Opaque Lucidity

Tyson

Mike Tyson is fighting tonight in Louisville. We don't actually live in Louisville, but our home in Indiana is within sight of the Louisville skyline and it's easier to tell people that you live in Louisville than to explain to them where Jeffersonville, Indiana is. After all, there are people who live in L-ville who have never been to Jeffersonville and would have a hard time finding it on a map. But I digress.

I have a great deal of pride in Louisville. It is a medium-sized city, but it has a strong sense of history, a great arts district, world-class medical facilities and, for those of you who like college basketball, Rick Pitino. Louisville is not a northern city, nor is it really in the south. In a way, it reminds me of early Venice---part of a larger country (or, in this case, a state) but its own entity that is not fully reflective of the larger body. I have lived in several other larger and smaller cities in my life and I can say with almost no reservation that this is the best place I have ever called home.

With that in mind, I have some reservations about Tyson fighting here. My argument has little to do with the man himself and my opinion of him. There are those complaining because he is, in the final analysis, a convicted rapist who has some serious emotional problems. But he paid his debt to society, even if you believe that his punishment should've been much more harsh (I don't think a convicted rapist should see the light of day again). So the man has the right to make a living, even if it is in your backyard.

My problem with this match is the attitude that brought it here. There is a desire among certain influencial Louisvillians to make the city over as a real "player" on the national scene. How will they set out to accomplish this? By attracting professionals and businesses here? How will they do that? Evidently, by trying to get one or more professional sporting franchises to move here. No, I'm not joking. This has been tried several times in the past few years. Every time it is tried, the rational behind it is that businesses and professionals would be more likely to move here because we have an NBA or NFL or NHL team here.

I'm not fond of the idea of citizens paying for new arenas for teams that will want an even newer arena before the first one is paid for (eg. Seattle), but that's a topic for another day. What I think these supposedly-worldly Louisvillians fail to understand is that professional athletics in a city is icing on the cake to people considering a move. What attracts people are high income jobs, good schools, safe and nice neighborhoods, weather, etc. If you're moving to a city because of a team, you're either in the business or you profit indirectly from it.

What I think this boils down to is a desire for bragging rights disguised as a fight "for the good of the city". People who don't live here laugh at Kentucky because they still picture the stereotypical redneck bubba and toothless grandmothers sitting in rocking chairs on rickety porches with a shotgun firing indiscriminantly at runaway hogs. It's not a fair representation, but it's ours and, in some places in Kentucky, it's not far from the truth.

I like Louisville the way it is. I also love economic growth, which helps all of us. But if we're going to pursue that (and we should, I think) let's concentrate on the things that matter and not worrying about whether or not some has-been boxer wants to try to make his bones here.

More of the Big Lie

Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Germany's Propaganda Minister, believed in the theory of the Big Lie: if you tell a lie, no matter how large, enough times, people will begin to believe it. When you stop and consider the state of Germany before the Second World War, you begin to see how right he was. The German people, intelligent and hard-working, began to at least accept Nazism because of the thin promise of economic prosperity and respect on the world stage. Furthermore, the Nazis provided groups to burden with the German mistakes of the past: Jews, gypsies and Communists.

I was reminded of this when I heard snippets of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton from last night. Jackson spoke about the "victims" of the 2000 election in Florida: old people in Palm Beach County and blacks whose counts were supposedly not counted. It does not matter, seemingly, that investigations by the Justice Department, Time, USA Today and The New York Times (not exactly a conservative bastion) found none of the accusations to be true and found, furthermore, that Bush would've won the state even if the Supreme Court had not stepped in to stop the endless recounts.

But none of this matters. What matters is that the Democrats did not win; thus, there must be some sort of duplicity involved. Jackson and Sharpton (and others) play to this by re-telling the lie over and over again. Sure enough, many otherwise intelligent people believe that the election was somehow stolen. How many "re-defeat Bush" bumper stickers have you seen?

So what do the Democrats stand for this year? After three nights of speeches, I'm still in the dark. I know that they hate Bush, but that doesn't seem like much of a platform. I know that many of them want gay marriage and support partial-birth abortion, but none of them want to talk about it publicly. I know they want to regain some sort of international respect (because, you know, we really need France to like us), but how will that be accomplished? And what makes them think that the jealousy other nations feel towards us is new?

I do know one thing the Dems are supporting: victimhood. As an average American, you are a hopeless mess. You aren't very bright, you can't make a living without government help and you're scared of everything. Now, if that accurately describes you, please accept my apology. But I'm guessing that doesn't describe you very well at all. I'm willing to bet that you consider yourself at least fairly intelligent and that you believe your taxes are too high. The only thing you probably need the federal government for is to fight wars and help keep up the interstates. I'm also willing to bet that you believe this is the greatest nation on earth.

So don't believe the lie of you and your country's weakness and desperation. Your smarter than that and, honestly, you deserve better. Make Jackson, Sharpton and their ilk get real jobs.

The Latest

We received word this evening that my brother Ken and his wife are expecting their second child, probably in February. They live outside of Washington, D.C. and we don't get to see them very often; in fact, we have never seen their little girl. I feel guilty about this, but I comfort myself with the fact that all relationships, even familial ones, are two-way streets.

