Charter Member of the Sub-Media

July 28, 2004

Tarring With Broad Brushes? « Politics As Usual »

Well, that's what it takes when the Democrats embrace Michael Moore...

...because, you know, Michael Moore is an independant.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 05:37 PM | Comments (1)
Light/No Posting for 10 Days « Blogging »

I'm going on vacation!

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:14 AM | Comments (2)

July 27, 2004

Weasel Words « Social Issues »

You know what I hate about this report from the CDC?

Two things:
First: The phrase, "...latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier..." Well? Is it an impermeable barrier or not? The addition of the word 'essentially' makes it sound like it...but the meaning is the opposite. It's not an impermeable barrier, or they would just say so. 'Essentially' is a weasel word.

Second: Despite lots of words implying lots of knowledge on the performance of comdoms in a variety of situations, they can't seem to offer one, single hard number/percentage for the effectiveness of condoms in preventing any STD. Do they have any actual statistics to look at? If not, then they have no basis for their statements. If so, why can't they tell us? Why can't they share it with us? For all the tax dollars going to support the CDC, they can't tell us whether condoms are generally 97% or 99% effective in preventing Syphillis? Is it far worse? Would the percentage actually make a lie out of the earlier weasel word 'essentially'? What are they afraid of?

Because if we had the statistics, we could make better choices, right?

...but then, if we had the statistics, it might show just how irresponsible extra-marital sex really is, might it not? That might lead to the condemnation of certain lifestyles as inherently risky, and reduce sympathy for people willingly and knowingly playing with their health. Or even more importantly, it might reduce government funding...

Bottom line: Is an attitude political correctness intimidating the CDC from giving us the facts?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:24 PM | Comments (5)
» Mind of Mog links with: Around The Sphere
I Couldn't Ask For Better Timing « Social Issues »

In light of the tenor of my recent posts saying that the liberal fantasy of "costless" sexual intercourse has multiple, unfortunate repercussions, Matt Drudge points out this article that describes how STDs in Great Britain are rising significantly.
What about the United States?

For the most part, you reap what you sow.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:10 PM | Comments (0)
Condemning a "Girls Gone Wild" Society « Social Issues »

And everything I wrote in the preceding posts was written before I even read one word of this piece by Michelle Malkin.


From the way the mainstream media covers your generation and mine, you would think that it’s normal to dress up in Hooters outfits at 5 years old, to wear sex bracelets and discuss oral sex at 10, to flash your breasts for the cameras at 15, to get paid for anal sex at 20, to keep Excel spreadsheets of sexual conquests, and to use abortion as birth control until menopause.

When conservative women say “Have some self-respect,” liberals in the media call us self-righteous.

When conservative women say promiscuity is degrading and self-destructive, liberals in the media call us prudes.

When liberals won’t shut up about their sordid sex lives and we object, they call us rude.

When liberal women raise their voices, they are praised as “passionate.” When conservative women raise their voices, we are condemned as “shrill.”

Liberals and libertines who can’t complete a sentence without using gutter profanity have turned modesty, monogamy, faith, and self-restraint into dirty words.

I consider Planned Parenthood's Teenwire to be a significant part of the problem Ms. Malkin describes. Read the whole thing, k?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 04:00 PM | Comments (14)
» Blind Mind's Eye links with: Rethinking the sexual revolution: a libertarian's perspective
...and Another Thing! « Social Issues »

Since I'm discussing social issues, I'd like to add that much of the disagreements you might have with me or see among the posters here probably has something to do with viewpoint and worldview.

For instance, I was born in the 60s. My father was a Lutheran minister. I was the youngest of several children (so I learned alot from watching their mistakes). I'm male, so the idea of the immediacy of finding yourself pregnant is foreign to me...but I'm a male, so the idea of being forced to pay child support for 18-20 years without a choice seems very immediate to me.* Furthermore, I am an unexpected/unwanted child myself, and my daughter was unexpected (and not really wanted by my wife), so that affects my views. My wife now agrees having her was good...but the resentment affected our marriage for a few years, and her life has certainly made things more difficult for us. And if the sexual freedom enabled by contraception and abortion and encouraged by Planned Parenthood and feminists had existed 20-30 years earlier, you wouldn't be reading this because I wouldn't be here. So you can't really say I don't have a stake in this issue, can you?

That doesn't nullify the opinion of a woman who had a unwanted pregnancy and was really scared about the difficulties she faced, no. I don't pretend it should. I do think this is a battle for ideas in our society, and I am battling for a moral standard that will build a better, stronger, more mature and responsible society...but one that I recognize will mean a significantly harder life for some people.

And I recognize that if I get what I want, one of the victims of it could be my own daughter. But I'd rather have her face the difficulties from facing the normal consequences of failing to act responsibly than have her face the pain and heartbreak of being fooled by today's "Do what you want because there's always a way to avoid pain and/or the consequences of willing acts" mentality.

Read More "...and Another Thing!" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 03:50 PM | Comments (0)
Assumptions « Social Issues »

Here are some major assumption that I use in almost all my thinking:

When you cannot control your circumstances, you can still control how you react to those circumstances. That's character.

Difficult situations are part of life. We grow during difficult situations. Most of the things worth achieving in life require sacrifice, effort, pain, toil, sweat, tears, and blood. Deal with it.

Morality (as opposed to religious morality) is simply what works in life to achieve happiness, contentment, and inner peace. It means taking long-term gain over short-term gratification. Morality is the collected wisdom of the ages. It isn't perfect, and is continually growing...but ignoring wisdom is a sure way to avoidable pain and suffering.

Pain and suffering themselves aren't bad. Getting in physical shape and staying there requires pain and suffering of your body. Well, guess what? Getting in emotional, mental, and spiritual shape and staying there requires pain and suffering of the mind. The key is to differentiate between what is "damaging" pain and suffering, and what is the pain and suffering of growth.*

There's more, but this will do. It gives you an idea of the way I approach life, and thus the way I approach social issues.

Read More "Assumptions" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 03:28 PM | Comments (0)
Liberal Solutions Extensions of Problems « Social Issues »

I understand where Jo is coming from, mostly, in this discussion. Maybe the best way to summarize it is that abortion is so necessary in some rare situations that it justifies all the ways it is misused. A good analogy is in our criminal system, in which it is so important that we do not convict innocent people that we willingly accept the guilty who misuse the system, who take advantage of the loopholes we establish to provide the innocent a way out. Thus, Jo (along with other pro-choice advocates) is not advocating the misuse, she is advocating the loophole as necessary and worth the cost.

Well and good.

I admit I like to think outside the box. I like to challenge conventional wisdom. I like to confront assumptions. I like to shake things up and see what falls out. I also have tested out both religion and atheism, and spend a great deal of time observing humans...especially noticing when people lie to themselves about who they are and what they think they want.

One thing that forms the basis of my opposition to Jo's view: I don't think there is anything wrong with pain, difficulty, and struggle.* I can understand the viewpoint that it is worth the misuse just to make sure that no girl is ever forced to raise a child in a situation that seems impossible...I just don't agree. One thing that I don't like about abortion is its permanence...if you stick it out, there will be tough times, yes, but there will also be joys. Having a child as a young, single mother does not mean you are destined to doom, failure, or poverty. But if you abort, that's it. The child is dead. There's no going back, no knowing what the child might have been, might have done, what joy or beauty they might have added to the world. If you end up childless, you can't change your mind and have the child you killed. But if you have the child and give it up for adoption, you can someday find the child again.

Part of the problem is that feminists, liberals, Planned Parenthood, and pro-choice advocates do not recognize the opportunities and potential inherent to having a child. They see only the burden and responsibility as closing doors.

And let's not sugarcoat it: having a child is a burden. It is hard. It changes you. If you keep the child, it is an unavoidable responsibility. It makes it difficult, if not impossible, to complete high school, college, or keep your job.

But let's not sugarcoat it the other way, either: two people did engage in a voluntary activity, and should accept the responsibilities. Having a child is not an insurmountable obstacle to a high school diploma, a college degree, or a successful career. Aborting the child does not mean the girl will automatically obtain all these things, and keeping the child only makes them more difficult, not impossible.

So. More difficult. Is that a bad thing? When you work out, you get tired. Your body hurts. Your muscles are sore for a few days. So what? It's good for you. Achieving good things requires struggle, and working hard only makes you stronger. It is the same way with people and the difficulties added by trying to succeed in life with a young child. At worst, having a baby should only mean a delay in reaching goals of no more than five years. Any longer than that, and it is still the individual who should be blamed for the failure, not the baby. Again, there is no justification in killing the child for the parents' mistake/irresponsibility.

And here's the reason for the title of this piece:
My argument might be disjointed, and objections to it will certainly be disjointed, precisely because liberal policy has made a complete mess of the situation. Liberal solutions to social problems seem to always make the issue more complex, rather than resolving the situation.

For instance, the overall problem was that women were considered by feminists to be second-class citizens; careers were for men, sexual enjoyment was for men, financial independence was for men, etc. The liberal solution was to make it easier for women to divorce, encourage women to enter the work force, shame/discourage women from staying at home (and don't try to tell me that didn't happen), encourage women to experiment with sex and seek out greater quantities of partners (and simultaneously, discourage women from trying to be sexually interesting schizophrenia, to be sure), and develop/promote the use of birth control to give women more control over reproduction so they wouldn't end up trapped in marriage through pregnancy.

So far so good. Except that the results were an increase in pregnancies, a rise in STDs, more single-motherhood and a resultant increase of poverty for such households. So could the solution be to discourage girls from having sex? Or to encourage them to persevere in obtaining education so they will always have more options? Nope. The solution was to greately expand welfare so that the young mothers don't suffer. But welfare didn't end poverty, it only encouraged it. So they encouraged abortion to take up the slack where birth control pills couldn't work. But some girls wouldn't get abortions, even tho liberals and feminists touted it as "the thing to do", and welfare wasn't really getting anywhere. So they cracked down on "deadbeat dads". Yes, the same men that aren't allowed to have a say in whether their child is actually born or murdered can be forced to give up substantial amounts of money for 18-20 years. The logic that insists women should have choice over the bodies is hypocritically thrown out the window when before it can be applied to men. Even worse, men are told "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" and thus held to a far greater level of responsibility for fulfilling what conventional wisdom says is a far stronger natural urge. Try to tell a pro-choice advocate that the same standard should apply to a woman sometime and see what reaction you get...

So now we have men suffering involuntary wage-garnishing based on no evidence other than one woman's testimony (and in some cases, in opposition to scientific evidence) to pay for women who get pregnant because liberal society says it's okay to go ahead and have sex because everyone else is and you can always get an abortion anyway, and our tax dollars go to pay for these abortions, for the propaganda that encourages it, for the condoms that are supposed to protect from pregnancy and STDs, for the treatement of the STDs, for the welfare the women earn if they decide not to abort, for the legal battles fought to keep all this amoral activity legal...

...or, we could just say that abortion after week 4 is not allowable except to save the life of the mother, period.

But what about rape and incest?!??! comes the cry. What about it? Most people know they are raped and are in a position to make sure they don't get pregnant long before 4 weeks. Incest, as well, although it is more problematic. But I posit that if a girl is pregnant from incest, she has far more extensive and more pressing problems than what to do about a baby. If she can't stop the incest from occurring, it's unlikely she will have the freedom to seek out a taxpayer-funded abortion, either.

And out of the 40 milllion babies who have been killed in the name of the sexual revolution and "freedom" for women and so women can have control of their own bodies, exactly how many have been due to rape or incest?

So, yeah. Call me a bastard, or unfeeling, or a monster. I am saying that it's not worth it. I am saying that there are better ways to help someone who has been raped or the victim of incest than allowing 39 million plus other women avoid responsibility for their actions. I am saying that while it might not be a good idea to totally outlaw abortion again, it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the current situation causes far more misery. I am saying that if abortion were severely restricted, life would be better for everyone, including the people who would then be forced to have babies, because those babies would be the direct result of their own willing actions.

You want control of your body? Take control earlier.

With that restriction, everything else makes more sense. Planned Parenthood can no longer encourage people to have sex on the excuse that "everyone else is doing it", because the only honest thing to say is, "Don't have sex unless you are in the right situation to have a baby, because you never know..." The welfare rolls would shrink dramatically if 50s era morality were returned. Please note: I'm not talking religious morality, merely the morality of what works, and a society-wide acknowledgement that sex has inherent risks, along with a full expression/explanation of that risk would result in far fewer STDs, far fewer pregnancies, greatly reduced welfare rolls, a correspondingly substantial reduction of poverty, an eventual, corresondingly impressive reduction in criminal convictions and prison population, and all that would inevitably mean that more people would be happier and more fulfilled.

Yes, it would be worse for some people. The people hardest hit would be the people unable to change their attitudes to align with the new standards. Over time, the people hardest hit would be the people who refuse to act in accordance with the risks, the people who deliberately refuse to act with responsibility and maturity, the people who, consciously or unconsciously, ignore the risks to do what they want. But isn't that the way it should be...? Shouldn't people be rewarded for making the smart choice rather than the selfish choice?

And if you find yourself reacting to that negatively...ask yourself: to what extent am I influenced by modern attitudes? To what extent to I believe that extra-marital sex is a right? To what extent do I believe that the risks should not exist for me?

I don't expect my view will be popular. I oppose Jo's viewpoint, not because I think she is the aberration, but because I recognize that the world's way brings more of the pain and misery it purports to help you avoid. I admit my view is based on the teachings of Christianity...but they work well for achieving peace, happiness, and contentment nonetheless. Rejecting a method that works just because of the person who tells it to you is the height of foolishness, wouldn't you say?

Read More "Liberal Solutions Extensions of Problems" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 03:02 PM | Comments (0)
Trust is Earned Over Time « Stuff Important to Me »

Not many people have joined in on my criticism of Planned Parenthood (which seems to have expanded to a discussion of abortion in general).

For the most part, my debates/disputes with Jo are not as adversarial as they might seem. I respect her position, and she respects mine, and we'll often send emails to each other to soften what might seem to be heavy blows in the discussion. Because in the discussion, we are sparring...but we remain friends outside the discussion. Our ideas do battle, but our hearts/friendship don't need to. It took us a while (and some misunderstandings) to get to that point.

And that's all I'm going to say about that.

Jo, thanks for being a good friend and being patient with me sometimes.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 01:12 PM | Comments (1)
Aren't There Easier Ways to Get Free P0rn? « Humor »

Canada...oh, Canada...

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 12:03 PM | Comments (2)
Hmmmm « Blogging »

You know, there's an obvious issue to blog today: The DNC Convention. I find I have nothing to say.

In fact, I usually have more to say when the blog-worthy issues aren't so obvious. I guess I hate just following the herd, and I like to find unique viewpoints/thought/ideas. So much time time/effort is being spent analyzing and reacting to everything, I really don't think I could come up with anything unique.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:23 AM | Comments (1)
Blog Suggestion « Blogging »

Make a point to go check out Accidental Verbosity today. They've got bunches of posts recently pointing to all sorts of good blogging, and some nice comments/posts themselves. It's what blogging should look like.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:39 AM | Comments (0)

July 26, 2004

Planned Parenthood is Sick and Twisted « Social Issues »

So when did "rare" get redefined as, "Let's advertise the heck out it!", hmmm?

Just in time for Planned Parenthood to market pen holders advertising RU-486 and, even worse, pens that say, "Because Accidents Happen...Planned Parenthood".

Not to mention the "I had an abortion" T-shirts.

(Thanks to Bill at the INDC Journal for the Google cache of the T-shirt)

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 03:12 PM | Comments (23)
» Sharp as a Marble links with: Four Words that Sum Up Why I am Pro-Life
» Swanky Conservative links with: The New Planned Parenthood Shirt Design
Black Holes « Humor »

Absolutely frikken hilarious.

My favorite:

The laws of physics fall apart as one is pulled into a black hole, so, whatever you do, don't take a physics test while descending into a black hole or you'll totally fail.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 12:59 PM | Comments (0)
My Evil Genius Knows Know No Bounds « Blogging »

You say I can't leave comments, but I can do so with a trackback, no? Bwahahaha!

....except, I really don't have the need to say anything.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 12:57 PM | Comments (10)
Preview of My Principled Opposition « GWOT »

...if President Kerry gets elected. By Q and O Blog.

I'll add one thing to what he said. If John Kerry is already on record that he will make sure he has international support checked off before the US will act, he's just made the price of that international support much higher.

It's like playing poker, but announcing that you are going to fold if the pot goes above a certain dollar amount no matter what you have in your hand...or telling everyone you only go over $5 bids if you have a full house or higher.

Bottom Line: in international politics, you don't tip your hand ahead of time. By doing so, Kerry has already disqualified himself from the Presidency. IMHO.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:45 AM | Comments (3)
Who You Should Read Instead of Andrew Sullivan « Politics As Usual »

Sean Kinsell.

Whaddya know...?

The link for both posts is the same because one thing that strikes me about Sean is that he is a whole person. He has interests, passions, ideas, and whole aspects of his life that aren't revolving around being gay. So if you go over there looking for gay posts, you are more likely to find a post about Japanese culture or politics than homosexuality.

As it should be.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:34 AM | Comments (1)
Why You Should Stop Reading Andrew Sullivan « Politics As Usual »

Sean Kinsell.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:29 AM | Comments (0)
» links with: The Demise of Andrew Sullivan is Moving Far Too Slow
We Are Safer Today, Thanks to President Bush « GWOT »

Sure, the number of attacks worldwide hadn't increased. That was an embarassing gaffe.

You know, thinking back on that, I have to question the timing of that admission, as it clearly distracted the national attention from questions about President Bush's service in the National Guard 30 years ago, which is clearly the most pressing issue we face today. [/snark]

However, I think this article explains exactly how we are today because of the second Bush presidency. Also note how exact figures and numbers are used throughout the article. The Kerry camp could use a lesson in specificity. No, wait, being specific and accurate about the cost and impact of his promises would ensure he wouldn't get elected...

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:10 AM | Comments (0)
Meme O' the Day « Politics As Usual »

Dean asks (gist is my interpretation), With as much as right-wingers hated and spun/spread conspiracy-theories about President Clinton, and the attendent increase of vitriol from the left-wingers over President Bush, if John Kerry wins the Presidency, do conservatives/right-wingers/Bush-supporters vow to act with dignity, decorum, and honor? Will we promise to provide a principled, civil opposition?

