reason because they didn't think that Iraq could handle a peaceful democracy, whereas Bush has faith that the Iraqi people are good people and will do just fine. The autonomy of the individual... Well which aprty is pushing private, individually owned security accounts as a better alternative to social security, and which party is championing leaving everything the same so that everyone, no matter their needs, is treated just like everyone else and has no ability to make any sort of decision about where their hard earned money goes to? Which party tries to make things so that individuals can be more responsible for theirselves and their actions, and which party seems to think the government-almagamation is the answer to everyone's problems, instead of their own individual resources?

The Democrats used to be a party worthy of respect, but now they become a mockery. Democrats from 50 years ago would be horrified at what their party has become, as Zell Miller himself has expressed.

Remember that Animaniacs song where they named all the countries of the world? I knew a girl who had it memorized. Anyway, someone wrote an updated version, which also corrects some inaccuracies.

More interesting facts about some of the leading lights of the left. Barbara Boxer, who impugned the integrity of our new Secretary of State during the hearings a couple of weeks ago, and accused Condi Rice of lying to the public about the possibility of WMDs in Iraq, introduced a bill to Congress a few years ago called "The Syrian Acocuntability Act," which, among other things, said that Syria had to get rid of its WMDs. Of course now she's spent much of the last two years accusing Bush of lying about WMDs when she herself thought that Syria had them. Boxer, and many of her left wing Congressional pals like Pelosi, may not have lied outright, but she's certainly shown that she's a political opportunist with little or no conscience. All she cares about is winning, which is something that can be said for most politicians on both sides of the aisle.

From Instapundit, regarding social security:

Interestingly, so did FDR: "In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, 'Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age,' adding that government funding, 'ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.'"

Even FDR, the man who started the New Deal that leftists refer to so much when they knock the very thought of overhauling SS, wanted social security to become an investment vehicle in which people can make their own decisions.

My email is down for some reason, so if you need to reach me, try bskott@gmail.com.

And Warren, sorry I didn't call you back last night. Things got busy.

A mother and daughter argue about social security. Nice little multi-generational debate between two informed, intelligent adversaries.

If you only follow the mainstream media, you may not have realized that there were free and democratic elections in Iraq this weekend for the first time in 5000 years of recorded history. While I feel this is not just a good thing, but an absolutely fantastic event of immense historical significance, much of the left in our country is less than enthused. Some of them are even contemplating the possibility that at some point in the future they may have to admit that Bush was right and they were wrong. Personally I find the resistance to admitting any sort of success in Iraq to be very much in conflict with the supposed "ideals" of the left wing. The Democrats have, supposedly, stood for freedom and democracy for 200 years, but in this case they are solidly in favor of supporting the reactionary Islamic fanatics instead of the everyday workingman who wants peace so that they can raise a family and make a few bucks.

You can no longer say that the Iraq war was about oil. If it was, then why is gas so expensive, and why is the Iraqi oil industry being run by Iraqis and not Americans? You can no longer say this was all about enriching Halliburton because that company's publicly released numbers show that they made very little profit off the whole affair. You can no longer say this was about the Bush family grudge against Saddam Hussein, because Saddam got taken out long ago, yet our troops are still over there helping to create a great new country. You can no longer say this was just a ploy to distract Americans from bad stuff on the homefront, because our economy is noticeably improving, and no one has ever been able to point out any civil liberties that have been taken away from any United States citizens.

What does this leave us with? A war we entered to free an oppressed people from an evil dictator who tortured and murdered his people? A chance to be the catalyst in the creation of a free and peaceful Middle East? The slow but eventual cessation of anti-American hostilities from the region? All of the above, and more, and all morally sound ideas from every perspective I can think of except that of the Bush-hater and the Islamic fanatic.

You can no longer say that a middle eastern state cannot support a Democracy because first you have Israel, a very democratic state, and you have Afghanistan, who's freely elected government seems to be doing just fine, and now you have Iraq, where despite death threats from reactionary fanatics, there was a turnout of 60%+ to vote this weekend, which is far higher than most US elections. If more than 60% of a group supports a democracy, then a democracy can happen. To say Iraq cannot support a democracy is to say the same about the US, and that's self-evidently ridiculous.

To any readers with left-leanings, please give me some other reasons why you are still against the Iraq war. Tell me why all the great, wonderful, and good (as in the opposite of evil) things have happened, yet the war is evil, blah blah blah. Oh yeah, and tell me where Bush misled the American people on Iraq. Don't go into WMD's, he didn't lie or mislead anyone there, he was merely wrong. Other than that, he stated, from the very beginning, many of the same reasons that I mentioned above; demcoracy in the middle east, freedom from oppression, etc. And he's backing it up.

Don't let your Bush hatred get in the way of feeling good about the incredible and positive changes occuring in Iraq.

A personal update....

I moved. I now live in Post Lindbergh, right by the Lindbergh MARTA station. We were all set to move on Saturday, but for once the weather reports were correct, and the great Ice Storm of '05 hit. So we moved Sunday. Thankfully I had lots of friends willing to help, but I still moved stuff from 9 am to midnight that day. I had the foresight to take Monday off. Anyway, I want to give a special thanks to Allison Barchichat, who came over without anyone asking, and packed and cleaned our old kitchen as well as the bathroom, and lots of other stuff. And of course I have to thank her husband Tanah, Aron Katz, Jason Birnbaum, Todd Schachter, and Adrian Bucovsky. Without all of those people, there is no way this move could have gone as smoothly as it did.