As always, our lack of children will undoubtedly become a topic of discussion, but not to our face. No one in my family knows why we don't have children; it's none of their business. But I have this unyielding desire to make something up, something that would make all the whispering voices feel guilty as hell. For all I know, the truth may do that. As always, I will do my best to deal with the situation stoically and with honor, keeping in mind that these people are my family and that I do, in spite of their insipid need to plan our lives, love them.

Moore in Neutral

I watched Bill O'Reilly last night for the first time in a while. I don't care for him much; I think he is full of himself and he's a populist, something that can cause a person to become a flip-flopper on anything. But he's not afraid to ask people tough questions, even if they get angry. He's not worried about securing a return visit to his show.

I was not surprised when he ran footage of his exchange with Michael Moore outside the Fleet Center in Boston yesterday. He asked Moore point-blank to come on his show for an eight-minute segment. Moore refused, saying that he would only be interviewed in a "neutral arena" and that O'Reilly's show was not such a place.

I call bullshit on this. Moore is used to being interviewed by the mainstream media, where he is tossed easy softball questions which allow him to spew out more and more of his propaganda without anyone daring to question his motives or agenda (or facts, for that matter). The list of subjects which cannot be broached is staggering, among them the fact that Moore lives in a fashionable East Side condo in Manhattan, that his daughter goes to an exclusive private school and that he is about as blue-collar as John Kerry. Interesting, isn't it: it doesn't matter if you're rich as long as you're liberal. Rich conservatives are inherently evil. In fact, it's not even proper to talk about Democrats' money, but the Bush family money was gotten from selling babies into white slavery or something.

Of course, most Dems don't care. Moore is cool and hip and makes neat little films that confirm their beliefs. It doesn't matter that the truth is the first casualty and that Moore is incapable of supporting his facts with unvarnished proof. He appeals to those people who can't be bothered with facts, or anything that takes more than 15 seconds to digest. If I'm wrong prove it: I defy any registered Democrat (I'll have to take your word for it) to list three items in detail that are a part of their party's platform this year. You do know what a platform is, don't you?

The Fire This Time

Thanks to my friend Damon for sending me this. It's long, but worth the time, especially for those of you who consider yourself Democrats:

The Fire this Time
An Open Letter to the Democratic party.

By William J. Bennett

As your party prepares to begin its convention in Boston, you should be mindful of the perspective and feeling of many former Democrats, Independents, and undecideds — about your general state of anger and fury. Former President Bill Clinton has recently argued that the prosecutions against him when he was president resulted from a Republican sentiment that his 1992 election was a violation of the natural order: "They really believed, when I won, it interrupted the natural order of things." Clinton is wrong — I knew many Republicans who voted for Clinton in 1992, thinking his welfare promises and his foreign-policy statements (from Iraq to Israel to China) were more conservative than then-President George H. W. Bush's. Indeed, several personnel at conservative think tanks even celebrated the 1992 defeat of then-President Bush.

But, while Clinton is wrong about the Republican feelings of his presidency (and the reasons for the manifold investigations), he projected something quite right about your current feelings about President George W. Bush. You have propounded the thesis that this presidency is illegitimate, that this presidency has interrupted a natural order — and the way you are presently campaigning is unhealthy for our politics and polity.

Last Sunday, the New York Times Book Review proffered advice to you from Democratic stalwarts such as Mario Cuomo, Gary Hart, and George McGovern. They have a great degree of credibility because they have maintained their membership in your party. I was a Democrat for 22 years of my adult life and left the party — but I believe I speak for many other ex-Democrats in the advice I would like to share with you.

Shortly after President Bush's inauguration, the campaign to delegitimize President Bush's presidency began: Anti-Bush bumper-stickers such as "Hail to the Thief" were in proliferation. In May of 2001, several newspapers seemingly put this issue to rest. The USA Today wrote: "George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA Today/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows." Analyses by the New York Times and other news organizations reached similar conclusions. We soon got past the Florida contretemps, and then an unprecedented attack on 9/11/01 shook our nation to its core. We licked our wounds, girded our loins, and united as a nation. And then, in an effort to ensure neither we nor our allies would be attacked again, President Bush took a forward-looking stance on the war: we would disrupt and end tyrant states and terrorist havens before they could gain the footing and resources to attack us first.

After we began the liberation of Iraq, just as you were winding up for November 2004, the consensus over our national and international war efforts unwound. The personal attacks began anew, the partisanship swung far-left, bumper stickers reading "Re-Defeat Bush" appeared, and rather than propose a serious and legitimate alternative way of governing or waging the war against terrorism, you sprung serious doubt about your seriousness in the most perilous time facing this nation, perhaps since the Civil War. It is not heat you turned up in your campaign to end the Bush presidency, it is fiery hate.

Do not take my word alone. Writing in late 2003 — before he joined the John Kerry campaign — Democratic pollster Mark Mellman wrote, "Democrats hate George Bush....The level of animosity Bush arouses in Democrats appears unprecedented." More recently, the old-style liberal columnist Jack Germond said that Democrats are "just crazed to get Bush out of there."