Well, now...I think I have a good sense of honor in the first place. I would hesitate to make any sort of pledge, however, because I anticipate that were John Kerry to be elected President, Democrats will instantly jump on any criticism by a conservative as a violation of that pledge, and proof that their unconscionable treatment of President Bush was justified.

I will do what I feel is the correct action at the time, and you'll just have to trust me.

Part of the problem with the whole situation is that all the anger and yelling and vitriol is not a fight over/for the Presidency, it is a war being waged to win access/control of the tools of national discourse. It wasn't Clinton that created the GOP anger, it was that the mainstream news media refused to follow scandals with the same persistence they pursued when a Republican was President. It really isn't George W. Bush that has created the Democrat anger, it is that they must convince America that the mainstream media was right about President Bush all along. The more success that Fox News Channel and bloggers have in reaching and affecting the mind of the average citizen, the more shrill Democrats get, because they must destroy the credibility of Fox News Channel and right-wing bloggers as the first step to regaining power in all three branches of the federal government. Sure, they bash Bush, but only to prove that Fox News and warbloggers were so easily duped by such a charlatan as W, so we can all go back to trusting the NY Times and CNN. It ain't gonna work, because you can't stuff the genie back in the bottle...but they have no other choice. This is all they can do.

People grow the most crazy when they feel they have lost the ability to be heard, rather than just not being in power.

So I have to conclude that since conservatives have mroe voice and influence these days than just the AM talk radio we had during the Clinton days, things will automatically calm down if Kerry were to take office.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:05 AM | Comments (0)
» The Shape of Days links with: Dean's Pledge

July 25, 2004

Listen Up, Chiefs' Fans « Kansas City Chiefs »

Bob Gretz has a nice article about how the Chiefs can significantly improve despite not making a significant Free Agent signing in the offseason.

He profiles Jimmy Wilkerson, Julian Battle, Jordan Black and Brett Williams, and Eric Downing.

Makes good sense to me.

The most interesting aspect, though, is if the Chiefs are significantly improved, they are most likely well set to establish a multi-year dynasty. The only significant player whose contract ends after the season is Casey Weigmann. The players most likely to decline due to age have young, talented back-ups. And if the last few years of draft choices pan out as well as it seems they will, the Chiefs have become masters at finding the players they need in later rounds of the draft., as opposed to teams needing to hit a home run with a top-10 pick they can build their team around...
This allows the Chiefs to take more "projects" in the draft, mainly by projecting need 2-3 years in advance.

But that's mostly conjecture. We'll see how it plays out over the next few years.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:02 AM | Comments (0)
The Cabal of Cunning Linguists « Blogging »

Nice name, don't you think?

I haven't gotten around to compiling the list of nominations yet...maybe later today, or maybe tomorrow evening. I'm also trying to figure out if I want to make my already-long sidebar longer, or to try and do a separate page. Does anyone know how to create a permanent page for something like that? If I do an archive, the links will eventually move off the front page and the Ecosystem won't count 'em anymore.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:56 AM | Comments (2)
Fun With The Ecosystem « Blogging »

For some reason, Movable Type didn't catch this linking of one of my posts by Yorkie. I only found it when I was poking around The Ecosystem, looking for new links from other blogs.

So I glanced through her site, and found this article, which I appreciated immensely.


I'm sorry, but is someone really suggesting that there is something inequitable about people with skills and college degrees making more money than people with no skills and no degrees? Is it really surprising that households with two married working partners make more than poor households, where half of working age adults (according to the study) do not hold down a job? Perhaps the fact that "nearly all" working age adults in "wealthy" households ($89,000 and up!) are working has something to do with the fact that they are "wealthy"?? And let's not get caught suggesting that single parenthood might have something to do with poverty, or that marriage as a social institution has a lot to offer in financial terms -- because in spite of what the numbers show, that would be very un-PC of us.

Is it just me, or does this strike anyone else as aburdly simplistic?

There's good writing over there. I'd check it out, if I were you.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:29 AM | Comments (0)

July 23, 2004

One-Trick Ponies Donkeys « Politics As Usual »

From the latest flash from Drudge:

According to CNN, some of President Bush's missing records from his time in the Air National Guard were found today. The payroll records that were discovered were initially reported destroyed. In response, Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued the following statement:

"The supposed discovery of these records on Friday afternoon, as reporters converge on Boston to cover the Democratic National Convention, is highly questionable. If the Bush Administration continues to search, maybe they'll find answers to the long list of unanswered questions that remain about George W. Bush's time in the Air National Guard. Bush's military records seem to show up as randomly as he did for duty."

Honestly, can they do anything except question the timing? This is getting to be a freaking joke! Honestly, the DNC is getting so bad and so predictable that satire can't even compete. And our non- liberal media is aiding and abetting this crap.

Mark this down, kiddies: "The timing is questionable" now has all the appropriateness, maturity, and impact of "I know you are, but what am I?", "Oh, yeah?", or "I'm made of rubber, you're made of glue..."

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:03 PM | Comments (9)
» Weekend Pundit links with: Linky Love
Holy Crap! What a Rant!
No, they can't get their stories straight.

Now it appears that there is a building frenzy over who within the Bush White House knew of Le Affaire Bergler, when they knew it, and who leaked the story?

Never mind that it was likely Sandy and his legal counsel that leaked the story.

Never mind that Wilson is a liar, or Clarke is a liar, or that Saddam butchered and raped and murdered his people for decades, or tried to assassinate a former POTUS, or that WMD are being found, or that Al Qaeda was setting up cells in Iraq before the war, or that Clinton, Gore and everyone else thought Saddam trafficked in terrorism and possessed WMD before January 2000, or that our borders are porous and our State Department and DHS still do too little to prosecute visa and immigration violations, or that Kofi Annan, his son, and the director of the UN Oil for Food Program, along with the French, Russians, and others were part of a $10 Billion conspiracy, or that minority home ownership is the highest in our nation's history, or that the economy is strong and growing at rates not seen in decades, or that the US is near record-low unemployment, or that France is not capable nor has the resources nor interest in being our ally in the fight against terrorism, or that Arafat is a corrupt dictator and is financing and organizing daily attacks against civilians in Israel, or that Israel cannot sit on the UN Security Council or its judges adjudicate on the bench of the World Court, or that Iran is speeding toward possession of nuclear weapons with the explicit threat of using them to annihilate the Israelis, or that no matter how hard we try, or wish, or pretend, or deny, there are millions of radicalized Islamists who want to kill every non-Muslim infidel, including the producers, directors, actors, musicians, and writers of Western art and entertainment, all of this within 3 years of the worst terrorist attacks and loss of human life within our nation's borders...




From the comments on this post, linked so you can see what got him started.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 05:55 PM | Comments (0)
» Ace of Spades HQ links with: And Now They're Whining That There Aren't Enough Wal-Marts
Acronyms « Social Issues »

You've seen the symbols on the back of cars: the fish representing Christianity, and the snarky response from evolutionists of a fish with feet.

One could point out the idiocy of the Darwin symbol: since there are no fossil records of fish with feet, they are actually highlighting a major problem with their theory. But that's not the point of this post.

No, I'd like to discuss what the fish symbol really means. It is quite possible that the evolutionists don't realize that the fish symbol actually is an acronym.

But since they came up with their own symbol, complete with the word "Darwin", as a deliberate response, I guess that means their symbol must be based on an acronym, as well.

What could it be, then?

"Duplicitous Atheists Require Widespread Idiotic Nonsense." Yep, that describes the way they've pushed a weak and internally inconsistent Evolution Theory as fact. Although, I guess it could just as easily be "Dumb Atheists Really Want Ignorance Nationwide." I'm not sure, but either one will do.

"Dead Ancestors Really Weren't Indigenous Neanderthals" Again, that's an accurate statement. So maybe that's it.

Any other suggestions?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:56 AM | Comments (10)
Global War on Morality « GWOM »

Make no mistake, there is a non-organized, apparently spontaneous war on morals and standards in the United States, and worldwide. It involves enforcing adult standards on adolescents, pre-adolescents, and children.

Here's one of the battles lost.


The New Mexico Health Department is standing behind a sex-education teacher in Santa Fe who encouraged ninth-graders to taste flavored condoms...
...According to the report, Dorothy Danfelser, deputy director for the public-health division of the state Health Department, said she wrote Gallegos last week to say Escudero did nothing wrong.

Nice set-up, isn't it? You can cajole kids into being more comfortable about the idea of having sex. If that fails, you get to sexually harass them into a negative experience that may help ruin chances for a healthy attitude toward a loving sexual relationship within a marriage. And if that fails, you get to heckle, ridicule, and intimidate heterosexual males. It's a win-win-win situation for amoral liberal standards!

Found via Michelle Malkin.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:44 AM | Comments (4)
Mr. Subliminal « Politics As Usual »

Q and O catches John Kerry in a whopper.

Please note, the way in which John Kerry answered is clearly misleading. See for yourself:

BW: So you believe that just by rolling back tax cuts for top-end taxpayers, you can fund a health plan and deficit reduction? Kerry: Yes -- absolutely. Let me be very clear: I like low marginal rates. I fought to get low marginal rates. I voted for going down to the 28% and 14% brackets [in 1986]. I am not going to raise marginal rates -- ever -- above the rates we had under Bill Clinton.

He really wants you to think he likes low marginal rates, but he's saying he has no problem raising the highest marginal rate 6.5 percentage points, and the lowest 5 full percentage points...all while trying to make you think he will never, ever actually raise them.

Does this guy really think we're that stupid? Or does he just think he can get enough gullible people to vote for him...?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:36 AM | Comments (3)
Ya Can't Win « Media Distortions »

A nice little satire piece that isn't far off from the way the media really does treat President Bush.


Bush's denials prompted immediate condemnations from the Kerry campaign and Hill Democrats, many of whom saw Bush's denials as suspiciously timed and politically motivated.

"I find it rather curious that the President has chosen the very week before the Democratic Convention to deny his deep involvement in a potentially criminal effort to smear an anonymous private citizen," said Kerry spokesman Chris Lehane. "Coincidence or not, I would note that the GOP has a long, sordid history of pushing pro-Republican and anti-Democratic stories, often during election years."

Via The Commissar.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:30 AM | Comments (0)
Worth Reading « Social Issues »

Go read this Protein Wisdom Public Service Announcement.

Well worth your time.


In my personal estimation, the elevation of group identity politics—helped along by the PC handmaidens who actively champion it—is the biggest threat to individual liberty in this country, as Wood is correct to suggest. Which is why I’d like to see a whole lot less handwringing over the pragmatic PATRIOT Act, and a whole lot more resistance to the diversity movement, which truly does threaten to rob us of our liberties by forcing on us a Balkanizing mindset that can only lead, legislatively, to legally enshrined relativism. Which. y’know, would totally suck.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:28 AM | Comments (0)
Global Superpowers « Stuff Important to Me »

Okay, Russia is on the decline after the breakup of the Soviet Union, but still has a potent nuclear force and is still developing advanced fighters.

China is buying them, as well as trying to develop their own. They are working to improve their ballistic missile forces, and are also attempting to develop asymmetrical warfare equipment and techniques (laser decoys and blinders, computer hacking, etc) to foil the strengths of the US military.

But you know who scares me the most? India.

They have an aircraft carrier, and are acquiring more, including MiG-29s to fly off of it. They are building Su-30s. They have a strong nuclear ballistic missile force, and are still attempting to expand/develop further. They have launched satellites, including spy satellites.

China makes it fairly clear that most of their military is geared toward defending its borders from Russia, India, and Viet Nam; or geared toward preventing the US from getting involved until after they have already secured Taiwan. Such focus on their part makes it easier for them to fund their military development and meet proficiency goals, but it also makes it easier for us to develop counter-countermeasures and avoid direct conflict.

India scares me specifically because their military is multi-use. India has some serious disputes with Pakistan, wants land back that China occupies, is involved with the insurgency on the island of Sri Lanka, and wants to be the supreme power in South Asia and the Indian Ocean. War could break out with Pakistan at any time, and if it goes far enough to launch nuclear weapons, the conflagration could engulf the world. Even if this never comes about, we are witnessing a new nuclear cold war between these two rivals. And even aside from the tension between these two nuclear powers, it is far more difficult to predict what India might do with its military power than it is with China. It is not difficult to imagine a day in the next few decades in which India could challenge the US for influence over a region. It's much harder to imagine that possibility with China.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:11 AM | Comments (7)

July 22, 2004

AFC West Predictions « Kansas City Chiefs »

After going through several preseason magazines and digesting the various judicious guesses and educated opinions found therein, I offer you the following personal pre-training camp, pre-season guide to the AFC West.


Kansas City: 11-5
How it could go good: As scary as it sounds to opposing defenses, KC's offense could actually be better this year: Trent Green is throwing with even more accuracy and confidence, Priest Holmes starts the season fully healthy and a renewed determination, they added a pass-catching TE and a speedy WR in the mold of Az-Zahir Hakim. They have added depth at nearly every position, including their glaring weakness last year: D-line. Young players like Julian Battle, Ryan Sims, Montique Sharpe, and Scott Fujita are poised for break-out years. Gunther Cunningham brings in a new defensive system and attitude that plays to the roster's strength rather than to its weakness. Dante Hall could win another three games all by himself.

How it could get ugly: If it is truly the players who are mediocre, then the Chiefs did very little to upgrade the defense and it could be a long year where you can tell the Chiefs W/L record by the number of punts the other team has to make. John Tait might not be replaceable at RT. The schedule is tougher this year, and the Chiefs may have squandered their best chance for home field advantage. Another year of badly-positioned players and missed tackles, and Kansas City will become known for suffering from a "Schottenheimer" curse to never win a playoff game ever again.

Strengths: QB, RB, TE, O-line + O-line Depth, FS & SS, Dante Hall, and turnover differential.
Weaknesses: D-line is a big question mark. They have the bodies now, but do the bodies have the skill? The CBs also have the potential to shut down opposing WRs, but have never yet fully demonstrated what they should be able to do, which says something about their heart and brain.

Bottom Line: How important is a coach? If Gunther can't make a difference, can KC's offense get far enough ahead to protect the problems and weakness on defense?
But if Gunther can maintain last year's ball-hawking while stopping one more big play per game, Kansas City will have an above average defense...even if only #14. If that happens and the Chiefs avoid injuries (which cannot be coached), then Kansas City goes 15-1, sets a record for scoring, wins the Superbowl, and goes down in the history books as one of the all-time great teams. Most likely, however, Kansas City will play well enough to edge the Broncos for the Division crown, but because of a tougher schedule, will actually have a worse record than last year despite being a better team. They will be in a position to make the Superbowl, but hardly a lock...not when there are so many potentially top-notch AFC teams, including the Broncos, the Colts, the Patriots, and the Titans. This will be an exciting year, and every victory will be tough and earned.

Follow the above link for the other three teams.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 01:37 PM | Comments (5)
» resurrectionsong links with: Football Season is Almost Here
Good. Now I Can Read Her Stuff More Regularly « Blogging »

One of the top new bloggers finally broke out of the ghetto that is Blogspot. Please adjust your bookmarks accordingly for La Shawn Barber's new digs.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 12:50 PM | Comments (1)
Sort of a Pun « Puns »

Over at this Arguing With Signposts post about devolving in the NZBear Ecosystem, I left the following comment:

It's an ecosystem, man. Zero-sum game. Even if you get more links/hits, if someone else is accumulating them quicker, you move down. For someone to go up, someone else has gotta go down. It's sad, but it's the way this blog-eat-blog world works.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 11:52 AM | Comments (8)
Gender Stereotypes « Social Issues »

Dean asks: What ways do you match or deviate from gender stereotypes?

Now that's a dang good question. First, you probably have to define exactly which stereotypical behaviors go with which gender, though. For instance, I think a rich fantasy life of "what I'm going to be when I grow up" is more typically male than female, and that it leads directly into typically-male hobbies; whereas a rich fantasy life of "who I'm going to marry or what life I will lead when I grow up" is much more female than male. That kinda forms the basis of my "Every Boy a Hero, Every Girl a Princess" theory that I'm going to turn into a book someday.

So, here's mine:
I embody maleness by:
1) I have gone through a succession of typical male fantasies: Sports hero, rock star, war/armageddon hero, and I bought the equipment I needed to fulfill the second two (lots of guitars, recording equipment, and bunches of rifles)
2) I tease my kids whenever possible
3) I love football, particularly the Kansas City Chiefs
4) I love war movies and karate movies and westerns
5) Boobies. Yep. The female body in general holds a fascination akin to a cat mesmerized by a fluttering insect or a wiggling string
6) I don't usually have a hankerin' to fix something automotive or around the house, but when I do, I'm good at it and I enjoy it immensely
7) Shopping sucks
8) Shopping for guns, ammo, guitars, or karate movies doesn't suck
9) Computer war games are nearly as cool as "Avalon Hill"-style strategy simulation board games
10) I am the source of both discipline and good financial judgment in our family

I do not embody maleness because I:
1) Cried during Beaches and Joy Luck Club
2) Don't take my identity from my work
3) Have fairly good fashion instincts (I've surprised my wife several times by the reasoning behind which I helped her choose clothing...she has disagreed with me but been forced to admit I was correct)
4) Remote control? Who cares. I only turn on the TV to watch something specific, anyway
5) I like talking about my feelings, and listening to women talk about their feelings

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:38 AM | Comments (5)
» blogoSFERICS links with: It's All About Meme
After Thoughts « Blogging »

After musing over my previous statements that I felt Michele at A Small Victory is overrated, I think I may be wrong.

Much of my reconsideration has grown from seeing a few recent links to something she said, and not being able to follow the links*. This reminded me that when I have time to go online at home (which is not as often as I might like), I am usually doing so for a purpose, and don't have time to browse the internet like I sometimes do on slow days at work, looking for additional geopolitical viewpoints. Thus, I rarely, if ever, get to places like Michele's or Steven den Beste's or Glenn Reynolds' blogs. Unlike A Small Victory, however, I have previously spent copious amounts of time reading at both USS Clueless** and Instapundit. It is quite possible that I've never spent enough time browsing A Small Victory to catch on to her unique abilities and blogging charm.

