Opaque Lucidity

The Big Party

In case you've been living under a rock, the Republican Convention is going on this week in New York City. Party conventions are becoming, in my opinion, an unnecessary waste of time and resources for both parties. The broadcast networks devote less and less time to them and I don't think there's been a surprise at one since the Dixiecrat thing in 1948. Both 1968 and 1972 were big years for protestors, and this year's Republican Convention will be no exception. But it's interesting, nonetheless, to see how these things are pulled off.

This year's Republican Convention is noteworthy because many of the primetime speakers are considered to be liberal (or moderate) Republicans. Some of my more conservative friends are bothered by this, saying that these men do not represent the party as a whole. And they might be right. But there's something more important here that the party wants to convey, something that the Democrats no longer own: inclusiveness.

To be an active Democrat running for office today, you have to run a pretty narrow line. You must be pro-abortion, pro-gun control, anti-war, anti-tax cuts, pro-UN, etc., etc. Many of you who claim you are Democrats are scratching your heads right now, thinking that you don't fit that mold. You may be right, but did any conservative Democrats (like Zell Miller of Georgia) speak at your convention? No. To be a Democrat with a voice, you have to be a raving liberal. Period.

Now look at the Republican Party. This is the party of both Newt Gingrich and Rudy Guiliani, Gov. Ahhhnold and Alan Keyes. The Republican platform is conservative and it always will be, but you'll find a pretty big tent over here. I don't always like that, but I have to admit that it works.

If you're a Democrat, it's time you began to ask yourself why. Is it because your family has always voted that way? That's a sign of laziness; think for yourself. Is it because they're for the "working man"? Wake up; that hasn't been the case since Kennedy left office. Is it because you hate Bush? That's emotionalism and has no place in political discussions among adults.

Is it because you're liberal? Well, then, good for you: please stay over there.

Not Optional

In case you haven't noticed, I get worked up over politics, especially since 9/11. I have always been conservative, but the events of that September have made me realize that only a strong defense coupled with a willingness to exercise preemption when necessary will keep something like that from happening again. The safety of the American people and the maintenance of our way of life in an age of worldwide terrorism should be the first priority of any administration, regardless of political bent. However, even a cursory glance at the issues up for debate in this political season will show you that many people don't consider this war much of an issue at all, but rather a distraction from "what's really going on" (whatever that is).

Have you ever wondered why this is, and why so many politicians play to this portion of the electorate? Because dissent from the "norm" is cool. If you pick up trendy mags such as Details, you will see that the war is a punchline or something that is mentioned in passing. It is the problem of those people who give a rat's ass about national security. What really matters is gay marriage, animal rights, and how much money is pored down the bottomless spider hole that is public education in this country. While all of these issues have their place, they all exist because of the freedoms we enjoy. Thus, they are secondary to defending against and defeating islamo-facism.

Moveon.org is a good example of the coolness factor of dissent. They successfully made the 2004 campaign about defeating G.W. Bush, not electing a better man. It is a theme that John Kerry is trying to run with. Fortunately, there are enough people who care about pesky little problems like the truth. Otherwise, these wackos would actually stand a good chance of winning something.

I know many intelligent liberals. I know many idiot conservatives. I love a good debate with a well-read Democrat or self-professed "progressive". What angers me to no end is when I get involved in an argument with someone who can only throw out catchy phrases or can only speak from emotion. I think it was Dennis Prager who said that when one person argues from fact and the other from emotion, they will never agree on anything. Unfortunately, that's the division taking place in this nation: the serious people who debate facts and the emotional nit-wits who run from pillar to post in hysteria. If the nit-wits ever become a majority, we are doomed.

Out for Summer

This WorldNetDaily article almost makes me want to go out and buy an Alice Cooper album. It's the funniest serious article I've read in a while:

'Shock-rock legend Alice Cooper calls rock stars campaigning for Democrat John Kerry treasonous morons.

The 56-year-old Cooper says he was disgusted to learn the likes of Bruce Springsteen, John Mellencamp, R.E.M., Sheryl Crow, James Taylor and Dave Matthews were hitting the road for a series of concerts designed to help defeat President Bush.

"To me, that's treason," Cooper told the Canadian Press. "I call it treason against rock 'n' roll because rock is the antithesis of politics. Rock should never be in bed with politics.

"When I was a kid and my parents started talking about politics, I'd run to my room and put on the Rolling Stones as loud as I could. So when I see all these rock stars up there talking politics, it makes me sick.

"If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."

"Besides," he continued, "when I read the list of people who are supporting Kerry, if I wasn't already a Bush supporter, I would have immediately switched. Linda Ronstadt? Don Henley? Geez, that's a good reason right there to vote for Bush."