The "craze" started at the top and moved down the ranks. We have heard the following from the mainstay of your leadership: In 2003, then presumptive Democratic nominee, Howard Dean (number one in the Democratic polls, number one in fundraising), opined on national radio that President Bush "was warned ahead of time" about 9/11. Asked to clarify that speculation on national television, Dean admitted he didn't believe this to be the case but "we don't know and it would be nice to know."

Last December, journalist Mort Kondracke reported that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (now a John Kerry advisor) speculated to him that President Bush might know the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and "will bring him out before the election."

Former Vice President, and 2000 Democratic candidate for President, Al Gore has been pounding the drums of hate and resentment repeatedly for some time now. In 2002, at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Al Gore compared President Bush's doctrine of pre-emption to the foreign policy of the USSR, putting our actions to liberate Iraq on par with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, analogizing President Bush to Leonid Brezhnev. Not satisfied that his comparison sufficiently permeated the national conscience, just last month Al Gore compared President Bush to Adolf Hitler: "The Administration works closely with a network of rapid response digital Brown Shirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for undermining support for our troops."

Not to be outdone by these Democratic stalwarts, John Kerry went to Radio City Music Hall this month, one day after stating that his campaign was "going to restore to America the values that belong to Americans." At Radio City, Kerry and John Edwards gave us a preview of their values as they sat through a fundraiser for their campaign where Hollywood stars and pop-musicians called President Bush "a liar," "a cheap thug," and where Whoopi Goldberg delivered a routine about President Bush that was described as "an X-rated rant full of sexual innuendos." At the conclusion of the fundraiser, John Kerry said, "every single performer" has "conveyed to you the heart and soul of our country."

This is not the Democratic party of my youth — nor is it the party I left in 1986. You have a better legacy than this. It does not begin with George McGovern who has been trotted back out this campaign season, it may, however, have ended with the other candidate who lost to Richard Nixon in a much closer race: Hubert Humphrey. He, a happy political warrior, did not traffic in hate, nor did he flirt with isolationism and appeasement of dictators abroad — he understood the importance of the international threat against democracy and the need to fight it, while at the same time providing a reasoned yet zealous case for domestic liberalism at home. With his demise and McGovern's ascendancy, you lost many supporters because of your policies in the 1970s and 1980s. I finally left when you refused to fund the insurgents in Nicaragua, then a Soviet satellite. Today, in large part due to the pressure President Ronald Reagan applied there (what John Kerry recently hailed as his fight against "an illegal war in Central America"), Nicaragua is rated above the median index of freedom by Freedom House, above such democratic examples as Turkey.

Another Democrat you lost, Jeane Kirkpatrick, summed up your once-proud legacy as a party led by people who were "not afraid to be resolute nor ashamed to speak of America as a great nation. They didn't doubt that we must be strong enough to protect ourselves and to help others. They didn't imagine that America should depend for its very survival on the promises of its adversaries. They happily assumed the responsibilities of freedom."

As you prepare for your convention in Boston, I hope you will look back on your proud legacy that boasts such courageous and bold leaders as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy and that you will turn away from the hate filled neo-isolationism of those who speak on your behalf today. President Clinton wrote an instructive editorial in the Washington Post this past spring that you should take to heart. Writing of his failure to act on the grave human-rights abuses that took place in Rwanda, Clinton lamented that "We did not act quickly enough after the killing began. We should not have allowed the refugee camps to become a safe haven for the killers." Clinton continued that his hope was that "the international community will continue to learn from our mistakes in Rwanda in 1994. We need to improve our intelligence-gathering capabilities, increase the speed with which international intervention can be undertaken and muster the global political will required to respond to the threat of genocide wherever it may occur."

As you continue your efforts to defeat President Bush, I hope you will not abandon your legacy nor President Clinton's remorse. Today we are learning about the CIA's failures to get the facts right about Iraq's WMD program. But those failures do not belong to President Bush alone — and before you allow the various reports coming out to become your next platform of attack, take a moment and ask yourselves why former Kerry advisor Sandy Berger said the following in 1998: "He [Hussein] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Ask yourselves why Kerry adviser Madeleine Albright said the following at the same forum: "Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Ask yourselves why President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 that made it our foreign policy to change the regime in Iraq.

The liberation of Iraq was a positive good, with or without WMDs — a haven for terrorists is now a genesis of democracy; the mass graves where tens of thousands were buried are being emptied rather than filled; one of the worst human-rights violators in the world is now out of power — no longer able to torture, no longer able to invade neighbors, no longer able to threaten the world's oil supply, no longer able to subsidize homicide bombers in Israel.

You have a unique and proper role to play this year. Partisan politics is a good thing — our parties, after all, were designed in part to limit the dangers of "faction" in our country. While I do not deny your right to say what you have said in the recent past, I deny the rightness in what you have said and why you have said it. It has increased the factionalism our parties were meant to tame. We have a robust First Amendment in this country, as well we should. But, like any freedom, its abuse can be corrupting. James Madison warned, "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire." Do not, in your campaign, so diminish the importance of America's role abroad with hate-filled rhetoric that you end up proving Thomas Jefferson wrong when he said, "Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle." Frankly, today — as you fan the flames of resentment — you are putting into question your own principles, principles that should transcend partisan politics.