So maybe I was totally wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

Read More "After Thoughts" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:18 AM | Comments (2)
A Dangerous Game (UPDATED) « Politics As Usual »
Edwards Suggests World Leaders Want Bush To Lose Thu Jul 22 2004 10:51:24 ET

Sen. John Edwards said on CNN's LARRY KING LIVE last night:

"Just a few weeks ago...I was in Brussels at NATO meeting with a whole group of NATO ambassadors and hearing their perspective on this. I just believe that these countries around the world, whose cooperation and alliances we need, believe that in order for them to have a fresh start with America, we're going to need a new president to do that. Now, they're not going to want to say this very vocally, of course, but the reality is that in order for us to reestablish old relations and to establish new relationships, I believe we need a new president. ...
"They didn't say that directly. What they said was they're very frustrated with the way this administration has dealt with them. They believe that in this case our trans-Atlantic relationships are important, should be important to America, are important to them. They want to be treated with some level of respect.

"They understand, because I made it very clear, at the end of the day, the president of the United States is going to do what's in the best interest of the American people. But the vast majority of the time, our interests are aligned with the interests of our allies around the world."

This is dangerous on many different levels.
First, it leaves Kerry-Edwards wide open to the snarky point that the "foreign leaders" are Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il...
Second, because by law, foreign influence on American elections is illegal.
Third, because it assumes that large numbers of people even care what foreign leaders think. This is the most interesting aspect, to me. Most Americans have a great deal of pride in the United States, in what the United States stands for, in the ways that the United States is different than Europe. I think the reasons Democrats are losing traction with Americans as a whole is because we don't want to be just like Europe. This is, in part, why it is often so easy to sting Democrats with charges of lack of patriotism: if they really love France or Germany or Belgium or Switzerland so much that they want to alter the United States to match, well, then do they really love America? Maybe, but it's much harder to prove. Some people have compared "patriotism" to "loving your spouse". If you spend all your time talking about how much better looking, smarter, more funny, richer another person is, your spouse isn't really going to be easily convinced that you really place much value on your marriage or continued relationship.

Any one of these aspects could end up blowing up in Kerry-Edwards faces.

Another thought struck me over lunch. Most nations tend to look out for their own self-interests first. To that extent, sometimes you can tell you are doing the right thing by the number of other nations' leaders you piss off. It is quite possible highly possible that a number of foreign leaders want Kerry elected President of the United States because they know they will have a better chance of getting the United States to weaken itself or otherwise stay out of the way while they enrich their own country at the expense of the citizens of others.
Think about it.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:47 AM | Comments (2)
Jeff Goldstein: Psychic « Humor »

Today, Jay Nordlinger wrote:

It is important for them — for the Left — to allege that Bush lies. Because Clinton actually lied, over and over — about as naturally as the rest of us scratch (no comment). Gore, too, lied, repeatedly — and about things small, not just large. So it is vital to the Democratic psyche, I hold, to believe that George W. Bush is a liar. It sort of absolves them. Kind of like the burning hatred that Europe has for Israel, if you can follow me.

A full three days earlier, Jeff had this to say:

A voice in my head, 1:57 PM, July 19: Try scratching it, dummy. Scratching it’s not a sin.

It's so prescient, it's almost eerie.

Oh, and I think Jay Nordlinger makes a good point, too.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:29 AM | Comments (0)
Insightful « Blogging »

I think Dean hits another one out of the park with this article on the apparently disproportionate influence of weblogs on politics in the United States.

Check out this line:

And what is a political weblog if not a small-circulation political journal?

Anyone could have thought of that and said it. Dean did. It's one of the reasons he's one of the Big Blogs.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:54 AM | Comments (1)
Announcement « Puns »

I declare this website will remain free of puns on Berger's name by me.

Read More "Announcement" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 05:32 AM | Comments (3)
Reverse the Polarity! « Humor »

Just so you know, I'm probably going to be referring to this list of "Things I Hate About Star Trek" quite a bit for some time to come.

Fair warning, ya'll.


2. The Holodeck. I mean, it's cool and all. But do you really believe that people would use it to re-create Sherlock Holmes mysteries and old-west saloons? Come on, we all know what the holodeck would be used for. And we also know what the worst job on the Enterprise would be: Having to squeegie the holodeck clean.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 04:38 AM | Comments (1)
» links with: http://f

July 21, 2004

Rifles For Sale « Gun Issues »

I have four rifles up for sale over at Gunbroker. I'd rather sell them to one of you than to a stranger. I'm selling a French MAS 36/51 7.5mm, a British SMLE .303, an 1891 Argentine Mauser 7.65mm, and an AR-180b 5.56mm. I think I have decent prices on all of them. Take a look and put in a bid, if you'd like.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 05:31 PM | Comments (5)
It's About Time « Media Distortions »

Doonesbury has been offering up baseless and inaccurate criticisms of Republicans and President Bush for far too long. Well, the cartoon is gone from 38 newspapers now.

Some cry "censorship", but the government had nothing to do with this. The market forces have their place, and in this case, the significant majority of newspapers felt their readership no longer wanted such slanted and biased propaganda. The comics page should be for humor, not mean-spirited partisanship.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 04:01 PM | Comments (11)
A Mighty Wind « Social Issues »

Okay, I'm boycotting Hollywood. I offer a clarification: there are exceptions to any sweeping I might care to make. Thus, not every Hollywood movie exemplifies a "throw away quality to appeal to lowest common denominator to make a buck" mentality. Not every Hollywood movie uses eye candy to titillate and seduce into lower moral standards. Not every Hollywood movie is a waste of time. Not every Hollywood movie corrupts or modifies classic stories.

However, all these trends together are enough to make me swear off of Hollywood, and refuse to support them. Additionally, I refuse to even sponge off the system by watching pirated versions.

All that being said, I guess I'm willing to bend my rules enough to check out a good movie from the library. I did just that with A Mighty Wind.*

This is an excellent, top-notch movie. The music was amazingly good, especially considering that it was all written and performed by the actual actors you see. I am stunned by the quality of Eugene Levy's singing voice, and when Katherine O'Hara joins in....they did some stuff as good as the Indigo Girls, IMHO. I absolutely love the song "When You're Next To Me". I've transcribed it and at some point will record it with me performing.

I am not what you would call a folk music fan. I ended up with a decent emotional connection to the movie, however, because I grew up listening to the New Christy Minstrels' Christmas album that the New Main Street Singers were emulating, because I've heard of the Kingston Trio (and love the musical synergy of the Guest/McKean/Shearer trio playing them), and the harmonies of Mitch and Mickey. In their music, I could clearly hear the same approach to duet singing that I adore in the Indigo Girls. Though, to be honest, I have no idea who Mitch and Mickey were supposed to be representing...

Two complaints about the movie:
1) Even in a quality Christopher Guest improv film, they had to include some absolutely unnecessary lowbrow humor, when a couple (clear implication of a prostitute and John**) in Mitch's hotel had loud intercourse. I consider it unnecessary because it is such a stale joke, and also because Mitch's hotel wasn't an obvious dive. The room was rather clean and looked like your average Regal 8 to me.
2) One bit of improv went flat, when the Folksmen were revealing why some of their albums had difficulty gaining wide acceptance, and Michael said they put the albums out without holes in the center. That prompted Harry to say that the album would teeter on top of the turnstile, but then Michael interrupted and and said No, you had to cut your own... Guys, that was just stupid. It should have ended up on the cutting room floor.

On the other hand, the riff they did on the "Nonny Nonny No Nonny Yo" was truly hilarious, I thought. And the "Never Did No Wanderin' After All" is a great parody of folk music, methinks.

An excellent movie. I may end up having to buy this one on DVD...

Read More "A Mighty Wind" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 03:35 PM | Comments (9)
Calling All Military Linguists « Blogging »

I'm thinking of starting up an alliance of former military linguists. Of course, I've thought about other things that I haven't done, too. (like: Blogwash!)

Not everyone talks about their MOS/AFSC at their blog, though, so to this point I know of three, including me:

Tac Jammer (98G Kor), Baldilocks (former USAF 1N5? 1N6?, Eastern European language, I think), and me (98G Chinese Mandarin).

If you know of anyone else, or if you are one, let me know in the comments or in email. And if someone can come up with a cool icon/button, please do so. I'll be working on an icon myself, but I can't guarantee the quality or aesthetics...

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:44 AM | Comments (19)
» TacJammer links with: Calling All Military Linguists
Advice To the World* « Social Issues »
2) If your gut sticks out farther in front of you than your boobs do, you might want to rethink the whole bare midriff concept.

You can read the rest here.

Read More "Advice To the World*" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:38 AM | Comments (4)
Bloggers Are Too Journalists! « Media Distortions »

I gotta link this.

One of the biggest hints that the admission by The Note is correct is that people often find news on weblogs that they have never heard anywhere else. Not reporting, or under-reporting is prevalent in America today. Stories such as the U.N. Oil for Food scandal, the removal of two ton's of uranium from Iraq , and the fallacies which are prevelant in Michael Moore's propaganda are among other reports that many have never even heard. How about a single good news report out of Iraq - when was the last time you heard one of those? This information is widespread among weblogs, yet coverage on the networks is non-existent. Most traditional sources of information have all but ignored them.

Not only can you find these stories on the web, but you can get the background information and find them put into context. The reason I write Perry on Politics is to inform the masses in a manner in which makes current events interesting to all. You don't have to be a media elite or take yourself too seriously to express your point of view and inform the public. If you want detailed commentary on the events of the day, you can read Andrew Sullivan, Josh Marshall, Powerline, Glenn Reynolds, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Totten, NRO's Corner, and Watchblog among many others. There is an endless supply on both the left and right to make your choices complete.

Start your day by getting your morning news from these weblogs, and then spend the evening in front of the major networks. It will truly open your eyes. What you hear in the evening might take a totally different perspective when you have the context that these weblogs have put into your consciousness. Getting your news from different sources not only adds context, it is the most logical way of getting informed. Information is power, and without hearing both sides of the issue you are unable to be sure that you know what is happening.

Weblogs are a new driving force behind informing and bringing context to the public, but they are not beyond reproach. It is the responsibility of the authors of these websites to maintain and fact check their work. Their information still requires validation. We must not allow the spread of rumor and false stories, that should be left to the networks. With the blogosphere growing to over 3 million websites, the revolution has begun.

There are hotlinks in his piece to those news stories, but ya gotta go over there to follow 'em.

Oh, and he's going in my blogroll.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:35 AM | Comments (0)
Deconstructing Joseph « Politics As Usual »

Wilson, that is.

QandO does a great (and fair!) fisking of Wilson.

Well worth your time.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:25 AM | Comments (0)
Democrats: Fox News is a Threat to Democrats « Media Distortions »

At least, that's what it seems from reading between the lines of this piece.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:15 AM | Comments (3)
Terrorists Unclear on the Concept* « GWOT »

I hate to be flip about such a serious subject, but, sheesh! Can't these guys do a little research first?

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A militant group said Wednesday it had taken two Kenyans, three Indians and an Egyptian hostage and would behead them if their countries did not announce their readiness to withdraw their troops from Iraq immediately.

None of those countries are part of the 160,000-member U.S.-led coalition force in the country.

From My Way News.

Read More "Terrorists Unclear on the Concept*" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:13 AM | Comments (1)
Some Decently-Good News Over At Rasmussen Reports « Politics As Usual »

At least, if you are a Republican...

Go check it out.

The bad news is that the increasing optimism about the economy, the handling of the Global War on Terrorism, the increasing support for GOP in Congress, and the small lead for Bush in popularity all do not yet translate into an electoral college lead for President Bush. Yet.

Afghanistan will have elections nearly a month before the US elections. We still have more than three months for stability to improve in Iraq. We've found more than 30 artillery shells with various forms of WMD. The Olympics will increase feelings of national pride, patriotism, and optimism...which still works to the advantage of Republicans. Joe Wilson has been shown to be a liar, and President Bush has been shown to be telling the truth*. The GOP convention is later in the year than the Democrat. And people are growing wise to the bias in the news media, so the last-minute "discovery" of some trumped-up issue should have less impact than before.

I still think it's gonna be a landslide for President Bush, and that he'll have fairly long coattails. I'm praying they'll be long enough to help us unseat Sen. Patty Murray here in Washington.

Read More "Some Decently-Good News Over At Rasmussen Reports" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:19 AM | Comments (0)
Inadvertant « Politics As Usual »

In the spirit of Chuck's apologies (which were, in turn, inspired by Sandy Berger's "explanation" of how he accidentally removed classified documents and just happened to destroy some of them), I offer my excuse apology:

I really didn't intend to make any of those puns. They were complete accidents. The fact that I put them all in the category of "Puns" was competely inadvertant, and were not intended to help the Bush Administration's campaign for re-election in any way, shape, or form. I will be stepping down as the Unofficial Punster of the Bush Administration as soon as the investigation into my purely unintentional puns reaches the mainstream news media and it no longer seems politically expedient for me to remain in this Unofficial Capacity.

Hat Tip to Jay Solo.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:54 AM | Comments (1)

July 20, 2004

For Computer Geeks « Puns »

A guy called and said his computer wasn't running anymore. The on-line tech supprt went through all the steps with him, but the efforts didn't result in a resolution of his problem, leaving no choice but to bring the computer in to a repair shop.
At the repair shop, the technician opened up the case to find a sticky, sugary mess packed into the hard drive. He immediately called the owner.
"Did you put some sort of foreign substance into your hard drive, sir?"
"Yes," came the reply. "I was trying to increase the storage."
"What on earth are you talking about?" asked the tech.
"Well, you've heard that old saying, right?" the owner said.

Read More "For Computer Geeks" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 05:48 PM | Comments (6)
These Are Not the Dorks You Are Looking For « Politics As Usual »

The Commissar demonstrates the proper way to rewrite unfortunate history.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 02:37 PM | Comments (1)
What Does "Security of Classified" Really Mean, Then? « Politics As Usual »

Sandy Berger claims it was 'inadvertant'.

Same administration, different day.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 02:02 PM | Comments (1)
» Backcountry Conservative links with: Sandy Berger Pilfered Classified Docs?
Why the Answer to Every Problem is Not "The Free Market" « Politics As Usual »

Nicely said by Q and O.


...the a priori assumption that, in a free market where all transactions are voluntary, no actor will engage in a transaction that is not to his benefit. Therefore, every exchange will increase the overall wealth and well-being of a society.

Now, that's a reasonable assumption, except for two things:
1: imperfect information.
2: externalities.

These two factors can result in exchanges that reduce the wealth/well-being of a society, even though it was no part of the original intent of the transaction.

Imperfect information can result in transactions that don't benefit one or both sides of the transaction. (ex: I give you $5000 for a used car, thinking it's worth it to me....but, as it turns out, the car is a lemon. With better information about the state of the car, I could have made a better choice)

Externalities (def: "...costs or benefits arising from an economic activity that affect somebody other than the people engaged in the economic activity and are not reflected fully in prices.") are perfectly illustrated by pollutants. The pollution given off by a factory is not a factor in the cost of making a product, and--though it has a cost--has no direct reflection in the price of the produced item. In other words, it assigns a cost to people not involved in the transaction.

Even though I've already quoted the bulk of the article, you might as well go read the whole thing. The impact is better that way.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:54 AM | Comments (2)
Fisking the DNC « Politics As Usual »

I wanted to fisk the DNC's 2004 platform, but at points it actually fisks itself!

For instance:

Time and again, this Administration confuses leadership with going it alone and engagement with compromise of principle. They do not understand that real leadership means standing by your principles and rallying others to join you.


But the Bush Administration has walked away from more than a hundred years of American leadership...

Because he was standing by his principles and rallying others to join us. We did get all of NATO to help in Afghanistan. We did get Great Britain, Australia, Poland, the Netherlands, Turkey, Singapore, Mongolia, Spain, the Philippines (the last two unfortunately reneged on their support), among many others, to join us in Iraq. Just not France. See, that's the same leadership this document just said President Bush lacks: not waiting to get a green light from France and China, but acting when necessary and expecting others to join in, as they did.


With John Kerry as Commander-in-Chief, we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake, but we must enlist those whose support we need for ultimate victory.

Ah. President Bush already did this. But they can't admit it, or else they lose an opportunity to criticize the President. They recognize this method is the right way, but they can't support a sitting President for doing exactly what they advocate. This does not say good things about their integrity or willingness to place the good of the nation ahead of their own political advantage.

For instance:

It requires the ability and willingness to direct immediate, effective military action when the capture or destruction of terrorist groups and their leaders is possible;

But since President Bush actually did that, they also have to say:

This Administration disdained the United Nations weapons inspection process and rushed to war without exhausting diplomatic alternatives.

But that was the direction of immediate, effective military action to capture the leader of a terrorist group: Saddam al-Hussein al-Tikriti himself.

For instance:

This war isn't just a manhunt. We cannot rest until Osama bin Laden is captured or killed, but that day will mark only a victory in the war on terror, not its end.


After allowing bin Laden to escape from our grasp at Tora Bora, he diverted crucial resources from the effort to destroy al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Hmm...seems like a lot of emphasis on one man. And al Qaeda currently lacks any significant presence in Afghanistan...

With such a target-rich environement, there are still a few other things I can fisk...

That is the America we will build together – one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Wait, isn't that exclusionary? Isn't that phrase representative of a fundamental Christian theocracy just as bad as the Taliban in attempting to impose its views on this fine nation that has always been atheistic and secular? What happened to the separation between church and state in the Democrat Party? guess is it didn't play well in polls with "under God" removed.

And we must break down the old communications barriers between national intelligence and local law enforcement, taking care to fully preserve our liberties.

Said commication barriers being put in place by the last Democrat administration...

We will launch a "name and shame" campaign against those that are financing terror. If nations do not respond, they will be shut out of the U.S. financial system.

But not unilaterally shut out, surely? After all, unilateralism is wrong...

As a first step, we must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq. To do this right, we must truly internationalize both politically and militarily: we cannot depend on a US-only presence.
First, that statement is truly a non-sequitor: the only way we could get more international in Iraq is to call in the UN, just as this platform calls for in various places. But the UN has a horrible track record of creating stable and secure environments. What success did they have in Rwanda? The Danes, wearing UN berets, stood by and watched ethnic cleansing happening in Kosovo. What has the UN done about Sudan? How can the UN do anything in Iraq when they pulled out after the first car-bombing of their offices? Especially since the car-bombing only occurred because they refused to allow the US military to stand guard...

Second, In what way is the military force in Iraq US-only? In fact, the only place you can find a US-only presence is in the United States. Surely, the DNC isn't advocating accepting UN troops on US soil?

Our helicopter pilots have flown battlefield missions without the best antimissile systems. In a Democratic Administration, that will change. Too many of our nation's finest troops have died in attacks, because tens of thousands were deployed to Iraq without the best bulletproof vests, and there is a shortage of armored vehicles on the ground. In a Democratic Administration, that will change. Thousands of National Guardsmen and reservists have been forced to leave their families and jobs for more than a year – with no end in ight – because this Administration ignored the pressing need for a true coalition. In a Democratic Administration, that will change.

Actually, our helicopters did not have the best antimissile systems because the last Democrat Administration didn't fund the development. Thousands of troops didn't have the bulletproof vests and there was a shortage of armored vehicles on the ground because the last Democrat Administration gutted the military and cut military spending, forcing the military to choose between training, equipment, and decent housing. Before President Bush took office, the military was funding needs on a priority system: whatever was about to become unusable from wear was replaced/fixed/funded. But we were falling behind, and many Army troops lived in condemned housing because President Clinton wouldn't authorize the funds to allow the military to take care of its people and meet the increased requirements he gave us. President Bush has done much to correct that, but we still need more...having an active war in progress makes it difficult to get all the funding necessary to get caught up after 8 full years of neglect under President Clinton. I am fully stunned that the DNC can even bring this up, since Senator Kerry voted against many of the military modernization programs like the F-15 and F-16, and since he also voted against the $87 billion to fund military actions, including getting modern bulletproof vests to all the soldiers. What evidence do they offer that Kerry might actually change his ways and be willing to expend political capital to fund the military and follow through on this? Right now, I'm seeing "zero".

I could go on, but I won't. I guess I shouldn't have expected anything more than this, but I did. I expected to see a step-by-step plan of how the Democrats would do things better. Instead, what I saw was all variations on the theme:

1) President Bush didn't do what President Bush actually did.
2) But we'll do it. And we'll do it better.
3) A miracle happens.
4) As a result of the unspecified miracle, the United States is univerally loved and respected in France, al Qaeda surrenders, all wealth is redistributed equally (although rich Democrats can keep their money), and no one ever votes Republican again.

Nice plan, yanno?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:49 AM | Comments (0)
I've Noticed This « Politics As Usual »

Heck, who hasn't?

If he bombed Iraq, he should have bombed Saudi Arabia instead, and if he had bombed Saudi Arabia, he should have bombed Iran, and if he had bombed all three, he shouldn't have bombed anyone at all. If he imposes a U.S. occupation on Iraq, he is fomenting Iraqi resistance by making the United States seem an imperial power. If he ends the U.S. occupation, he is cutting and running.

If he warns of a terror attack, he is playing alarmist politics. If he doesn't warn of a terror attack, he is dangerously asleep at the switch. If he says we're safer, he's lying, and if he doesn't say we're safer, he's implicitly admitting that he has failed in his core duty as commander in chief.

If he adopts a doctrine of preemption, he is unacceptably remaking American national-security policy. If the United States suffers a terror attack on his watch, he should have preempted it. If he signs a far-reaching antiterror law, he is abridging civil liberties. If the United States suffers another terror attack on his watch, he should have had a more vigorous anti-terror law.

Bush's economy hasn't created new jobs. If it has created new jobs, they aren't well-paying jobs. If they are well-paying jobs, there is still income inequality in America.

If Bush opposes a prescription-drug benefit for the elderly, he's miserly. If he supports a prescription-drug benefit for the elderly, he's lining the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies. If he restrains government spending, he's heartless. If he supports government spending, he's bankrupting the nation and robbing from future generations.

There's more, too.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:05 AM | Comments (0)
» Accidental Verbosity links with: That damned stupid evil genius...
My Cat Freaked Out « Cat Blogging »

Live long enough, they say, and you'll eventually see everything. Well, midway through three decades, and I can already cross "A Cat Freaking Out Over a Glass of Iced Tea" off the list.

Lucky has no problems with cats on TV. He figured out mirrors immediately (at least, I never saw him freak out over one). But this morning, I poured myself a tall glass of iced tea into an opaque plastic cup. I had placed it on the floor next to me as I put my boots on to go to work, and Lucky apparently caught his reflection on the surface. He immediately stiffened, then backed away. He spent the next few minutes working up the courage to look again several times, always stiffening and backing away again. I think he was just getting used to the idea of a cat in the cup when I left, taking it with me.

Weird cat.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:40 AM | Comments (4)
» A little Aardvark never hurt anyone links with: New links

July 19, 2004

You Gotta Read This! « Politics As Usual »
Not that the president’s opponents in the education establishment and the Democratic Party are likely to give him any credit for these accomplishments. With all of today’s harsh criticism of NCLB, it’s easy to forget that it passed Congress by overwhelming bipartisan majorities (87 to 10 in the Senate; 381 to 41 in the House) and that Ted Kennedy stood beaming with the president at the bill-signing ceremony (above). That era of good feelings lasted only a few months—about as long as it took for the public education industry to realize just how serious Bush was about no longer rewarding failure.

The whole thing should be required reading for anyone who criticizes the No Child Left Behind initiative.

Via Donald Luskin.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 03:26 PM | Comments (0)
Blogging Hints and Tips « Blogging »

Nice little primer over here by Right Wing News.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:45 AM | Comments (6)
Bwa-Ha-Ha-Ha « Link O' Admiration »
as conservatives, we believe that a more conservative society will create a better America. And it is no coincidence that America is getting healthier as it becomes more conservative. Second, attracting young people is better than the alternative and it is a sign that the unfair and irrational stigma attached to conservatism is finally washing off. We aren't now, and never were, a bunch of racist paste eaters. And then, of course, there's schadenfreude. The Left feels entitled to young people, and watching them mope like captains of the pep squad when no one shows up at the sign-in table is certainly reason enough for conservatives to celebrate.

Jonah Goldberg

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:42 AM | Comments (0) should I just drop the puns? Does anyone hate them?

(a deeper, darker question: have I gotten so far into puns that I'm skirting the line of insanity?)

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:52 AM | Comments (10)

July 18, 2004

Why Kerry Chose Edwards « Humor »

Okay, the theory is that Presidents go into office looking young and chipper, and leave office looking 20 years older; the stresses of the job wear them down and make them look like death warmed over.

Well, Kerry already looks like that. And without the Botox, you can even skip the "warmed over" part. So why did he pick such an energetic and young-looking running mate? I can explain it in six words:

Read More "Why Kerry Chose Edwards" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:58 PM | Comments (0)
Is Our Society Beyond Hope? « Social Issues »

Sometimes it seems so.

To tell the truth, I'm not sure what else to say about this. It rather depresses me.

Via Warren, who will be added to my blogroll as soon as I get around to it (probably tomorrow).

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:48 PM | Comments (3)
Capitalism In Action « Puns »

The two men, John and Jim, chartered a small cargo vessel to transport their goods from the United States to Norway. They had several crates of all the important items needed for survival in an arctic environment: snowshoes, skis, gloves, boots, you name it, they had it.

Unfortunately, they hit an iceberg not far from an unhibatide coastal area of Greenland and began to sink. They had just enough time to grab survival gear for themselves for about 3 months, but the their cargo was lost. They made it ashore and set up camp. They were slightly worried, but expected that someone might come by within a week or two.

But the weeks went by, and no one came within sight, on either land or sea. Jim became depressed, and started sleeping more. John never gave up, however, and ceaselessly searched for some way to improve their situation. Finally, with less than a week of rations left, two out of the ordinary events happned before Jim awoke from his depression-extended slumber.

Ther first was that a single crate washed ashore: a box of hankerchiefs specially designed with slits in them so you could wrap them around your eyes and still see without getting dazzled by reflections of the sun off of ice and snow. And by a strange coincidence, as John was fishing the crate out of the water, nomad Inuits appeared. Not knowing who they were, John quickly hid the crate out of site behind a snowdrift, then quickly woke up Jim.

The chieftain was willing to take them to civilization, but was also crafty and sly; he saw no reason to help them for free when he might be able to make a buck. So he feigned reluctance and told the stranded businessmen that it would cost his small tribe much to go out of their way to take the castaways to a settlement. He asked if they had anything they could offer for the trouble...?

Jim began to sadly shake his head, thinking they had nothing, but John, being afraid they might miss their chance, broke in and said,

Read More "Capitalism In Action" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 03:04 PM | Comments (4)
Intuition « Rhetorical Questions »

I've been washing dishes since I was old enough to reach the sink by standing on a chair...about age four, I think.

When I was about 8 or 9, I remember having a choice of a dish to use to make a sandwich: a wet one from the dishrack that I could dry with a towel, or a dry one from the cabinet. I took the dish from the cabinet.

I remember I was slightly puzzled by my own behavior. With my years of experience, I knew that the cleansing was in the washing. Drying was a natural occurrence, but nothing would make any real difference in just drying, right? So wiping it off with a dish towel would be the same thing, wouldn't it? Just sitting in the cabinet for a few hours doesn't make a plate more clean, right? But I still took the dish from the cabinet.

It wasn't until later, after the lessons of biology class sunk in that I realized that air-drying does make a difference, since there are all sorts of microscopic beasties that can live on moist surfaces, but few can survive drought. Thus, air-drying gave time for all these germs/bacteria/microbes/whatever to die off before you used the plate. Sure, washing got rid of most of those, and I probably would have been safe using the just-washed, still-wet dish.

I find it extremely interesting, however, that my first gut-reaction was accurate, despite having no knowledge of how it could be...

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 11:00 AM | Comments (4)
God Talks About Homosexuality « Social Issues »

Here's a roundup of the most salient verses from the Bible on this issue. It seems fairly cut and dried to me, as well.

One thing I'd like to point out, though: One thing the Bible makes very clear: there are sins of commission, and sins of omission, and sins of the heart. If you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit in your heart without saying a word, you have still sinned. However, I think homosexuality is more equivalent to lying and adultery: you can have the urges, but it is the action that is the sin. Furthermore, any sin can be repented. Repentence means recognizing your sin, asking God for forgiveness, and then attempting to not commit that sin again. If you do, you can always go through the process of repentence again, but it's not repentence if you don't even resist the temptation.

Thus, I think it is fairly clear that it is unrepentant homosexual behavior that separates homosexuals from God, not their urges. I have urges to have wild heterosexual sex with every pretty girl I see...especially when I was younger. When I am closer to God and recognize my sin, I repent and try to turn away; over time, I have grown in wisdom, maturity, and holiness that seeing a pretty girl now usually doesn't result in lust. Most of the time. I'll never be free of it, but I certainly don't give in to it by cheating on my wife, and usually don't even give in to it with a sexual fantasy.* If a homosexual wants to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, s/he must likewise attempt to resist, reduce, and eventually eliminate the homosexual behavior and lusts...

Read More "God Talks About Homosexuality" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:33 AM | Comments (16)
Two Suggestions « GWOT »

I have two suggestions to help make air travel safer. Someone call Mr. Mineta, okay?

1) Install a small cabinet with many small, locking sections. As people come on the plane, they putt their cellphones in and take the key. During flight, the flight attendants can use a key to engage a locking mechanism so no keys work at all. After the flight, as people shuffle off, they use their key to remove the cellphone. One attendent can watch as people put stuff in to make sure only cellphones go in (to prevent someone from putting in a bomb that can go off on a later flight, if that seems advisable). Then if anyone pulls out a cellphone in flight, they deliberately sidestepped the rules and the other passengers can tackle him, knowing he was planning something. You can do this with cellphones rather than laptops because you can't use cellphones in flight anyway, and laptops are already checked for explosive residue, whereas cellphones are small enough to be missed at the gate.

2) I'd like to highlight what I said in the post I'm not proud of (2nd one down): Any pilot who wants to make sure people stay in the seat can do so by seeking out turbulence or even by altering the flight profile (dives, climbs, banks, etc). Sure, it wastes gas, but isn't that better than wasting lives? If passengers are acting suspicious, the flight attendents should tell the pilot so he can get them down to the level where explosive decompression isn't a danger, at the very least.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:19 AM | Comments (0)
Apologies and Exuses « Blogging »

In my own little Bonfire of the Vanities Moment, I'd like to apologize somewhat for the last post. I've been pressing on this blog, feeling I have to find some way to justify Michelle Malkin's linking of me. I wanted to show my entire range of blogging in just a few days. Now, I can often be that prolific, but I was making an effort. And since everyone was talking about the possible terrorists on the flight, I thought I'd try to put it all together and take a moment to try and guess what changes it might have on our society. In retrospect, after a few days of reflection, I don't think I did a very good job...

Ah, well. My overall point was trying to be that in the past, we gave an amazing amount of authority to elected/appointed/hired officials, but with that authority, we expect they won't abuse it, and our system of government has methods built in to allow us redress in the event that authority is abused. Somewhere along the line, though, we began to expect our law enforcement authorities would, could, and should almost automatically know who the badguys actually are, and leave the rest of us alone.

It just cannot work that way.

The underlying assumption of our system of law enforcement and crime prevention is that most people will generally try to follow the important rules, and that we won't get messed with unless we are doing something excessively bad. It's why comfortable suburban dwellers get so upset when a cop stops them for going 5 miles over the speed limit: "Why aren't you out catching criminals instead of messing with me for such a minor thing?"

This provides a loophole for terrorists to work with. If we want to make ourselves more safe from a terrorist attack, that loophole will have to close. There are two ways to close it: if we, as citizens, start getting into each other's business, or if we allow law enforcement officials more latitude to arrest/detain/hassle us before a definitive crime has been committed. Both choices are distasteful to Americans, yes. But losing 3000 citizens in one morning is far worse than merely "distasteful", and so something's gotta give. I wonder which it will be?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:07 AM | Comments (2)

July 16, 2004

A New Etiquette « GWOT »

By now you've heard the story about the scarily-weird Syrians.

In case you haven't, you can read a definitive round-up here by Michelle Malkin:


Bill of the INDC Journal had a similar eerie experience.

Some commentary by the Ace of Spades.

And what the heck:
Did James Woods see a dress rehearsal?

Finished with all that? Good. Here's the thing: As a nation, there has been a general feeling against racial profiling. If you assume that racial profiling arises from the idea that the only way a black man could have enough money to buy a BMW is if he deals drugs, then, yes: racial profiling is racism.

But if you feel that racial profiling is nothing more than looking at what population is most likely to commit a specific crime, and then look for the most common characteristics of that population, then maybe it isn't racism as much as a good idea. After all, there's no point in wasting time doing audits on a small-town Tastee Freeze in New Mexico if you want to capture Wall Street embezzlers, right? You consider who is mostly likely to commit a crime, and you look at him first....but by no means only.

But our legal system is predicated on the idea that someone is innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty. Or is it? If so, how did this happen, and how could it ever have happened? See, if the guy had been holding a gun, it would have been okay, because the officer has the right to defend himself...sort of. BIG gray area, depending on the situaiton, circumstances, politically-active groups in charge.

The point is, it's easy to pass laws against racial profiling if the result of being less successful in arresting drug dealers merely means $1.2 billion dollars of drugs reach the streets instead of just the $1.1 billion dollars if we'd used racial profiling to catch that extra guy.

To put it another way, racial profiling is a tool that can be effective in some circumstances. The higher the cost of being wrong, the more likely you will use any tool at hand, even one that might well be racist.

Is it any surprise that we have rules and procedures designed to prevent racial profiling in our transportation system? We do, after all, have a Democrat heading up the Department of Transportation in Mineta. Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, among many others, have decried the searching of 80-year-old black women and 12-year-old asian boys and many others when the clearest threat is from Middle Eastern terrorists, and that makes sense.

Except that it's not always easy to tell who is from the Middle East, because there are Middle Easterners with white skin, sandy hair, red hair...there are "whites" who are dark-skinned and look Arabic. Some Scandinavians have black hair, and when combined with a good tan. Heck, before my full-German (Wendish) dad's hair turned silver, he could have passed for a Middle-Eastern man.

And take all these examples linked above. What, exactly, would you do to the suspicious people that wouldn't be in violation of the 4th, 5th, or 14th Amendment to the US Constitution?

The only reason this question is being asked at all is because the cost is higher than ever before. The terrorists have shown their ingenuity in developing plans to kill large groups of people. Let there be no doubt: if they could acquire a nuclear device, they would not hesitate to detonate it in the most dense population center they could.

We have Constitutional rights. We have the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. How many of the 3000 people killed on 9/11 are able to pursue those rights...? Oh, yeah: none.

But you can't throw out the US Constitution just to save a life or two, right? Well, no... If we tear up the Constitutional guarantees of rights for a little safety, we deserve neither the rights nor the safety, right? (to paraphrase Ben Franklin). Well, it just ain't that simple. It isn't that simple at all anymore.

A new society dawned in the United States on 9/11. I think no one realized the extent it would affect the future. Many people assume things have gone back to normal, mostly...but they haven't. If we relax in the wrong place at the wrong time, we will have several more thousand dead, if not tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands. The cost of guaranteeing freedom from hassle and interference went through the roof in September of 2001, make no mistake. Maybe we dodged a bullet on the flight described by Annie Jacobson, maybe not. Even if not, we have certainly dodged other bullets. In the weeks and months after 9/11, several individuals were able to sneak all sorts of weapons and banned items on board. Apparently the searchers have found most of the smart alec insulting notes, though.

(Q: What did you find, Sergeant? A: We found this spoon, sir!)

Somethings gotta change. Some things will change.

First, I think we must start to accept restrictions on certain behaviors. It is already illegal to merely joke about having a bomb. So we threw free speech into the gutter, huh? Well, we seem to be doing fine in all other areas of free speech.

So, can we say "suspicious" behavior needs to be considered sufficient grounds for an Air Marshal to detain a suspect? That sounds good, except that all it takes then is one person hired or designated to be excessively suspicious, and then the Air Marshal has his hands full and cannot do anything to stop the rest of the bad guys from assembling their weapons in the bathroom.

Therefore, second, I think we need to designate more legal power aircrew to order people to sit down.

In any case, since it is a matter of life and death for not only the people on the aircraft but also the people at a possible impact point, people will have to expect "rude" and abrupt treatment by air travel professionals. We used to teach our children to do whatever a police officer says, immediately and respectfully. We need to teach our children to do the same with airline attendents.