The day after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt spoke to a joint session of Congress and said, "[W]e will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again." In short order, we took on Germany, a country that did not attack us and had less to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor than al Qaeda had to do with Iraq. Thomas Friedman has provided the post-9/11 dictum that President Roosevelt understood intuitively: if you don't visit a bad neighborhood, the bad neighborhood will visit you. Iraq was a bad neighborhood; it is a far better place now — just ask the Iraqis. Our "greatest generation" liberated Germany; another great generation has liberated Iraq.

Go back to your roots as you plan your speeches for Boston, as you prepare your campaign to replace President Bush. Re-embrace your concern for human rights abroad with your willingness to use force to defend those rights. Propose alternative foreign-policy strategies that can build off of our successes in Iraq and Afghanistan — and cease labeling those successes as failures. Restore the proper and respectful role of your partisan duties with legitimate differences of opinion that do not give doubts as to your principles. In the end, let 'er rip, but do not — for the sake of your party, for the sake of your country — abuse your partisan role to further divide our nation, or our reputation abroad. Up until now, your demagoguery has put a primacy on the fanning of flames rather than the light a responsible use of heat should shed. Boston, the site of so much good from our country's early history, can be the site of you reclaiming so much good from your party's past. Now is the time for your new revolution; do not — in your heated passion — squander this moment.

The Shop

I attended a cookout this evening hosted by one of my former co-workers. My former employer was a diesel shop. I worked there for four years, mainly working on turbochargers and injectors. I'm not much of a natural mechanic, but I learn quickly and I enjoyed working with my hands.

What I miss the most, I suppose, is the comraderie that one feels from working in an all-male shop. It reminded me a lot of the Navy; the rough corners are evident in men when there are few women around. Conversation is a lot more open, in both good and bad ways.

There's something about working in an office that is de-masculating. One's conversation must be guarded and very PC, lest some middle-aged divorcee who smells money become offended. Any dirty joke or "man story" is told in whispers and then only rarely. There are times I feel as if I must almost hide the fact that I am a man in order to get by. The most successful men in that atmosphere, it seems, are the ones who manage to become sort of wussified yes-men, incapable of independent thought or action.

A prime example of this occured about three weeks ago. One of the women I work with accidently set off our building alarm when she left work later than usual. She caught the attention of one of the company's vice-presidents and asked him what she should do. He went into a panic, apparently scared that someone would blame him for the alarm. He called one of the owners (who was in the middle of a dinner party at his home with his district's Congresswoman) just to mention the name of the person who set off the alarm. The simple and correct thing to do would've been to just wait for the police and explain the situation so the alarm could be reset. But this cat was so interested in absolving himself from blame that he lost all sense of proportion. As some friends in Texas used to say, he's one of the guys you have to shoot first in the event of a real emergency. Yet, he's a vice-president making very, very good money.

I miss coming home with dirty hands.

The PC Gurus

As some of you know, I used to be a member of a local team which had a computer talk show airing locally here in Kentuckiana. Several months ago, the show's host was unceremoniously fired. I could probably write a book about the events that then transpired, but suffice it to say that we no longer have a radio show.

But yet we live on. Before we left the air, we had a thriving newsletter and chatroom. They live on as well, albeit under a new name. If you look to the links on the lower left-hand side of this page, you will see the title "The PC Gurus". That's us. I should've mentioned this before and I'm sorry that I didn't. But please give the site a visit today.

While you're there, sign up for the PC Gurus newsletter. Kevin works his butt off putting out a well-written publication that is for both the beginner and the experienced IT person. Furthermore, yours truly contributes the Tech News of the Week column ( <-----shameless self-promotion). We have nearly 3,000 subscribers and we will NEVER, EVER give out your e-mail address to third parties. In fact, you won't even get junk mail from us.

We also have a chat room that you can connect to from the website. Generally, team members are in there between 8 and 10PM EST. If you have a tech question or just want to hang out, head over there. It's not just geek-speak, either; we discuss everything under the sun. I don't get in there as often as I'd like, but I try to stop in a couple of nights during the week.

We've got some things planned for the future, including an audio webcast styled after the old radio show. That way, we can reach a worldwide audience. Stay tuned and thanks for reading my shameless plug.

The Censor

I was going to talk about Sandy Berger this morning, but I think I'm going to wait and see what sort of excuses the Democratic spin machine comes up with before I throw in my two cents. After all, when I was in Nuclear Power School, I used to stuff classified documents down my pants by accident all the time. It was a very common sight to see my fellow Petty Officers doing laundry and pull out a schematic from their shorts. Uh-huh. Ashcroft will be blamed for this---you read it here first.

But moving on:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. That's not the abridged version, either. It's one long sentence that has done more to define our country than probably any other sentence written since 1776. With the recent (in the past year or so, anyway) diatribes of Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Linda Ronstadt, Whoopi Goldberg, The Dixie Chicks and others concerning their free speech rights and censorship, I thought it might be interesting to take a look at what the First Amendment does not guarantee:

1. The right to be heard. There is a common misconception on the Left that says any opinion and any speaker has a right to be heard. If you read above, that is not the case. You have the right to say anything you want; the public has the right to ignore you.