Third, I think our society will grow to adjust to the situation. Veteran air travelers have already adjusted to the extra security checks, I think that as a society, we can and should begin to expect that we must defend ourselves on flights. Todd Beemer and the rest of the "Let's Roll" crew showed us that it is possible to affect the outcome and save lives. If we expect the aircrew to do something about it, the aircrew won't be able to do their jobs of attempting to ensure our comfort and safety.

But that bumps us right up against another problem: individual autonomy and Principle of The Rudest Person Wins. Rude people get away with so much because no one else wants to confront them...the fact that the person cares so little about societal norms that they are already being rude leaves the polite individual slightly afraid that even speaking up against rude behavior might earn a verbal barrage, or even a poke in the eye. Again, the cost of getting involved had usually been considered too high, and most people will suffer rudeness in silence rather than risk making a scene or escalating the situation into confrontation. But it's worse than a poke in the eye now. Now if you don't say anything, it might end up with your death as the plane plows into a skyscraper. And so, we have to develop the courage to confront those individuals. Ask them what they are doing. Ask them to explain themselves. Ask them to stop moving around and to stay in their seat. Expect them to be rude and abusive to try to intimidate you into silence, and that's when the fellow passengers have to stand up and defend the person challenging the suspicious behavior.

I think society will change. We don't know how to handle this. ...yet. But we will. Americans are flexible, and within another few years, flying etiquette will probably end up developing to the point where we can police ourselves to a great extent.*

One last thought: why didn't the pilot do anything?**

Read More "A New Etiquette" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 03:47 PM | Comments (6)
Puns From the Lost Archives, Pt II « Puns »

(slightly altered from its original form by hazy memory)

Back in the days of developing the first atomic bomb, the team of scientists noted that Albert Einstein was a workaholic, never taking any time off to rest or relax. He was starting to crack from the stress, and the other scientists were worried.

One of them came up with what he thought was a good plan. He invited Albert to go catch fish with him. Albert seemed to enjoy it, and he was visibly more relaxed the next day in the lab. Everyone was happy.

Except that the scientist kept asking Albert to go back to the lake. Again and again and again. Mr. Einstein was too polite to say no, but people could tell he was irritated. All except for the poor scientist.

One day Albert was visibly irritated when the scientist walked up to ask him on another trip. Everyone was afraid Einstein might just explode, but he only mildly said,

Read More "Puns From the Lost Archives, Pt II" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 12:19 PM | Comments (0)
Puns from the Lost Archives « Puns »

Why Lucifer was kicked out of heaven:

So God was creating all the animals for the world, with some help and feedback from all the angels. He made giraffes, hippopotamuses (hippopotamusi?), sparrows, etc. Then he got to South American jungle cats. He was doing fine until he created a small spotted cat with double the normal legs.

One of the angels spoke up, "God! What are you doing? What in Your Name is that?!?"

God said, "It's an ocelot."

The angel shook his head. "God..."

Read More "Puns from the Lost Archives" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 12:00 PM | Comments (7)
Oops! « Blogging »

I forgot to change the settings on my blog...all the comments have been sent to my home email addy, so I haven't seen 'em. I'll go look "manually" now.

My apologies for not responding sooner.

...I was wondering why no one was commenting....

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 11:21 AM | Comments (0)
Political Anecdote « Puns »

It's a little-known made-up fact that when Pakistan was having a dispute with India back in 1995, they actually turned for help to Cambodia's leader, Pol Pot. A previous ambassador to the small Southeast Asian nation from Pakistan had made good friends with the leader before retiring to Quetta, a smaller city in Pakistan's Southwest.

However, it was difficult to make any progress, because the Pakistani leader handling the negotiations, Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, would call Cambodia and not get through to Pol. Then Pol would always call back to his friend, the former ambassador.

Finally, Bhutto gave up. "Never mind," she told her assistant, "It's not worth it."

"What do you mean?" asked the assistant.

"It's impossible to have a discussion with him," Bhutto said, "Every time it's the same old thing..."

Read More "Political Anecdote" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:19 AM | Comments (5)
Whoopi's Misunderstanding « Politics As Usual »

She said:

"America's heart and soul is freedom of expression without fear of reprisal," she said in a statement.

No. Dead wrong. There is nothing in the US Constitution that protects you from the social, political, and economic consequences of acting or speaking irresponsibly.

When will these childish, immature people understand: You can say what you want, but you need to think about who might hear it and what they might think. America's true heart and soul is that, as a society, we try to ensure that all actions and statements are rewarded or punished appropriately.

We ensure that Whoopi won't be fed feet-first into a plastic shredder for insulting President Bush for making sure people like her are no longer fed feet-first into a plastic shredder in Iraq.*

Read More "Whoopi's Misunderstanding" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:04 AM | Comments (3)
» The Owner's Manual links with: Whoopi - not clear on the concept
A Necessary Oath « Politics As Usual »

Remember when I made this pledge/request?

Well, this is why that post was necessary. Please don't forget this, folks. If liberals who claim to "support the troops" can't successfully co-opt you into their political cause when you're alive, they'll manipulate your image and memory when you're dead and unable to speak for yourself.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:59 AM | Comments (0)
Junior Senator from NY NOT Hurt... « Stuff Important to Me »

The mainline news media is strangely quiet on this one, for some reason...

Thanks to Kevin for pointing me to the news article.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:59 AM | Comments (0)
Decent News for Legal Immigrants, For Once « Politics As Usual »

Michelle Malkin has the whole article.*

I'd like to call your attention to the lead paragraph, if I may:

The class action lawsuit was originally filed in United States District Court in March of 2000 under the Federal Racketeer and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and is the first of its kind in the U.S. where legal workers have sued agricultural employers about intentional wage depression through the use of illegal labor.

I had just finished this paragraph when it hit me: Illegal immigrants don't pay taxes, and very often, the money they earn is sent home to support family members left behind. Thus, illegal immigrant labor is Outsourcing! The money leaves the United States and can't be taxed and redistributed!** I can't believe Democrats aren't up in arms about this and doing all they can to stop it.

Read More "Decent News for Legal Immigrants, For Once" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:45 AM | Comments (0)
Wish I'd Said It, Too

But it's not my brand of snark:

My old pal Greg points out that Vice President Cheney is said to be "playing a key role" in the process of selecting a new CIA Chief. To which Greg responds:
Upon reading those words, I thought, "Cheney's going to announce that he's the best man for the job."
Damn! I wish I'd said that.

But follow the link to read the comments, which actually go a step beyond snark into interesting thoughts.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:36 AM | Comments (0)

July 15, 2004

Juliette Rocks Again « Politics As Usual »

Fresh off of identifying and calling out the Puppet Masters, she clearly explains why the liberal Democrat attitude toward minorites in general and blacks in specific is so condescending and racist and disgusting.

Sure, she doesn't say anything I haven't tried to say before. That she can sound so much better and succinct and reasonable doing so is a testimony to her writing talent. If I ever ending up writing Op-Ed for a living, it will be partly due to my success in emulating elements of her ability.

Without further ado, here's the link.

And with only a little further ado, here's the excerpt I like so much (although it's so dang good, I could just quote the whole dang thing). Oh, and: ado, ado, ado, ado:

So when some black people find out that Republicans don’t want to “do anything” for them except to encourage them to take part in the American dream of prosperity, stemming from work and ingenuity, they’re like, “WTF? Where’s my money?”

Genius. Sheer genius.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:02 PM | Comments (2)
Blogging Tastes and Popularity « Blogging »

Over at this post asking, "Who is Overrated?", I nominated Michele of A Small Victory and Kate of Venomous Kate. Apparently, I'm the only one who feels this way.

Here's what I said:

Michele at A Small Victory. I've seen nothing there that compels me to go back.

Venomous Kate. In my opinion, she pretty much invented the concept of empty self-promotion. Any "How to get more traffic" primer should start with a study of Ms. Kate and how she really added very little of any substance or value to the blogosphere. Of course, if she's no longer blogging, you can ignore this.

An explanation or two might be in order:
Michele...I don't know why she doesn't do it for me. It's quite possible I caught her on her bad days, or the posts the people link are the ones they like because they know her, and not knowing her, it doesn't impress me. Or maybe the best part about her is her commenters, which is possible. That's kind of true at Jane Galt, too, except that I'd read Megan even if she closed comments....tho I've dropped out of the habit of stopping by her site, so she may not be the same, dunno. All I know is she doesn't make me laugh like Juan Gato did or Ace and Jeff G. do, she doesn't make me think like Dean and Zombyboy and Accidental Deb do. I don't fault anyone who does love her, I just don't. There's nothing there that makes me stay away, either, if that helps.

My beef with Kate, if you are curious, is that my first encounter with her was seeing her get alot of attention and traffic from linking (and apparently flirting with him to get the attention) Acidman. I showed up about the time they got in a small blog-war about her blatant link-whoring techniques, i.e., using him to attract hits. I stopped by, left a few comments, got mixed up in the "Kate's an alcoholic" "No, she's not" kerfuflle, and just stayed away. I began noticing lots of meme's popping up all over the blogosphere, all crediting her...but incidentally, also linking back to her. Again, nothing she wrote seemed that funny, insightful, witty, incisive, or anything. She was just good at getting people to link her site, and everything she did seemed geared toward that. I didn't really appreciate her, but didn't dislike her, either. Until the day she posted a rant saying she abhorred all the puny link-whores who tried to attract hits by using her comments to promote their own links. Remembering her history, her meteoric rise to "the top" by using just those same techniques, I felt a great deal of irritation. Not so much to wish her ill, so I still prayed for her when she was having problems with her lawn washing away from the North Shore, but if a post referenced V. Kate, I ignored it. I much preferred Suburban Blight, who in my perspective seemed to have pioneered the weekly linky-love roundups, told interesting humorous stories, and made me care about her person and life. Like two sides of the same coin, in my opinion.

But that's just my opinion. I'm not trying to insist it is the truth. It's entirely possible that the Kate who got in the link-whore blogfight with Acidman wasn't V. Kate, but that's how I remember it...that was over a year ago, I think.

The point is, it's a big blogosphere. I've already noticed that I have some people I really like, but other people I really like don't like them. The closest thing I saw to an actual clique, nearly an informal alliance, was between Kevin McGehee of blogoSFERICS, Deb of Accidental Jedi, Zombyboy of ResurrectionSong, Jo of Seething, and me, because from my persepective we linked each other more than anyone else, commented on each other's sites more than other places, and were all rather familiar with each other. Jo's stopped blogging; Deb found the love of her life, got married, and moved both in real life and bloglife, Kevin bought a Bronco, I stopped blogging for nearly 4 months and moved a few times and lost all my archives, and Zombyboy....I don't know...he seems to be the only one who hasn't really changed much.

Has anyone else had a blogging experience like that?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:18 PM | Comments (18)
Fat Blogging « Stuff Important to Me »

A while back, after getting in a minor dispute about weight loss, I posted this article describing the best weight loss regimen/program I could think of, based on the full extent of my understanding of the issue.

I've never followed it. To tell the truth, I've never had to.

I've usually been a little pudgy, though. I tend to be right at the upper limit of what the military allows for weight standards. Even with constant exercise and trying to control my eating, I added 1-2 pounds a year from 1994 to 2002. When my maximum allowable weight went up, my weight went up to match it. Sure, metabolism slowdowns contributed to that...I changed my diet, reducing and then eliminating full-sugar soft drinks and candy bars and french fries....

I always lost 5-10 pounds in the various schools I attended in the military, but usually put the weight back on within a few weeks.

The final straw came when I went on three short business trips in three months. Eating out for every meal and satisfying some food urges, I put on 10 pounds that proved nearly impossible to shed. You might remember late last summer (if you were reading me then) I admitted I was up to 216 pounds. I lost 3-4 pounds, then kinda stayed there and stopped talking about it. I managed to get down to about 208, stayed there a little bit, then back up to 216.

In January of this year I finally decided to try Atkins. But I was too cheap to buy the book, so I just cut out a lot of carbs and ate a lot more vegetables, keeping my protein and fat intake about the same (medium to low). I lost 5 pounds in a week while on vacation. I was so impressed, I relaxed and began experimenting until I found the level that I could lose 2 pounds/month but still enjoy eating.

I still eat an occasional Peanut M&Ms. I have pizza once a week. I have french fries sometimes. But I am now 199 pounds and have lost (do the math) 17 pounds over the last 6 months. And I did it without going too far into The Brainfertilizer Plan for Weight Loss. All I did to change my diet was cut back on carbs by eating less of the carbs I don't really crave, and switching to high fiber carbs for the carbs I did like to eat, like toast and nuts. All I did activity-wise was increase my walking and standing and decrease my sitting-and-doing-nothing. I didn't even do any vigorous exercise in the two months I was deployed, and still lost 6-8 pounds.

I have plenty of energy, and significantly less heartburn. I also never feel uncomfortably stuffed or achingly hungry like I used to.

With this experimentation, and a 3 pound/month loss by only weakly implementing the Brain Fertilizer Plan for Weight Loss, I think I can fully recommend the plan to anyone who really wants to lose lots of weight. (usual caveat: check with your doctor to see if the plan is appropriate for you)

In the final analysis, I'd say the most successful weight loss programs all include the following four elements:
1) Commitment
2) Persistence
3) reduce/eliminate refined carbs
4) increase your baseline (non-exercise) activity

Read More "Fat Blogging" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 03:10 PM | Comments (3)
This is Why Juliette Rocks* « Politics As Usual »
Second, if the puppeteer is a skilled one, an actual puppet doesn’t know when he/she is having those strings pulled. One Lyndon B. Johnson was a master string-puller (pun intended). Anticipating that his “Great Society” programs would be widely popular within the black American population, he opined that he would “have them ni**ers voting Democrat for the next 200 years.” The next 170 years remain to be seen, but he was correct at least for the subsequent 30 or so years past his prediction, so correct that many black people managed to forget that the Democrats had been the party of Jim Crow for Jim's entire lifetime. President Johnson gave black people (and others) money and sustenance for their transgressions, where all Republicans wanted to do was to stop standing in the way of black progress.

From this post.

Read More "This is Why Juliette Rocks*" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 02:52 PM | Comments (1)
To Republicans Thinking of Making a Protest Vote « Politics As Usual »

It is, of course, your right. I won't blame you for it, if you think your needs and goals are not being met by President Bush.

However, I left this comment on this thread:

The only problem is, when you cast your vote, they don't give you a space to explain "why". Kerry could just as easily assume that by not re-electing President Bush, we want him to roll back the tax cuts, pull out of Iraq, pass an amendment requiring the legalization of gay marriage, and extend the assault weapons ban.

Too dangerous.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 12:37 PM | Comments (4)
Something That Needed to Be Said « Social Issues »

..and probably should be said over and over again until more people get it.

The world doesn't revolve around you. You may know you aren't a terrorist, but the cops and flight attendents and those charged with keeping all non-terrorists safe don't. Have some patience and understanding.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 12:22 PM | Comments (1)
Some Musings on Justice (UPDATED) « Social Issues »

Are there some situations in which it is a waste of time to attempt to ensure a fair trial?

I mean, every time I try to think of a situation in which a person could be slam-dunk convicted enough that we don't really need to offer them a trial in order to bring about justice, I think of the movie F/X. Sure, someone can be framed even in our legal system, but a trial at least provides a chance for intelligent people to try and find minor flaws and inconsistencies that might indicate the appearance of guilt is due to a frame attempt. I always conclude that we are better off with things the way they are.

But what about Saddam? I really think that if we merely grabbed and put him up against a wall and shot him without another word, it would still be justice. In fact, the only injustice might be that we could possibly miss out on a full accounting of his atrocities...maybe.

Is it worth the risk of a successful escape or rescue or an intimidated jury to actually put him on trial? Regardless of the issue of determining his guilt/innocence, is the benefit more just in allowing the new government to confront, accuse, and execute him for the potent symbolism involved?

The only reason I'm asking is because if there is even one definitive circumstance in which we can say that there is no need for a trial, then we should consider that in light of our legal system, and see if there would be any way to safely implement and even expand the circumstances in which a person may be convicted without a trial, in the interests of justice. Could top-notch DNA analysis ever provide the necessary accuracy required (such as being able to not only identify the person through DNA, but also able to tell when the DNA had been planted by pouring a vial of bodily fluid after the fact)?

Lawyers and law students, specifically, are invited to weigh in.

I'm not saying Saddam is our responsibility, just that his crimes are well-documented enough that Iraq doesn't really need to try him. If any case can be said to make a trial unnecessary, I'd say it was this one. (Or Hitler's...but Hitler is still living in Argentina or Bolivia, and so outside the scope of our discussion) So, if Saddam doesn't really need a trial to establish his guilt, is there any possibility of any case in the United States legal system in which we don't have to assume innocence before proven guilty? If not, well, then question answered, end of story. But if so, what are the circumstances? And would it be advisable or even possible to adjust our legal system toward that direction at all?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:10 AM | Comments (2)
My Opposition to SSM « Social Issues »

I found this opinion piece to be nearly 100% in agreement with what I think about the current state of the battle over SSM.

Dunno if it needs a subscription or not. I had no problem with accessing it.

In any case, I'd like to point out that I don't think being a Christian (or an atheist, for that matter) should dictate your support or opposition to SSM. The sinfulness of homosexual behavior really has no bearing on whether or not marriage between two men or two women should or should not be legal. There are some arguments for SSM that a Christian should support, if they can be demonstrated to be more than mere wishful thinking, such as that legal SSM could provide a stabilizing/calming effect on homosexual activists so we see fewer Gay Bars with sodomy in the back rooms, less extreme promiscuity, lower HIV-infection rates, etc.

However, I do find it disturbing when a Christian argues for the legalization of SSM on the basis that homosexual behavior isn't a sin. I flatly cannot understand this sort of argument; it seems like the best example of a non-sequitor for our modern times. You might as well argue that we no longer consider murder to be a crime because it is in the 10 Commandments and we must have separation of church and state to eliminate the corrupting influence of religion.

Personally, I currently oppose the legalization of SSM on the grounds that:

1) a significant number of homosexuals are seduced/influenced/corrupted into declaring themselves homosexual beyond return. The legalization of SSM will further establish homosexuality as an equally-valid "lifestyle choice" and whitewash the very real damaging consequences of homosexual behavior, minimizing or concealing the substantially higher risk of engaging in homosexual behavior than heterosexual behavior.