And, for the record, this is NOT censorship. The word censor comes down to us from the Romans, for whom the word censor actually represented a person. The Censor was in charge of the census and oversaw public morality (probably quite a challenge in Rome). Thus, the word censor can only correctly be used with regard to government action. Clear Channel's abandonment of Howard Stern, although possibly a breach of contract, is not censorship because no government body took him off the air. FCC fines are another matter and another debate we'll take up some other time. So when Michael Moore had trouble finding a distributor for his latest steaming pile, that was not censorship as he claimed---it was capitalism at work in a free and open marketplace. Of course, we can't expect someone of Moore's limited intellectual horsepower to understand that.

2. The right to employment regardless of what you say. Whoopi Goldberg learned this the hard way about two weeks ago when she made some rather tasteless remarks about the President at a fundraiser in New York. Two days later, Slim-Fast fired her from her position as their spokesperson. Many companies make their spokesmen sign a morality clause stating that they can be fired for being asshats in public. Once again, this is not being censored or blacklisted; employment is not a guarantee in a free society.

3. The right to be loved by the public regardless of what you say. Exhibit A: The Dixie Chicks. Right before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the blonde Chick made a statement during a concert in London about how ashamed she was of GW Bush. She was well within her free speech rights to say this. Upon their return to the States, they learned that many radio stations had stopped playing their music. Once again, this is not censorship. Free speech sometimes has a cost, and sometimes that cost is the public deciding that you're a little too stupid to be making political comments on stage.

Sean Penn is another wonderful example of this. After his grand tour of Iraq in late 2002, he claims that he lost several movie deals. I guess he felt that he deserved them. Once again, speech has consequences and the First Amendment does not protect us from public consequences, only governmental ones. Spicolli will have to catch the next tasty wave, I suppose.

Country Stupid

When I was young, my dad used to always tell me to never assume someone is unintelligent because they speak slowly or with a drawl. I learned how wise this advice was once I went into the Navy. Those slow-talking guys from North Carolina, West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana (now there's an accent) could understand chemistry, physics and calculus just as well, or better, than us "city boys". I gained a new-found respect for people from rural areas. The stereotypes that I grew up with were washed away when I realized that people are, for the most part, the same no matter where you go.

I bring this up because I don't want anyone to be offended when I introduce my made-up phrase: country stupid. This phrase is not intended to imply that people from the country, or things considered "country", are stupid. What I'm talking about are people who consider themselves "country" or "small town" and use that as an excuse for holding certain beliefs and opinions when a little logic and/or self-education would make them reconsider.

You've probably heard examples of country stupid your whole life. It's when you're planning an event of some type and someone says, "I don't know how ya'll do it here, but in Smallville we..." and then proceeds to do that, regardless of how tacky and juvenile it may be. And don't think I'm some far-out bohemian saying these things; my hometown (the town which we still call home) has fewer than 30,000 residents.

I could dismiss this except for one salient point: too many people apply this same thinking to their voting decisions. In the past 20 years, I have heard people say, on at least 40 occasions, "The Democrats are for the working man." Now, anyone with any knowledge of political history at all knows that this hasn't been true since FDR died, and it was only marginally true then. How did that little myth get started? In the unions, the organs that take the working man's money and then tell them to vote for the Democrat. But it doesn't matter; daddy voted for Democrats and grandad voted for Democrats, so, by God, I'll vote for 'em, too. It doesn't matter that the party today isn't the party of Truman and Kennedy; you can't confuse country stupid with facts.

And then there's the aspect of country stupid that really gripes me: "I don't know much, but...." and usually ends with why the person is going to vote for John Kerry and his ilk. It's a way of saying, "I'm too lazy to stay informed, but all my other ill-informed friends are voting this way, so that's what I'm going to do, too." It's an easy way to get out of an argument by saying that "aw, shucks, I'm just not as smart as you so I'm just going to vote for that guy". Does this mean that, if you kept up and were well-informed, you would vote for conservatives? Considering that I have only known a handful of thoughtful liberals in my life, I guess the answer is yes.

So do me this favor, please: if you plan on voting, leave country stupid behind and go inform yourself on BOTH sides of the important issues. This country is too important to leave it's future in the hands of "aw, shucks" bumpkins.

The New Racism

John Kerry spoke to the NAACP yesterday after President Bush turned down the invitation. The picture above shows Kerry giving the "Black Power" fist, something that some of you will recognize from the days of black radicalism. In the same way that some have called Bill Clinton the first black President, Kerry has gone on record as saying that he wants to be the second black President. Uh-Huh.

This all smacks of a subtle form of racism that is alive and well in this country. When Bush turned down the invitation to speak to the NAACP, the media made statements like, "Bush refuses to speak to black leaders", as if the NAACP speaks for everyone whose ancestors came from Africa. If I fell into that category, I would be incensed at the thought that I am not capable of independent, rational thought. After all, does NOW speak for all women? Does the Methodist Church speak for all Chrisitians? Does the KKK speak for all white men? Put into perspective, it seems ridiculous.

Can we leave the serious adults in the White House for four more years, please?

Asshat Strikes Again

Mr. "Great American" Moore is, once again, showing all of us what a classless piece of shit he is: (from townhall.com)

The family of U.S. Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone was shocked to learn that video footage of the major's Arlington National Cemetery burial was included by Michael Moore in his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11."

"I'm sure he would have some choice words for Michael Moore," she said. "Michael Moore would have a hard time asking our family for a glass of water if he were thirsty."

Once again, fuck you, Mikey.

Influence

I swore that I wasn't going to talk about gay marriage here again, but it's quickly becoming the debate of the summer. The Marriage Amendment, which would have served to define marriage as between one man and one woman, died in the Senate yesterday. I don't think this is a bad thing; Constitutional amendments are very hard to ratify and take years to do so. Also, I don't think the Constitution should address matters such as this (remember Prohibition?). At most, this needs to be a Supreme Court issue after several states pass gay marriage laws based on the will of the people, not the judgement of district courts, as was the case in Massachusetts, where gay marriage referendums have failed. Of course, this is a well-worn liberal tactic: if you can't win at the ballot box, use the judiciary. Unfortunately, the judiciary is too often willing to comply.

If this debate were just about allowing two people to marry, I don't know if I would have that much trouble with it. But when you introduce children into the arrangement, my opinion changes. It's not that there aren't good gay parents out there. But I am of the belief, old-fashioned as it may be, that children need both a mother and a father in order to grow into emotionally and spiritually healthy adults. And, no, I don't believe that children raised by gay parents are more likely to be gay. But I do think that a gay lifestyle is about more than just sex; it is an agenda-driven life, reaching for a place that is, in my opinion, bad for both kids and our society.

Sowell's Disgust

Thomas Sowell is one of the greatest minds of our time. Unless you keep up on political issues (I mean really keep up, not just watch the talking heads on the major networks), you've probably never heard of him because he is an unabashed conservative.

I actually found this link on Slashdot, which was surprising considering some of the people who post there (you know the type: know-it-all losers who are smarter than anyone who has ever done anything. Most of them are liberal.). Sowell is disgusted with computer technology, plain and simple. His arguments are vague, probably because he doesn't have a great familiarity with the subject matter. And that's the point.

Those of us who work in IT for a living or are hobbyists rarely stop to think about the simple processes: finding a file, burning a CD, installing software. To us, these things come automatically and without thought; to someone not absorbed in the technology, these things can be daunting. Sowell argues for a modern-day tech-centered George Eastman, the man who brought photography to the masses.

What I think many people fail to realize is that it is the consumer who has inadvertantly demanded the complexity of today's PC. There was a time when you could buy a terminal that would do nothing but allow you to get e-mail and so some web surfing. So what happened? No one bought them. You can make the argument that they were expensive for the features they offered, but a stiff market would've driven prices down to the point where, today, it would undoubtedly be possible to buy a web-surfing teminal for under $100.

Here's the thing: the computer-buying public wants every cool little feature that comes down the road: word processing, then websurfing, then games, then the ability to manipulate/print digital photos and edit video. And, all of this should work out-of-the-box with no learning curve at all. We hear the cry, "make it more user friendly."

With all due respect to Mr. Sowell, let me state my thoughts on the matter: dive in, open a book, and learn something. I learned most of what I know about home PC use by breaking things and fixing them. At that time, I knew no one who I could turn to in order to ask questions or bounce ideas off of. Then, the Web was still an academic thing; I couldn't Google an answer to anything. I was frustrated many times, but it ultimately paid off.

People view computers in the same way they view cars: most people just want to get in, turn the key and go. But this is, in my opinion, an unfair analogy. If all you wanted to do was turn on a PC, then it would be a fair comparison. But even doing something as simple as printing a document is a hugely complicated affair for a PC---it's more akin to changing your own oil or something. If you wanted to overhaul a transmission or bore out the cylinders in your car, would you expect the process to be obvious and user-friendly?

I don't want you to think that I'm yearning for the "good old days" when computer technology was overseen by a secret priesthood and newcomers were not welcome. Home PCs and the Internet have changed our lives for the better and everyone should be invited to the party. But many companies, Microsoft and Apple especially, have worked hard to sell the idea that you can buy a computer, take it out of the box and be an instant expert. So when new users don't have a pleasant experience with a new product right away, there are discouraged because they believe that they are alone in their lack of knowledge. In reality, many companies would be better off encouraging self-education instead of a 5-minute prep time. Then, maybe Dr. Sowell could install his own chess software.

Lost...Again

I just lost another very long post. I will now take my nephew's advice and start typing these things in Word and copying them over. ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!!

Over the Line

This article concerning the debate over whether or not to delay the November elections in the event of terrorist action in the US is scary. If he is wise, the President will distance himself from this idea as soon as possible. Why? Because this is how dictatorships start: delay a week now, and then a year the next time. Soon, you may have to delay elections outright until the "national emergency" passes. Of course, the national emergency never ends. Furthermore, the Dems and the Michael Moore Cultists are going to have a field day with this.

Knowledge is power, except in the hands of idiots; then it's a bludgeoning tool.