2) the hypocrisy, dishonesty, presumptive (moral) high ground and general opportunism displayed by the pro-SSM advocates is despicable. I cannot believe that a goal worth achieving is worthwhile if achieved through such means. The pro-SSM advocacy as a whole is marked by a distinct lack of maturity, and that being the case, I conclude their arguments are mostly baseless and wishful thinking.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:35 AM | Comments (11)
Fascinating « Politics As Usual »
Bill Clinton (news - web sites) has warned Senator John Kerry (news - web sites), the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee, to counter Republican efforts to turn this year's election into a debate on gay marriage and other "cultural issues" such as gun control and abortion.

The most skilled and facile political weathervane the Democrat party has had in decades advises Kerry to avoid campaigning on 3 of the top 5 Democrat platform planks, because those issues are losing issues for the Democrat Party.

They are all but acknowledging that the majority of citizens don't support them, but are still willing and eager to misrepresent their position in order to gain power to impose their vision on the majority.*

...and the non- biased news media has exactly zero editorial criticism of this. Fascinating.

Read More "Fascinating" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:59 AM | Comments (2)
Ah. That Explains It All. « Politics As Usual »
Muslim religious overlords have that medieval sense of culture going for them. Were they to burn homosexuals at the stake as they threaten, it would only be an expression of their tradition and ideology and nothing like Bible riled Republicans trying to keep marriage a man-woman thing in our country.

From the comments left here.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:33 AM | Comments (0)
Da Bush!

Scene: Four guys sitting around a table, with plenty of Stroh's or Shiner Bock in frosty beer mugs, half-finished Texas brisket on various plates, Texas flags festooned around the room.

The leader/spokesperson speaks: "Okay, Bushfans. Who would win in a contest between Bush and Kerry-Edwards?"

Guy 1: "Da Bush! 68% of the popular vote and all but 43 electoral votes."
Guy 2: "Da Bush! 92% of the popular vote and all but 12 electoral votes."
Guy 3: "Da Bush! 102% of the popular vote and 3 extra electoral votes when Mexico volunteers to become part of the United States."

Spokesperson: "I agree. Da Bush!" All participants raise a beer mug and echo, "Da Bush!"
Spokesperson: "Next up: Bush vs. Godzilla? Who would win?"

Guy 1: "Da Bush! But it would be close 51% of the popular vote and all but 100 electoral votes."
Guy 2: "Da Bush! But the Japanese immigrant vote might make it close. Bush wins 60% of the popular vote and all but 40 electoral votes."
Guy 3: "Da Bush! 109% of the popular vote and 300 extra electoral votes when Taiwan joins in out of fear of China invading."

Spokesperson: "I agree. Da Bush!" All participants raise a beer mug and echo, "Da Bush!"
Spokesperson: "Okay, Bush vs. all the dictator-coddling UN delegates. Who would win?" Guy 2 stands up and begins pounding his chest. "Uh-oh, it seems one of our Bushfans has decided to show his loyalty to BushVeep Cheney and have a massive heart attack. That's all for today folks, until after the triple-bypass surgery is effectively completed! Da Bush!"

All three guys echo: "Da Bush!"

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:03 AM | Comments (4)
» resurrectionsong links with: Yes, I Laughed...
Touchstone « Stuff Important to Me »

I really enjoy going to Dawn's site. She has the courage to express her faith without holding back.

Maybe I grow complacent from being nearly a life-long Christian? I don't know. I do know that I hadn't blogged about my faith for quite a long time when I stumbled on her site, and she helped inspire me to post again about my belief in God, my trust in God's plan for me and my salvation, and the indirect religious influence on my views.

I love reading her take on things. So many times I find myself nodding and saying, "Yes, she gets it."

Here's another such piece. Go read it.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:48 AM | Comments (3)
Dawn on the International AIDS Conference « Social Issues »

I blogged a little on the International AIDS conference and the perfidy of the AIDS industry here. My good friend Dawn Eden blogs about it here and here. A slightly different take, yes, but essentially the same outraged reaction to the garbage they try to pass off as fact in their quest to undermine morality and societal standards.

Some excerpts:

But most AIDS activists refuse to consider the U.S.'s "ABC" program—which stresses, in order, abstinence, being faithful, and using condoms—because they refuse to adhere to a worldview that requires people to take personal responsibility for their actions. Likewise, since sex is their god, they wish to completely strip it of all its Judeo-Christian associations, detaching it from committed relationships.

She uses the term "AIDS Industry" in the first linked piece, so I used it here as well. I'm sure I've heard the term before, but in the context of Dawn's writing, it struck me cognitively as: "Industry committed to spreading and promoting AIDS", and with the advocacy of condoms only to prevent HIV infections, I think that's a perfectly accurate description, since it is:

A choice. Yes, that's it. A 15 percent choice of dying from AIDS. That is the probability that a person will be exposed to HIV while having sex when using using a condom. The high probability occurs because, as anyone who has used condoms well knows, those barrier contraceptives are prone to slip, leak, and break.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:44 AM | Comments (1)
Creative Cat « Cat Blogging »


That's my cat, above, with his favorite toy: an orange plastic ring from who-knows-what...a juice bottle?

He likes to bat it around our faux hard-wood floors. That's normal for a cat. Last night I noticed that he'll carefully pick it up in his teeth, then hit it out of his mouth with his own paw. I guess he gets more distance by picking it up off the floor? It's like watching the feline version of handball...

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:30 AM | Comments (1)
A Fine Line, Perhaps « Quotes You Can Steal »

But there is a significant difference, nonetheless:

My religion doesn't dictate my politics, rather, what my religion has taught me about humanity dictates my politics.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:20 AM | Comments (1)

July 14, 2004

Kerry's Candidacy Fast Becoming a Joke « Politics As Usual »


The more this sort of thing goes on, the more I think: John Kerry has a viable candidacy only because the un-biased news media wants him to. I never imagined somone so unprepared and incompetent could reach this stage of national politics...

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:34 PM | Comments (6)
Another Glance at the Chiefs « Kansas City Chiefs »

I blogged this at Sports Blog yesterday. Go check it out if you want to see two fools arguing about unimportant things like football...

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 05:59 PM | Comments (6)
Oh, That's Rich « Politics As Usual »

John Kerry's wife apparently doesn't want a full accounting of her wealth made known for either tax or publicity purposes, or both.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 12:54 PM | Comments (4)
Next, on a Very Special Jedi Intern « Humor »

Old Ben teaches his young student how to prevent blood from filling the incision:

Read More "Next, on a Very Special Jedi Intern" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 12:33 PM | Comments (4)
Not a Surprise « Politics As Usual »

The SSM Ban Amendment didn't pass in the Senate.

The disappointing part was that it seems to be because Bill Frist failed to make Democrats stand up and be honest about their political commitment to or against this issue. In short, he failed to let the issue become a significant point upon which to discuss the futures of various legislators up for election this year.

But that's not surprising, either, as he was protecting moderate Republicans as much as liberal Democrats.

I'm still not convinced an amendment to the Constitution banning SSM is the best way to prevent judicial activism, anyway, but if it is, then I guess I gotta say it's best to push it through in an administration that has a recent mandate from the people to pursue a more conservative agenda. And if the GOP loses the election, it's not the proper time for an amendment anyway.

I'm not upset about this at all. The time hasn't come yet for this, if ever. Society might need to decline further before enough people recognize it enough to make some constructive changes back toward morality and maturity.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 11:01 AM | Comments (5)
Hollywood Boycott, In 3-D « Social Issues »
Over the past decade movies have gotten more violent, and loaded up on sex and swearing, leading a pair of researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health to conclude that the Motion Picture Assn. of America (MPAA) is guilty of allowing "ratings creep" in its film classifications.

From this article.

The prosecution rests. I ain't gonna watch Hollywood no more. I really don't need more graphic violence, nudity, and adult situations.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:45 AM | Comments (2)
Hmmm « Politics As Usual »

You know? I think I'm going to have to end up running for a State Legislature position as soon as I get out of the military...

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:02 AM | Comments (7)
Blogging Problems (UPDATED) « Blogging »

It might be a temporary problem, or it might be my work LAN internet filter deciding to block a key process in posting entries, but I also cannot leave comments.

I'm not sure what the problem is. I've asked Pixy Misa to take a look at it. If you are reading this, he's posted this for me.


Wait...I think that despite an error message, things are still getting posted. But I still seem to be having problems getting comments to take.

Nope, no problems with comments, either. Go about your lives, citizens.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:41 AM | Comments (2)
Blogger Alert « Blogging »

While I am enjoying the benefits of my ill-gotten hittage gains, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to help spread the wealth, no?

I've enjoyed this guy's humor when he's left comments (at Protein Wisdom, I think?), but had never followed the hyperlinked name to his site until he linked me in the recent kerfuffle I instigated.

And since Christopher Cross likes boobies, I thought it wouldn't hurt to link this post for him...

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:37 AM | Comments (3)
» QandO links with: Basic Human Rights...
My Latest Gun (UPDATED) « Gun Issues »

I picked up my L1A1 from layaway on Monday. I haven't had a chance to take it to the range yet...

Sometimes I think I like the idea of owning guns more than using them. But in any case, based on an article by Kim du Toit on what rifle he would give the average US military rifleman, I researched and fell in love with the VEPR. Here's a pic:


It's based on the AK-47. More accurately, it uses the RPK squad automatic weapon receiver, which is based on the AK-47. The thicker metal and heavier weight of the machine gun receiver, plus a hammer-forged and chrome-lined barrel help to make this a very accurate weapon.

I got it because it's also in .308, just like my L1A1, but this one is already drilled and tapped for a scope (and comes with it). I expect I'll have lots of fun with the L1A1, but this will be more of a serious rifle for me: serious hunting, serious accuracy practice, etc. I'm sure I'll work up accurate handloads for this baby (when I finally start handloading!!), because it's a rifle with which I should be able to see the difference.

I think I'll have fun.

The only thing I'm still not clear on: I recently learned that the reason Stoner used direct gas impingement to cycle the rifle in the M-16 system (like the MAS 49/56), rather than the piston of the AK-47 system, is that the motion of the piston itself throws off accuracy more than a small blast of gasses. I guess the FN-FAL (L1A1) mitigates this by using a short-stroke piston. The 6.8 SPC version of the M-16 apparently was designed with the gas port in a "sweet spot" midway between that of the AR-15 (in 5.56mm) and the AR-10 (in .308/7.62 NATO), so perhaps it is possible to make several choices to maintain accuracy in piston systems...? Dunno. I'll post some range reports after I get familiar with the rifle. That might not be for a month or two...

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:20 AM | Comments (3)
» protein wisdom links with: Surrendering to my inner interior decorator
How To Eradicate Advocacy of Communism/Socialism (UPDATED) « Social Issues »

Make all liberal arts professors live in 4-family compounds, and all students live in 6-person suites; each with a single, shared kitchen and recreation area.

In short, make them live it before they can advocate it.

Should have been labeled "Snark". Sorry for the confusion.

However, there are three aspects of humanity I take to be generally universal:
One: humans tend to the minimum necessary. Sometimes that's the minimum necessary to be able to feel smug, rather than the minimum required by rule, but when people aren't completing assigned tasks to everyone's expectations, resentments build.
Two: humans tend to overestimate their own contributions/efforts/difficulties, and underestimate those of others.
Three: when "the public" owns something, 99% of the time no one takes responsibility for it.

When I was in college, young students tended to be idealistic. It was always, "Wouldn't it be cool if...?". Heck, I dreamed of the idea of living in an artists' commune at one point. In my imagination, I saw it all being cool and a better use of efforts. But after nearly 2 decades of life and observation of human nature, I understand a little better how hard it is to get people to really work hard for the common good when they don't see a personal benefit of going beyond taking care of their own needs. "Good enough" is important: it's why you don't spend 18 hours cleaning your toilet every day. But it is also subjective, and "good enough" for me isn't good enough for you in some things, and vice versa. If nearly a third of arguments in marriages are based on disputes regarding division of labor, how can you expect friends/colleagues to be able to negotiate such pitfalls with less difficulty?

Few people are willing to work 100 hours a week for the comfort of an acquaintance who works only 10 hours a week. Living in a communal situation tends to make those situations more clear than the invisible nature of modern US socialism (until a newspaper article pulls back the curtain to highlight the "plight" of a woman on total support from the government being upset that she'll have to pay $5 to enroll for medical coverage because it will force her to choose between internet access and her cellphone...). I'm convinced that people who claim that "true" communism has never been tried have probably never tried to live it themselves for a long-term. I'm convinced that people who can support Castro have never been without their comforts. I'm convinced that the people who advocate higher taxes for the rich don't pay a penny more than they are required by law...and enjoy their comforts, as well. Seattle is a very liberal city, but when given the chance to add a mere $.10 to each cup of coffee to increase spending on early child care and education, 68% said no. Oregon is a liberal state, but refused to increase taxes even in the face of oh-so-typical blackmail from the Governer ("If you don't vote to raise your own taxes, I'll be forced to cut education while keeping all my perks and not doing a thing to reduce entitlement spending").

Simply put, most liberals want their compassionate platform only if they can get someone else to pay for most of it.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:03 AM | Comments (3)
I'm Blushing Furiously Right Now « Blogging »

This is all my fault. I was afraid my whining would get back to Ms. Malkin, and it did.

I tried to head it off with this post, but it was too late. She'd already got a free shot. Grandstandin'. Right there in front of the home team.*

I was wrong to be miffed. I was doubly wrong to post about it. I guess the last few times I've whined (and I have, believe me), I got zero attention for it. This time, well, let's just say I am embarassed and ashamed that I didn't keep my mouth (fingers?) in check. Sure, blogs are a place to vent your spleen, but I vented in the wrong direction at the wrong time.

The worst of it is, now I'll never know if I would have earned a spot on her blogroll.

The moral of the story, kiddies, is that if you don't do things the right way, you rob yourself of any satisfaction when you succeed.

You can quote that.

Read More "I'm Blushing Furiously Right Now" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:49 AM | Comments (14)
Blog Stuff « Blogging »

I think I've got everybody blogrolled from the outpouring of links over the last 36 hours...Let me know if I've missed you. I look forward to the new interactions and exploring new blogs!

Posting will be light in the morning the next few days. Remember that I'm out in the Pacific Time Zone, so always check my blog out one last time after you get home from work!

Thanks again, everyone. You have made it a good week for me.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:54 AM | Comments (4)

July 13, 2004

Mea Culpa « Blogging »

I've mentioned in my comments somewhere, and over at Craig's excellent blog, but I'd like to make it even more open and clear: I was out of line when I was miffed for Ms. Malkin not linking me when she mentioned my name.

When people leave comments, they may include an email address or a blogsite address, but you have to hover over the link or click it to see which it is. That's why I wanted her to link me, see? Bloggers are usually too lazy to follow the hyperlink of a name, but usually follow a link in the body of text. But seeing as how bloggers are lazy in that way, it is entirely possible she didn't check whether I have a blog or not. The evidence is that she called me "Reader" Nathan rather than "Blogger" Nathan. And, when it comes down to brass tacks, I didn't actually contribute anything but the link, so putting my name in the body of the text was about all I could hope for. She could have just said, "A Reader", y'know?

So...what do you think? What is blogiquette for that sort of thing? I usually link a blog whenever I have a halfway decent reason to do so....but was this even a half-way decent reason?

Of course, I have a decent reason to let my ire dissipate, since my whining has resulted in the biggest hit day on my blog ever, probably double my previous best. Heck, at one point I had 53 links in one hour!!, thanks to Bill of INDC Journal and Kevin of Wizbang, among others.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:58 PM | Comments (4)
"Too Much Information" Alert « Humor »

The title of this news item is:

Rosie Takes Shot At Bush During Gay-Friendly Cruise

Couldn't they have just said she was looking for a new girlfriend?

"It is not by any means only gay families (on the cruise)," O'Donnell said. "There are bi-racial families, one-parent families. There are heterosexual families. It's all families are welcomed. It is, in my opinion, what America is all about."
Including, I'm sure, no Republicans or people who take the Bible literally. Because that is what America is about: taking cruises that have classes on adoption and artificial insemination.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 03:08 PM | Comments (5)
Freedom Within Limits « Social Issues »

Okay, you caught me. The last post wasn't just about writing, it was also a way to introduce the main theme of this entry.

It's not a strong post, because while I feel strongly about my point, I'm having a hard time expressing it adequately and succinctly. I'll probably have to revise it, and may well end up re-attacking it in another post entirely. But in any case, what the heck, here goes:

Read More "Freedom Within Limits" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 03:00 PM | Comments (2)
Creativity Within Structure « Writing »

Okay, I'm writing again. I got a new laptop a few days ago, and it is finally all set up and ready to go.

I lost about 3000 words when my last laptop crashed during the deployment. But it wasn't a big deal because I was forcing the words while painting myself into a corner. The 2 months off has been good for my mind, and I've thought of a few improvements, so I think I'll start over.

One of the problems the last time around was that I wasn't sure where to put chapter breaks, and some scenes were dragging, others too brief. Pacing was all screwed up, to say the least. So I got an idea: the average novel has 16 major scenes, usually divided as chapters. I want to try to write a 50,000 word novel, and 3,000 words per chapter/scene would be 48,000 words. In a way, that can help me, because I can adjust the pacing and the information flow/revelations by a general word count. Every 3k words or so, cliffhanger for a chapter ending. If I have a lot that needs to happen in one chapter, I can polish to the point that I am succinct and concise enough to fit it in 3k words, and the motive force for the reader is the development. In chapters where less occurs, I can polish to the point that the prose and description are lush and vivid, and the motive force for the reader can be in backfilling developments or setting the stage or introducing deeper levels of plot or character. In short, it will give me a framework to work with.

I originally started this novel by writing a one-sentence plot, then expanding it into a paragraph, then expanding that into a series of 17 sentences (one for each chapter... at the time, I had 17 major points), then expanding those into paragraphs; and finally attempting to expand each one into a full chapter. It didn't work, because some of the chapters were vague in my mind, and I kept thinking up stuff that invalidated some of my plans, or the more I thought about the plot, the weaker some parts of it seemed. That's how I "painted myself into corners".

The difference now is that I've been concentrating on only this novel for 8 months now, and I've been thinking about it for nearly 18 months, so I can actually hold the entire idea in my mind. Now it appears I'm finally ready for the structure.