Out of the Closet

From The Drudge Report:

CABLE WAR: FOX NEWS VOWS TOP FIGHT BACK AGAINST RIVALS WHO TOUT DOCUMENTARY

A senior FOX NEWS executive tells DRUDGE: "We have enough ammunition to nail both MSNBC & CNN." Sources say FOX is prepared to go public with these accounts if necessary.

Considering that Fox News has three times the ratings of the other two, was it any surprise that something like this has happened? It's typcial liberal tactics: if you can't win on the issues, make your opponent look evil.

Bulletproof

I finally broke down and bought a Streamlink membership to Coast to Coast AM, the overnight show to which I used to listen when I worked nights. It's only six bucks a month, which allows me to listen to the show over the web or download mp3 files to burn to CD or whatever. I didn't realize how much I missed the show until I heard George Noory's voice again.

So I'm was listening to an interview with a gentleman who was talking about the history and future of the American space program. He mentioned something that I have thought about since the Shuttle disaster last year, but haven't heard mentioned in public: we have scared ourselves out of space travel. It's not that there is a shortage of willing astronauts; it's the fact that the American public will not accept anything less than perfection with no casualties.

I don't want to give you the impression that I am taking the two Shuttle tragedies lightly; any loss of life is terrible. But those men and women volunteered and accepted the risks because that was what they wanted to do with their lives. To them, exploration and scientific acheivement was worth risking life and limb over. You may not agree with them, but then, no one is asking us to take those same risks.

The interviewee also mentioned the Russian space program. As with all things, the Russians strive for simplicity; in fact, almost everything on their side of the International Space Station can be repaired in orbit, including their spacesuits. This is unheard of for American astronauts, who are expected to send home broken components and suits on the next shuttle. We are careful to the extreme, possibly because of public opinion. When the Clipper Ships were taking paying passengers around the horn of South America, about 5% of them were lost every year. Why did the practice continue? Because there were no TV cameras onboard.

Still Gilded?

I've been reading "The Age of Innocence" by Edith Wharton. It's about New York Society during the 1870's; Wharton wrote the novel in the early 1920's as a rememberance of her young life during the Gilded Age. She had been a part of that small New York world, but her work is vaguely critical of it without being completely condemning.

I've enjoyed what I've read thus far because of the ridiculousness of those people during that time. New York Society was made of up what was known as The 500, five hundred or so families who were considered "somebody". Nothing was written down or even stated out loud. If you were in, you knew it; if you were out, you were in darkness. Most of these people had crazy amounts of money, even for the robber-baron age in which they lived. Those who were not fabulously wealthy still lived as if they were, depending on name and reputation to extend their credit with all the places that mattered.

Because The 500 were so wealthy, they had a tremendous amount of free time on their hands. As a result, their lives revolved around their social calendars. Since one's social life was all-consuming, it began to take on a life of it's own with rules and regulations, the betrayal of which meant a loss of position among the other people who were, in the end, only worried about keeping their position on the tightrope. It no longer mattered to anyone why or how the "rules" came to be. All that was important that they be observed, no matter how ridiculous they seemed. Certain clothes were only worn to certain events; certain foods were not served if certain people were going to be present (this had nothing to do with religious observations or food allergies); engagements were to be exactly this long, and newly married couples were supposed to live in this area of Manhattan and socialize with these people.

I was thinking about these absurdities the other day when a thought hit me: most of us are no different. We may not have as much free time, but we are just as rigid about certain social conventions. Look around you: people drive a certain type of car or live in a certain part of town or have kids at a certain age or try to belong to a certain group of country clubs or whatever. People cloister themselves into social groups and then, subconsciously, turn their noses up at the outside world. We laugh at the Victorians' rigidity, but all we have managed to do is replace it with a much more subtle inflexibility that is a sort of lie we tell ourselves---"I do this because I want to".

The truth is that we have been trained, you and I, to accept certain things as normal based on our income, race, sex, religion and location. While some part of this is unavoidable (you can't live in a luxury condo if you make 20K a year), other parts of our socialization are things that we voluntarily buy into. Personally, I have experienced the "child" expectation and the "house" expectation. My response is either to ignore it or to offer to accept money from the person so they can help pay our bills so as to grant them the right to have a say in our affairs. But I digress.

I heard about a glaring example of this the other day. Someone I know is in theoretical danger of losing his residence. Selling it and moving to a more affordable place is out of the question, supposedly, because that would mean moving to a less "significant" neighborhood. I scoffed at this at first, but then I realized that this person had been taught to respect and even admire those who lived the life he was trying to afford.

I try to divorce myself from these assumptions of normalcy, but I realize that I, too, have biases. They don't revolve around money, but around other issues that we don't have the time or the room to discuss here. So I try to stop every once in a while and make myself remember what is important: my spouse, my family, health, freedom. Everything else is fluff.

Hoax?

According to the LA Times (I'm not linking to it because it requires registration and, well, the LA Times is mostly crap IMHO), the woman who went on a motorcycle trip through the area around Chernobyl made the whole thing up. According to the story, she went through the area, but as part of an organized tour group in an automobile.

If true, this is disappointing. As those of you who are regular readers know, the woman's story touched me deeply. Of course, she still took the pictures and wrote the commentary (I guess), so the emotion is no less poignant. Of all people, I should know better than to trust what I read online.