For the limits. Because the difference between a story and meandering is the structure you give it. I am thinking of each chapter/scene as a bucket, and I'm going to throw words at each bucket until it is full. If there's too much to fit in one bucket, I'll throw out the stuff that's not as good, or maybe move it to another bucket. In any case, I think this structure is the mental development I need to finish the novel. Or, at the very least, the next step I must take in the continuum of effort through which I must progress to finish it. Whatever.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 01:34 PM | Comments (3)
News, Liberal and Conservative « Media Distortions »

Okay, we know most of us know that liberals are full of it when they criticize Fox News as being a branch of the GOP and consider CNN and MSNBC to be unbiased. Independent studies have shown Fox News and The Drudge Report as being far more centrist than most of the other mainstream news media.

But sometimes we forget to actually combat the liberal assertion. Suzy Rice does a nice job of describing the true situation here. Go read.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 01:09 PM | Comments (0)
» marcland links with: Bias? Us?
How To Build Traffic Loyal Audiences « Blogging »

Re: Link-whoring.
I realize that's a deliberately semi-humorous self-deprecating term...except that I guess I believe it least, enough that I don't want to be a whiny pest begging for links on other people's sites. I've had people who wanted what traffic I got try to bend every discussion toward something they could use to link back to their blog, and while I never put a stop to it, it did get annoying.

Obviously, I sometimes end up fighting against myself. I've been blogging long enough to have read at least 10 "How to build traffic" posts, and I've tried some of them. One thing I haven't been able to make myself do is deliberately occupy someone else's comments and say, "Look at me!" I can, and do, leave comments I think add to the discussion...but if it's already been said, I don't add. Sometimes that works against me, too, like when I go over to Wizbang (please, people, please: No "H" in Wiz!) or Protein Wisdom or Dean's World, enough people have commented on any given post that I usually have nothing significant to add.

One thing I think I do know: how to build a loyal readership. And one of the best ways is to foster an atmosphere of discussion. I've never seen anyone give this advice before, but it is important for your readers:
You respond to every comment, and you do it within 5 minutes of someone leaving a comment, if you can.
I haven't put much effort into it lately, but I think I will again. If someone has taken the time to leave a comment, they care about what they said, and they care about the topic. If you respond, even with something like, "I hear ya, pal!", it lets them know you are listening, and appreciate their input. A good conversation requires feedback so someone doesn't feel like they are shouting into the void. Done badly, it can appear like you need to have the final word on everything. Done well, and you can easily get 20-30 comments on a thread. I once got more than 40 comments on entry at a time I was getting less than 60 hits/day. Sure, it was a conversation among only 5-6 people, but I had people expressing envy over our discussions. Anyway, I think it's time to start working on that again.

And thanks for all the links and comments and support, especially all the new people who have dropped by. (Thanks, Kevin and Christopher!)

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:49 AM | Comments (14)
» links with: Comments Sections, Brain Fertilizers & Hattips
» Arguing with signposts... links with: Blogging while listening to air america radio
Stream of Consciousness Entry « Blogging »

Holy Crap! I've whined about not getting attention before and not gotten this level of response. I must have said something wrong, er, right.
Okay, you've got a traffic boost, Nathan. Whatcha gonna do to keep it. Your blog is gonna be in the spotlight for at least a few days, can't fall flat on your face, right? Think, Nathan, think! Shall I tell a pun? okay, um...Kerry...Kerry..."carry"? Could work..."Why did the chicken cross the road 27 times? He didn't actually cross of his own volition, he was Kerry-ed". Nah, stupid. That would drive traffic away quicker than the week you blogged on the daily variations of color in your earwax. C'mon, Nathan, gotta bring your "A"-game. Don't blow it. No mispellings, allright? Well, I ordered yet another gun, a VEPR in .308, maybe that would be a good post? Shoot, I hadn't even heard of the VEPR before Kim du Toit said he's equip a rifle squad with it...but what else can you say about it other than it is a Russian hunting rifle based on the AK-47, but tuned for accuracy? Well, yeah, it's made from an RPK receiver, but that won't mean anything to most people...Okay, go check Drudge, there's usually something there you can blog about, or NRO. 'Cept there's not much time, ya gotta head for work soon and today's gonna be a busy day at work so you might not be able to blog much...

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:34 AM | Comments (4)

July 12, 2004

Important Notice!!! « Blogging »

Jordana at Curmudgeonry has moved. Her new/old digs are here. Stop over and say hello. Better yet, add/update her in your blogroll.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:33 PM | Comments (0)
Hollywood Boycott, the Sequel! « Social Issues »

Excerpted from my reply to comments on the previous entry:

Read More "Hollywood Boycott, the Sequel!" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:41 PM | Comments (1)
Oh, and Another Thing... « Social Issues »

I'm now pretty much totally boycotting Hollywood. I will not watch television programs, see movies in the movie theater, or rent movies. I reserve the right to purchase some movies on DVD, but even that will probably just be classic hits of the past, and there's a good chance I'll just buy pirated copies on trips to foreign countries.

Hollywood sucks. Their collective idea of what constitutes a good story sucks. Their collective idea of what constitutes morality sucks. Their politic sensibilities, as a whole, suck.

In retrospect, if motivations and actions of a significant character like Farimir can be changed to make what Hollywood considers a better story, who needs it? If "smoking" can and is changed to "gun industry" (because the dramatic world lives on cigarettes?) to change the whole focus of a dang good book, Runaway Jury into a mediocre movie, doesn't that say something about Hollywood's incompetence? Read The Bourne Identity, then watch the movie. There's little in common besides character and setting, is there? The movie didn't add a single thing to what was already present in an excellent book, and actually eliminated most of the story for the sake of Hollywood time norms.

Hollywood is all but worthless to me as entertainment. I refuse to contribute any longer.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 04:09 PM | Comments (5)
I'm Appalled « Social Issues »

I have no idea what to make of, or how to respond to, this.

About the most I can muster is the realization that these people have been so consumed by their selfishness that they no longer understand what love is: putting the needs of others ahead of your own. Those T-shirts represent a morally bankrupt culture.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 12:55 PM | Comments (3)
Self-Indulgent and Self-Referential Rant Disposed of... « Blogging »

...we can move to the important stuff:

What happened to Kausfiles?

Did he go on vacation? He hasn't posted for a full week now. My suspicions are that Mickey's slow drift towards a conservatist mindset finally went beyond what the liberal editors could stomach...

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 11:23 AM | Comments (0)
If You Are Reading This, It's Not a Message For You « Blogging »

A strange title, perhaps, but it should become clear.

For the most part, I try to ignore my desire for fame and approval. I try to blog for myself, my on-line friends, and my debators. I try to keep a good attitude, and I continually remind myself that 80 hits/day is excellent compared to the exposure my thoughts and ideas were getting before I started blogging. I remind myself that blogging constantly has improved my writing, and has helped me in learning to express myself more accurately in print. I have a following (though much of it is a mutual following, people I also read daily) that is quite loyal.

Every once in a while, however, my frustration boils over, somewhat.

What frustration, you ask?

Well, dagummit, I'm prolific. I warblog. I'm in the military. I've blogged while deployed three times. I'm insightful, and you get thoughts and ideas you don't get anywhere else. I post on a wide range of interesting topics. I do puns! I spread links around. I leave lots of comments on other people's sites.

But I don't ever get Instalanched. I never get mentioned or even linked by Chris Muir. I was blogging before Scott Ott and was one of the first to link Scrappleface, but never got a reciprocal. I once (once, mind you, in the very early days) was higher on the ecosystem than Resurrection Song. I've had email conversations with Steven den Beste without ever getting a link. Kim du Toit argued with me over something I said about the 5.56mm round (I've since come around to his way of thinking) and had other extensive emails with him and no link to my blog can be found anywhere on his site.

Michelle Malkin starts a blog and doesn't link me. I feel more stung than usual because I've been following her since her first year of professional writing... But the final straw is that today she mentions me by name for giving her a useful link relevant to her post, but she doesn't provide a link to my site.

It hasn't been all bad. I still remember the thrill I got from finding my site appear on Dean's World, and Ipse Dixit, and Protein Wisdom, all pretty big boys of the blogosphere, and they've all tossed me some traffic.

And I realize that despite the high opinion I have of myself and my writing, it was good humor that propelled Scrappleface to the heights, and excellent writing that helped Baldilocks and Blackfive and Lt Smash become some of the main military voices in the blogosphere, not mere military membership. I realize my site may be too eclectic to become a must-read for most of the blogosphere. I realize that while I may have some interesting slants on some topics, I tend to address the same topics everyone else does, and there's always someone who does it better. For instance, one of the darkest days of blogging I've ever experienced was when I wrapped up a three-day posting on the topic of Responsibility. I had put a lot of thought and work into it, and was quite proud of what I had written. I had just finished posting the 3rd installment when I saw someone linking the latest Bill Whittle essay. The topic was: Responsibility. The person who linked Mr. Whittle's essay had been reading my posts and had even left a comment without ever linking a single one. What can you do? If Bill had waited a week, maybe I would have gotten more coverage. If he had waited a month, I could have done more passive-aggressive promotion. As it was, I felt like someone stole my prom date.

But like I said, if you are reading this, you aren't the problem: you already found and like me enough to have returned to read this. And if I ever got the traffic I crave, I probably wouldn't know what to do with it. So what do I want? Dunno. I'm just whining. Or even whinging.

One of the other things that is bugging me is that it's not like I'm stinting on links. I have 200 unique blogs linked over there. If even half linked me back, I'd be a Marauding Marsupial. Despite the length of my blogroll, I have a section (only 9 at the present) whom I link purely because they link me...I'm still seeing if they'll become daily reads or not. If every one of the blogs I link linked me back, I'd be in the top 300 blogs on the Ecosystem. Whatever happened to spreading the love?*

Read More "If You Are Reading This, It's Not a Message For You" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 11:11 AM | Comments (30)
» Wizbang links with: End The Drought!
» Legal XXX links with: Buy This Book! Steal This Movie! Read This Blog!
» links with: Comments Sections, Brain Fertilizers & Hattips
» INDC Journal links with: Department of Scandalous, Egregious Oversight
» Sharp as a Marble links with: 100,000 castaways, looking for a home....
» BoiFromTroy links with: Trojan Huddle: Starved for Attention Edition
» Michelle Malkin links with: PROPER BLOG ETIQUETTE
» Simon World links with: Enemablog
Move-On.Org Still Showing Bush=Hitler Ad « Politics As Usual »

Despite saying they pulled the ad months ago. Is the Left trustworthy on anything?

Bush Haters worldwide are still watching the famed 'Bush is Nazi' add on MOVEON.ORG -- despite repeated claims by the site's founders the short had been removed more than six months ago!

As of Monday morning [11 am Eastern] -- the ad was still carried on MOVEON's website -- under the curious file name ""

DRUDGE presents a direct current MOVEON link to the ad:

I linked the whole article because I saw it in the Drudge headlines...and those don't stay available, I don't think. But the link is here, just in case.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:50 AM | Comments (2)
Liberals Care More About Ideology Than Lives « Social Issues »

They are so committed to tearing down values, morals, and standards, that they are willing to allow homosexuals and Africans to die one of the most horrible deaths possible to further their goals.

And they want your taxes to pay for it.

Don't believe me? Read this.

Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni [insisted] abstinence was the best way to stem the spread of the killer virus.

The remarks by Museveni, whose country is a rare success story in Africa's war on AIDS, were at odds with health experts who back condoms as a frontline defense against the incurable disease.

"I look at condoms as an improvisation, not a solution," [said] Museveni.

Uganda's "ABC" method (Abstinence, Being faithful and Condoms) is a model for the AIDS policies of the administration of President Bush and which are under fire at the conference for advocating sexual abstinence to stem infection.

The liberal response?

U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) [...] accused the Bush administration of using ideology, not science, to dictate policy.

Fascinating. When a conservative method works and is demonstrably better than anything else, it's dismissed as being merely ideology. When a liberal method doesn't work (as they usually don't), they are deemed "science badly implemented" and must be tried again and again and again until everyone is dead (see: Communism and Socialism).

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:36 AM | Comments (0)
Obligatory Slideshow « GWOT »


Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:25 AM | Comments (0)

July 11, 2004

Compelling Arguments « Politics As Usual »

As accurate and insightful as this article is, it actually has me reconsidering my vote this November.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 01:49 PM | Comments (0)

July 10, 2004

Just So You Know « Blogging »

Today is the 10th of July. If you look over at the little Sitemeter thingy, you'll realize that I've been blogging for 21 months know without a single link from Mr. Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit. I predate Baldilocks, LaShawn Barber, Wonkette, Bill in INDC, Blackfive (I think), and many others who also easily eclipse in me in hittage and Ecosystem standing in far less time blogging...but I'm not bitter. Not even a little bit. At all. And don't let anyone tell you differently. [grin]

I have been linked mulitple times by Dean Esmay, however. And I'm devastatingly handsome. sorta average-looking...on a good day.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:40 PM | Comments (13)
Legal vs Societal « Social Issues »

One tactic in the Liberal War on Standards and Morals is to insist on legalities. Legalities are black or white. You can or you can't. A right is a license. If you can do it at all, you can do it anywhere.

Thus, the argument from the Left/Liberals is: "Stay out of my bedroom!" Actually, I have no problem with that argument in and of itself. Except that it is used to overturn rarely-if-ever-enforced laws...and once the laws are overturned, they drag their bedroom into the middle of the street. They come over to my house and try to do it my bedroom, and I can't stop them because their actions are legal.

Far from merely protecting their privacy, they seek these rulings and judgments so they can invade mine. In their obsession with sex and physical gratification, they want to make the entire nation their "bedroom".

Abortion was ruled legal on the idea of a right to privacy. But that "privacy" now means the daughter of my neighbor can get an abortion without notifying her parents. And my taxes have to pay for it. How does that protect anyone's privacy? The liberals dragged their "bedroom" into doctor's offices, my neighbor's house, Congress to pass the laws and get the funding, and even my workplace where I earn the money they snatch to pay for this abortion borne of (pun intended) the same low moral standards they themselves pushed for in the name of "freedom".

Lawrence vs Texas was ruled unconstitutional based on the right of bedroom privacy. But some of the statements from those judges are now being used as the basis to argue for SSM. Apparently the liberals now think their "bedroom" encompasses churches, justices-of-the-peace, bridal boutiques, the wedding announcement page of newspapers, spousal benefits from work, even adoption centers and fertility clinics.

That's one dang big bedroom.

That's why I'm not proposing a legal fix for this problem that liberals don't even see as a problem. The solution is not to criminalize activities people perform in their bedroom so they stop doing it in public! Obviously, the solution is just to get people to take care of their business where it belongs. Societal pressures, standards, and norms are perfect for this. We need to be telling our kids it is wrong, foolish, unhelpful, and self-damaging to have sex before they get out of college. We should be telling them that attraction is not destiny, and to stop worrying about or trying to lock in their sexuality before the same age of 21 or so.*

Kerry and Edwards are correct in the words they use: we need to restore traditional American values, but the way they mean those words is a sad travesty. We need to return to conservatism, personal responsibility, returning sexual behavior in the bedroom, telling our children they are forbidden to have sex until they are married. We need to stop taxing people who create wealth, stop giving handouts to people who refuse to make an effort to improve themselves or take responsibility for themselves, stop using class warfare to pander to the willfully uneducated, and stop giving in to the most shrill minority activist groups.

Read More "Legal vs Societal" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 12:45 PM | Comments (1)

July 09, 2004

Rich Lowry on Edwards' "Two Americas" Idea « Politics As Usual »

I find this essentially correct:

The opposition Edwards tries to make between work and wealth doesn't make sense. Why do people work? For wealth. Rewarding wealth means rewarding the fruits of work. For instance, two-thirds of the beneficiaries of Bush's cut in the top marginal tax rate own some form of small business. In America, you work, make a business succeed, then get wealthy (and become the target of demagogic politicians — the American dream!).

The whole thing.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:17 AM | Comments (1)
James Lileks is Brilliant « Social Issues »

But you knew that. Go read this article by him.

The portion I'm most applauding? INterestingly, it happens to dovetail nicely with my recent them of sexual morality. All you have to do is substitute "Liberals" for "Mr. Moore":

But before we move along, I’d like to echo what Dennis Prager said about this today: child poverty is closely tied to unwed motherhood. You want a poor kid, have one when you’re young and the father’s contribution consists of bimonthly Pamper drops. If Mr. Moore wishes to lead society back to a place where unwed motherhood is frowned upon and men are expected to marry the women they impregnate, I’ll be right there with him.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:53 AM | Comments (0)
Sexual Morality « Social Issues »

This began as the second half of a response to Mad Mikey in this post. I think it deserves its own entry, so here you go:

The fundemental viewpoint of this present darkness is that sexual pleasure is a right, and so sexual activity is a foregone conclusion. It forms the basis of so many liberal assumptions, but even worse, it has become ingrained in the mindsets of even conservatives who don't want to dictate behavior to anyone. Since pretty much everyone enjoys sex, and since even moral and religious leaders have stooped to engage in extra-marital satisfaction of sexual urges (to the glee of liberals everywhere, who use that as justification for the erosion of standards), it is difficult for anyone to stand up and say: "Kids should stop having sex."

Well, I'm saying it now. Kids should stop having sex. Our society should stop glorifying sex. Sex is not a fundamental human right, and pornography and vulgarity should not be protected under the 1st Amendment.

Sexual intercouse is a powerful sensation. No other single act or experience can be so influencing for positive or negative as sex. Being so powerful, it should be carefully controlled. Not by government, but by standards and morals.

Too many Christians have broken God's law against sexual immorality, and enjoyed the resulting sensations. They cannot seem to understand how something so powerful could be denied someone who is not married. If they have not been sexually pure, they have a difficult time preaching sexual purity to their children or friends without feeling hypocritical*. God's restrictions on sexual activity represent the main stumbling block many Christians have with His teachings. The moral compromises Christians make on this issue are usually the first step Christians take in watering down their faith and disregarding the teachings of Jesus and the plan God has for us.

Let's get one thing straight: we all sin. No Christian is perfect. The test of your Christianity is, when you recognize you have failed to follow God's plan for you, do you turn away from your sin or embrace it? Too many Christians embrace it, and then try to find justifications in the Bible, or even worse, disregard clear teachings in the Bible about it.

Sexual immorality is a sin. Having sex with your boyfriend/girlfriend is a sin. It is a sin which will be forgiven through repentence, of course, but if you make no attempt to regain innocence and purity after giving in to your bodily urges, you are not repenting. I don't see how Christians can ignore this, because Paul discusses it extensively, and Jesus directly addresses the issue, as well. Once a person's faith in God cracks enough to allow a person to justify not repenting of a sin clearly expounded in the Bible, it becomes even easier to ignore other things the Bible says clearly.

Homosexual behavior is also clearly a sin. The Bible is eminently clear on this. Actively and continually engaging in homosexual behavior is just as incompatable with Christianity as actively and continually engaging in murder, theft, swindling, anger, covetousness. But I understand the logical problem many people have in condemning homosexuality: if you have compromised your faith to continue doing what you want, it is that much harder to maintain standards in the face of what other people want. If you justify your sinful behavior on the basis of the power of sexual desire, then you have basis to not justify other people's sexual desire. If fulfilling your bodily urges are a fundamental right, then how could theirs not be?

But it is the assumption that is wrong. Even aside from the very specific and clear passages that say that a life-long commitment before God and Man is a non-negotiable prerequisite to sexual intercourse between a man and woman and any other sexual activity is sinful (damaging to the individuals involved), the overall message of Jesus is that you should not be focused on temporal experiences, you should not be trying to fulfill carnal urges, that carnal sensations distract from your relationship with God. God wants us to be focused on Him, on the afterlife, on spiritual sensations.

This is going to anger many Christians, including many friends who might read this. They will say, "I had sex when I was 14, and it didn't hurt my relationship with God," or "I am sleeping with my girlfriend/boyfriend, and I'm still a strong Christian", or "How dare you say I'm not just as much or more a Christian than you! Your being judgmental is more unChristian than my sexual activity!" But I'm not judging anyone. I'm not pointing to a person and saying, "YOU are not a Christian". I am reminding everyone what the Bible says, and what God says. If you feel accused, it is God who is judging you. I am using the words and ideas of the Bible, of Jesus, of Christianity, to condemn unChristian behavior, just as the Bible says we should.

Why don't I leave well enough alone? Because I've stayed largely silent long enough. I feel I must exercise my moral courage to help it grow, and I must exercise my faith to help it grow, as well. Because sexual immorality is damaging to the individuals involved. It is not automatically damaging with one act, no, but that merely lulls people into a false sense of security. I use the word "erosion" a lot, because it is an erosion of standards and of the soul itself. Each act of sexual immorality strips away a microscopic layer of your faith and your spirit, unnoticeable. Just look at the consequences of immoral sexual behavior: STDs, pregnancy, AIDS, broken hearts, loss of self-esteem, fetishism, greater depravity to repeat the strength of earlier sensations. The more you commit acts of sexual immorality, the greater chance you will experience one of these terrible consequences. But these things can only happen within a marriage if extra-marital sex is already a factor.**

But even if you are lucky enough to avoid the direct, temporal consequences of sexual immorality, the accumulation of microscopic erosion of those layers of the soul becomes readily over months, years, a lifetime.

They can be regained. Innocence can be reacquired. I'm living proof of that. The first step is repentance. The second step is the re-establishment of sexual morality for society. It may never happen, but that's no reason to shirk the duty God has charged me with.

Read More "Sexual Morality" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:26 AM | Comments (6)

July 08, 2004

Conservative-Safe Children's Programming on PBS « Social Issues »

Arthur is pretty good, as is Jakers, the Adventures of Piggly Winks.

Jay Jay the Jet Plane and Caillou are abominations, however, and even Clifford can turn your stomach with its sappy feel-good messages.

*Although I will admit it was quite amusing hearing the adult female who plays 4-year-old Caillou try to pass off "redistributionist economies are a necessity for a just social system" as normal speech for that age level. And I also found the new Sesame Street character intriguing as well: it's a fertilized lump of tissue that's going to hang around for a few months until it suddenly becomes a human baby, as if by magic, and at no discernable point of change. The character was introduced with the new musical number, It's Not a Baby Until NARAL Says It Is.

Read More "Conservative-Safe Children's Programming on PBS" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:25 PM | Comments (1)
Teenage Sex and Teaching Abstinence « Social Issues »

Okay, I'll grant you that some teenagers will have sex no matter what you tell them or teach them. But why not try to tell them to not have sex until they are out of college, anyway? If even one person listens, it will be worth the effort. But liberals apparently would rather that we have a widespread problem of teen pregnancy, teen abortion, and STDs than risk hurting the self-esteem of teenagers by telling that it is a bad idea to have sex before full adulthood.

Heck, I'd still prefer social castigation for not waiting until marriage, but I recognize and readily admit I'm a Christian social conservative. Telling kids to wait until they stop being kids to have sex, i.e., graduate college and/or support themselves in life, would be a step in the right direction.

See, the normal result of sexual intercourse is pregnancy. We have championed sexual gratification to the point of perversional fetishes, we have improved contraception technology to the level that the risk is small...but it is still a risk.

Personally, I do think liberals deliberately, if unconsciously, encourage immorality and other harmful behaviors because it increases the dependency of the individual onto government, and, by extension, onto liberals. Ever notice how self-control and responsible decisions never result in the need for liberal programs...

But there's one point that liberals miss in all their attempts to manipulate social expectations to their benefit.

Sexual gratification is not a human right, basic or otherwise.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:16 PM | Comments (3)
Liberal Bias in Big Media? « Social Issues »
Several times during the Clinton years, when some in the media threatened to depart from liberal orthodoxy by focusing on Clinton scandals — Gennifer Flowers, Troopergate, and Monica Lewinsky come to mind — Team Clinton lashed out at the media for being mouthpieces of the vast right-wing conspiracy. The charge was always preposterous, and deliberately so: It was a preemptive strike designed to intimidate the press into compliance. And it worked every time, as the mainstream media responded by either turning their guns on Republicans (the Lewinsky scandal) or dropping the story altogether (Flowers, Troopergate) to prove their liberal bona fides.

No serious liberal believes that a conservative bias dominates the news media. Liberals know what this book will prove: Like the old Outer Limits television series, the Left still controls the transmission, still controls "all that you see and hear." Television is not the only domain of the liberal news media: The Left still dominates with the printing presses, and yes, still dominates the "news" programming on radio.

So why the hysterical claims of conservative domination of the media? Because liberals fear that their monopoly on news coverage is in jeopardy. For decades, the liberal hegemony over the news media has provided the political Left with the ability not only to slant news coverage portside but actually to control the public conversation, both political and cultural, in America. Being the "social conscience" of the nation — having the ability to direct the national agenda — is quite a power. Liberals don't want to lose that.

In fact, they are right to be scared. The liberal news media are headed for a meltdown. To be sure, even today the vast power of the liberal media cannot be underestimated. But the days of liberal spin always prevailing are coming to an end. This has nothing to do with some sinister right-wing conspiracy. Rather, the problem lies with those in the liberal news media themselves. So dismissive are they of any claim of liberal bias, no matter how well documented, that they regularly allow this bias to seep into news stories. Even when poll after poll reveals that Americans have lost confidence in the news media, the liberal media elites do not deign to cleanse their industry of the bias that plagues it.

Something else is changing that will speed the collapse of the liberal media's monopoly on news coverage in this country. Conservatives have traditionally accepted liberal bias in the mainstream news media as a fact of life; it has been a given that the Left controls the news industry just as it holds sway over academia and the arts. But this has bred a certain complacency toward the press that has spelled disaster for one conservative initiative after another. Remember the Contract with America?

But conservatives are learning. No longer do we merely have to accept the liberal agenda of the so-called objective news media. Nothing made this point more clearly than a startling statement by President George W. Bush in October 2003. Fed up with the way the national media were covering the rebuilding efforts in Iraq, Bush stated in a Hearst-Argyle interview that he was going to bypass them. "I'm mindful of the filter through which some news travels," the president said, "and sometimes you just have to go over the heads of the filter and speak directly to the people and that's what we will continue to do." The liberal press, predictably, fainted in disbelief. As John Roberts of CBS News put it, "It was the public relations equivalent of a declaration of war aimed at the national media." Many who read this book will have an altogether different perspective. They'll wonder why it took the Bush administration so long.

From the introduction to L. Brent Bozell's new book, Weapons of Mass Distortion: The Coming Meltdown of the Liberal Media

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:07 PM | Comments (0)
Definition of Insanity, Revisited « Politics As Usual »

Some of the damaging behaviors that Libarls/Left continually encourage/embrace, despite constant unfortunate results:

1) Sexual Immorality, including both homosexuality and non-marital heterosexual activity
2) Substance Abuse
3) Socialism, including national health care and progressive tax schedules
4) Solving social problems at the highest level, i.e., Big Government solutions to every conceivable problem
5) Economic protectionism
6) "soft" racism, including quotas/affirmative action, the "need" for government programs targeting inner cities, and castigation of minority Republicans
7) Idolization of Europe
8) Subservience to the United Nations
9) Resisting attempts to curb illegal immigration
10) Tendency to use judicial activism to achieve goals
11) Disarming the populace

Embracing Liberal/Left policies inevitably bring a society to ruin. You reap what you sow...

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 05:55 PM | Comments (0)
Exactly What Is Wrong With Democrats « Politics As Usual »
While I'm on the subject of the table of contents of National Journal (didn't know it could be so fruitful, did you?): A nugget describing Jonathan Rauch's column says, "John F. Kerry should take a page from John F. Kennedy's 1960 playbook and run as a hard-liner on national security issues."

And this brings up probably my biggest pet peeve of all time, political-campaign division: No he shouldn't. No, Kerry shouldn't. He should campaign on whatever it is he believes. No pretending. He should say what he thinks, how he would govern, and let the electoral chips fall where they may.

This is what I can't stand about Democratic candidates, chiefly. They won't run Honest Injun; they get all artful and calculating and masking. They spend months trying to fool the booboisie, so as to get in and then be themselves.

You won't have this problem with George W. Bush. He can't be other than himself. He couldn't be obscure if he tried. Sure, he's a politician, and not without some political artfulness — but, pretty much, what you see is what you get. No surprises. Take 'im or leave 'im.

Advice like Jonathan Rauch's makes me sick to my stomach, and sours me on the American political system. John Kerry is a Massachusetts liberal who hated Reagan, hated the hawks, and who said — you know this is my favorite quote — that the Grenada invasion "represented a bully's show of force against a weak Third World nation."

Let Reagan be Reagan, Let Poland be Poland, Let Kerry be Kerry, Let Rauch be Rauch . . .

My prayer, for this political year, is what it always is: that the candidates will just run honestly, and allow the voters to decide. That's what I would do. I swear. (Not that I'm gettin' elected to anything, believe me.)

If Democrats don't have enough confidence their policies, platforms, and views will garner sufficient support from the populace, then the worst thing in the world would be to let them have power. That's exactly what I hated about Al Gore: he "reinvented" himself, and the non- liberal media never said anything negative about it at all. They enabled it, they abetted it, they encouraged it, they gushed over it. And Democrats, in their hatred of allowing people the freedom to choose for themselves how to spend the money they earn and experience the consequences of their own decisions, will back such fundamentally dishonest politicians if it means wresting power away from Republicans.

Look around the United States right now. Republican policies work. The only things from President Clinton's administration that worked were what he appropriated from the Republican playbook.

It disgusts and disheartens me that approximately 50% of the people in this nation could be so petty, short-sighted, and generally clueless of the way the world works. Sure, it would be great if visualizing world peace could bring it about, if welfare could eliminate poverty instead of sustaining it. But that's not reality, and it's not the way to vote. The supreme irony, to me, is that Democrats in Democrat states are blaming President Bush because their own Democrat policies have resulted in slower recovery than the Republican states with Republican policies. Democrats, as a group, seem to embody that classic definition of insanity: keep doing the same harmful action expecting beneficial results.

Read More "Exactly What Is Wrong With Democrats" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 05:17 PM | Comments (3)

July 07, 2004

More From the Kerry/Edwards Speech « Politics As Usual »

Edwards started off by saying something like, "My [extremely young] son just asked me, 'Why are their so many American flags around?'" This is the extremely contrived introduction into Edwards claim that he will help restore American values, and John Edwards provided his own answer.

But my reaction was: Out of the Mouths of Babes, because this kid already understands the cognitive dissonance of American flags at a Democrat function.

See, read it again: the kid was questioning the presence of American flags...I have to assume that he wouldn't have felt the same level of confusion or perplexity had they been Che posters or USSR flags...

Bonus Democrat Flip-Flop O' the Day:

In this transcript, the following exchange occurs:

WALLACE: Senator, you have made a point in this campaign of not criticizing your opponents. In fact, you resisted a couple of my efforts today. Some people say that that's a pretty good way to run for vice president.

Do you have any interest in being the vice presidental nominee? And specifically, would you accept it if offered?

EDWARDS: I'm absolutely not interested in being vice president. No, the answer to that question is no.

Read More "More From the Kerry/Edwards Speech" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:42 PM | Comments (0)
American Values « Politics As Usual »

I was flipping through the channels and happened on CSPAN's (re?) broadcast of Kerry announcing Edwards as his running mate.

Both men said something to the effect of, "If elected, we will restore the true American values," but neither of them said what those values are. Now, "restore" indicates that, as a nation, we are not currently embodying American values. That is truly fascinating, because I thought America did stand for justice and freedom and freedom of opportunity, and that's exactly what we are doing in Afghanistan, Iraq, and with substantial tax cuts that have given us the hottest economy in 20 years.

In fact, looking at the record of John Kerry and the Democrats as a whole, I guess what they mean is "true American values" include:

1) Being paid to do a job, but avoiding all the major responsibilities of that job. Further, spending "company" hours pursuing a better-paying, more prestigious job but refusing to resign until you know how it turns out.

2) Coddling dictators like Fidel Castro, et al (the list is far too long...suffice to say if a guy is Communist and a ruthless Dictator, Democrats love him)

3) Negotiating with terrorists and madmen like Kim Jong-il and Yassir Arafat without actually doing anything to ensure they keep up their end of the bargain

4) Eroding/ignoring/infringing a specific and clearly worded Constitutional right to bear arms but resisting any attempt to restrict/regulate rights never mentioned in the Constitution, but only tangentially derived from ambiguous clauses.

5) Campaigning for the increasing secularization of America, continually increasing the restrictions on religious displays or expressions...but expanding and guaranteeing the expression and display of vulgarity, profanity, and obscenity.

6) Soliciting and accepting campaign contributions from agents of Communist nations.

7) Raising taxes on the middle class and upper class while simultaneously creating loopholes for the upper class to exploit to avoid paying taxes.

8) Ignoring and/or deliberately sidestepping established procedural norms in direct violation of clearly-worded instructions in the US Constitution in order to prevent a justly-elected majority from carrying out their duty.

I'll add more later, but for a start, those are some interesting values the Democrats adhere to, eh? I can provide specific examples for each of those, if you like.

If any of my liberal/Democrat readers want to provide some serious suggestions of what those values Kerry and Edwards were talking about are, I'd like to hear them. I think they are being deliberately vague because they know there's nothing they can point to that President Bush doesn't already embody, and what President Bush doesn't embody, people don't like, i.e., racism inherent to "affirmative action", welfare-state entitlements, higher taxes, class warfare, socialized medicine. These things simply don't play well to a public that didn't endure the Great Depression, and that's why the Democrat Party is growing increasingly marginalized, owing its existence only to a few "single issue" planks like abortion and SSM.

I won't deride any of the suggestions of what values Kerry wants to bring back brought up by any Democrats, but be prepared to support them. Meaning, "American values means acting multilaterally" or "American values respect the sovereignty of foreign nations" will pretty much get you an automatic failing grade...unless you can argue it well. But bring your "A" game, because I won't hesitate to pick at any flaws I perceive.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:24 PM | Comments (1)
A Clarification of Why I Won't Watch F9/11 « Politics As Usual »

What she said.

Particularly: F9/11 is a 2-hour campaign ad masquerading as a documentary. I find that essentially dishonest at the most base level.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 12:08 PM | Comments (2)
Chiefs: Comments and Guesses « Kansas City Chiefs »

(Writings on The Chiefs will become more frequent as the season approaches)

If you've followed the Chiefs' offseason much at all, you've heard The Question, to wit: (how) can the Chiefs be any better on defense when their only significant addition was Gunther Cunningham?

Read More "Chiefs: Comments and Guesses" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:38 AM | Comments (3)

July 06, 2004

Michael Moore is a Ghoul « Politics As Usual »

Two of the greatest tragedies in modern United States history are 9/11 and the shootings at Columbine High School.

Michael Moore has made millions of dollars off of these events.

Has he given a single dime to the families of the wounded and killed at Columbine? Has he contributed a portion of the profits to the families of slain soldiers...or did he just use their name and image to enrich himself at their expense?

Luckily, he's not a Democrat. I mean, he's registered as one, but that doesn't mean anything.

He hired Prominent Republican Chris Lehane to defend criticism of his latest mockumentary. Hmmm...let's see...what campaign did Mr. Lehane recently run...?

He was feted by RNC Chairman Mark Racicot Terry McAuliffe and Senate Majority Minority Leader Bill Frist Tom Daschle, Rep-TX Dem-SD and many other prominent Republicans leading Democrats when the film opened in Washington DC.

But he is, in no way, connected or associated with Democrats or the Democrat Party at all. Because, of course, these are not the droids you are looking for.

Mr. Moore is scum, making money hand over fist manipulating emotions arising from tragedy, and crafting lies designed to play to the prejudices and conspiracy theories of the ideology he himself favors...and in supreme irony, the ideology that supposedly doesn't approve of personal wealth.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 11:59 PM | Comments (7)
Blogging « Blogging »

I can't think of a thing to post right now. I'm pretty much over my jetlag now, enjoying some time with my kids...I don't start work again until next week. I think I can't really think of anything to post until I'm immersed in national and world news again, and I've got other priorities right now. I'll extend my break by a few days...I might end up posting tomorrow, but maybe not until Monday. I'm sorry to be so vague, but I'm not going to force it.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:05 AM | Comments (0)

July 04, 2004

I'm Back! « Blogging »

So I can access my blog from home.

Blogging will resume Tuesday, probably...

Thanks to everyone for all the support! You made it a much easier deployment this time.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:52 AM | Comments (6)
» resurrectionsong links with: What's Been Happenin'...