The Sharp Tip of Journalism

It's Edwards

It seems that John Edwards will be John Kerry's running mate. Edwards is a trial lawyer (read ambulance chaser) from North Carolina. As so it begins. Edwards is good-looking; he'll get the chick vote. Go ahead and send me hate mail over that comment---history shows how shallow the female vote really is.

Since we're here, let's talk about yet another Kerry contradiction (can we go ahead and call these lies?). If you watched the news this weekend, you have heard that Kerry said he believes that life begins at conception. This is all well and good, especially coming from someone who purports to be a Catholic. But a look at Kerry's voting record in the Senate shows that he has voted in support of abortion (including partial-birth abortion) without fail. His excuse for this is that he can not force his morals and beliefs on others. Really? Then how, O Junior Balloon From Taxachusetts, do you make any decisions? By survey? Bill Clinton, call your office.

Kerry's statement shows that one of two things is true: he really doesn't believe that life begins at conception. This makes him a liar. On the other hand, he does believe that life begins at conception. This means he gives tacit approval to the murder of innocents. Oh, you proud Democrats.

You Read it Here First

Is is now 7:33AM EST. IF John Kerry does NOT pick John Edwards to be his running mate, he will choose Indiana Senator Evan Bayh. You read it here first.

A Contender to Greatness

You probably already know, but Marlon Brando has died. His favorite role of mine, and the one for which he is probably most well known, is that of Vito Corleone in the first Godfather movie. He had some great lines and delivered them with believability (I know--I had an Italian grandfather who was of the same generation as Vito).

So, on this occasion, I have to share with you my favorite exchange from the Godfather. It is between Michael Corleone and Kay, his soon-to-be wife:

MC: "My father is no different than any other powerful man -- any man who's responsible for other people, like a senator or president."

KAY: "You know how naive you sound...senators and presidents don't have men killed."

MC: "Oh, who's being naive, Kay?"

Bill Cosby in Da' Hizzle

Actually, I shouldn't joke about this. Read on:

Cosby Has Harsh Words for Black Community

Thu Jul 1, 7:27 PM ET

By DON BABWIN, Associated Press Writer

CHICAGO - Bill Cosby (news) went off on another tirade against the black community Thursday, telling a room full of activists that black children are running around not knowing how to read or write and "going nowhere."

He also had harsh words for struggling black men, telling them: "Stop beating up your women because you can't find a job."

Cosby made headlines in May when he upbraided some poor blacks for their grammar and accused them of squandering opportunities the civil rights movement gave them. He shot back Thursday, saying his detractors were trying in vain to hide the black community's "dirty laundry."

"Let me tell you something, your dirty laundry gets out of school at 2:30 every day, it's cursing and calling each other n------ as they're walking up and down the street," Cosby said during an appearance at the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition & Citizenship Education Fund's annual conference.

"They think they're hip," the entertainer said. "They can't read; they can't write. They're laughing and giggling, and they're going nowhere."

In his remarks in May at a commemoration of the anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education desegregation decision, Cosby denounced some blacks' grammar and said those who commit crimes and wind up behind bars "are not political prisoners."

"I can't even talk the way these people talk, 'Why you ain't,' 'Where you is' ... and I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk," Cosby said then. "And then I heard the father talk ... Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth."

Cosby elaborated Thursday on his previous comments in a talk interrupted several times by applause. He castigated some blacks, saying that they cannot simply blame whites for problems such as teen pregnancy and high school dropout rates.

"For me there is a time ... when we have to turn the mirror around," he said. "Because for me it is almost analgesic to talk about what the white man is doing against us. And it keeps a person frozen in their seat, it keeps you frozen in your hole you're sitting in."

Cosby lamented that the racial slurs once used by those who lynched blacks are now a favorite expression of black children. And he blamed parents.

"When you put on a record and that record is yelling `n----- this and n----- that' and you've got your little 6-year-old, 7-year-old sitting in the back seat of the car, those children hear that," he said.

He also condemned black men who missed out on opportunities and are now angry about their lives.

"You've got to stop beating up your women because you can't find a job, because you didn't want to get an education and now you're (earning) minimum wage," Cosby said. "You should have thought more of yourself when you were in high school, when you had an opportunity."

Cosby appeared Thursday with the Rev. Jesse Jackson (news - web sites), founder and president of the education fund, who defended the entertainer's statements.

"Bill is saying let's fight the right fight, let's level the playing field," Jackson said. "Drunk people can't do that. Illiterate people can't do that."

Cosby also said many young people are failing to honor the sacrifices made by those who struggled and died during the civil rights movement.

"Dogs, water hoses that tear the bark off trees, Emmett Till," he said, naming the black youth who was tortured and murdered in Mississippi in 1955, allegedly for whistling at a white woman. "And you're going to tell me you're going to drop out of school? You're going to tell me you're going to steal from a store?"

Cosby also said he wasn't concerned that some whites took his comments and turned them "against our people."

"Let them talk," he said.

This is Matt again. I'm not cheering Bill Cosby because he said what I have thought many times but could not say for fear of being called a racist. I cheer him because he is NOT a conservative; he's saying these because they are necessary and he knows them to be true.