As WorldNetDaily previously reported, Linda Ronstadt was escorted off the property of a Las Vegas casino after publicly supporting Bush-bashing film director Michael Moore, and singer Don Henley was subsequently booed on stage in Orange County, Calif., for expressing support for Linda Ronstadt during one of his own concerts.

Cooper, whose real name is Vincent Damon Furnier, is reportedly a strong Republican who joins Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., at NBA games in Phoenix.

He continues his own summer rock tour, with upcoming dates in the Northeast, Canada, California and Las Vegas.'

You gotta love that sort of honesty.

The Junior Balloon

When the history of the 2004 Presidential election is written, the Swift boat controversy will be remembered, I believe, as a battle over John Kerry's ego. On Tuesday, Kerry's campaign sent Max Cleland, former Senator and combat amputee, to the President's ranch in Crawford bearing a letter signed by vets both in and out of government asking Bush to formally condemn the Swift boat vet's ads and demand they be pulled from the airwaves. Cleland, along with the rest of the Dems, are crying the same talking point: The White House is the power behind these ads. Nevermind that there is no proof of a connection: the liberal base doesn't need truth, only the accusation. And, of course, it doesn't matter that MoveOn.org has supplied many members of the core team for Kerry's campaign (who continue to work for MoveOn while working for Kerry; this is not illegal, but it is certainly the pot calling the kettle black).

Two things here. First, I am embarrassed for Max Cleland. What kind of man would ask a former Senator and veteran to serve as errand boy? Furthermore, what kind of man would accept?

Second, and more important, is how overblown Kerry has allowed this debacle to become. The Senator could end this entire thing in one afternoon by doing two things: filling out a form with the DoD (SF180, I think) making his military records available to anyone who requests it and holding a press conference apologizing for the comments he made to Congress in 1971. The American people are, if nothing else, compassionate; Kerry would probably win votes by inserting a little honesty into his campaign.

Why is this not happening? For the same reason Kerry cussed out a Secret Service agent when the agent caused him to fall while skiing earlier this year: ego, ego, ego. Kerry has a huge one and it will not allow him to admit to mistakes or errors in judgement. You Dems sure can pick 'em.

Clouds in My Eyes

Kelli left this morning for a business trip to Salt Lake City. I always worry about her traveling when I'm not with her (she is not alone this time, but the girlie-man with her would fold under stress) even though I know that's probably old-fashioned and not a little sexist. Part of it is feeling a little empty when she's gone; I'm always reminded of how much time we spend talking about the details of our lives. But this trip, and the ones that could follow, are her chance to have a real impact on the company she works for, and for that I am both proud of and happy for her.

The ramp leading to the departures terminal at Standiford Field (or Louisville International Airport, for those of you living in Jerry Abramson's fantasy world) is right at the end of the one of the airport's 10,000 foot north-south runways. At 5:20 in the morning, the taxiways are choked with UPS planes waiting to head off to points all over the world. In my view were about 10 planes, all of them 757s and 767s, exactly the kinds of planes that hit the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. They are very large aircraft when you see them on the ground; imagining one of them flying into a building is almost unthinkable.

I heard a friend of mine say that 9/11 hasn't really had any tangible impact on her life. From a physical standpoint, I guess she's right. But not a day goes by that I don't think about that Tuesday and the phone call from my best friend telling me to turn on the TV because a plane had hit one of the towers. My thoughts immediately ran to 1945, when a B-25 hit the Empire State Building in foggy weather. But as I looked at the image on the screen and realized that the sky over Manhattan was clear, I knew that it couldn't be anything but terrorism. A few minutes later, a second plane removed all doubt. All of our lives had changed.

So as I dropped my wife off this morning, I thought about Lisa and Todd Beamer, he of the famous phrase "Let's roll". And even though no American plane has been hijacked since 9/11 and I doubt anyone would be interested in flying a small MD-80 into anything, I still wonder. And that, I guess, is what those Islamo-facist subhumans did to those of us not directly involved in September 11th: they introduced doubt into areas of our lives that we, as Americans, assumed only other people in other lands needed to worry about.

Kerry in a Korner?

If this is true, it's pretty strong stuff (from The Drudge Report):

Dem presidential hopeful John Kerry personally phoned anti-Kerry swift boat vets, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Brant declined the invite, explaining that Kerry was obviously not prepared to correct the record on exactly what happened during Vietnam and what happened when Kerry came back.

E-Mail U.

I don't like to talk about too many IT-related issues here for fear of alienating some of you. However, I read an interesting statistic today (I couldn't find the link once I got to work): the majority of people who use e-mail consider it secure and do not know that their employer has the right to look at any e-mail they send or receive at work.

I can attest to the fact that most people don't realize how easily their e-mail can be read. I have to empty our e-mail filter about 12 times a day. Anything with an attachment gets stopped; I have to open the e-mail and the attachment to make sure it's legitimate before it gets sent to the recipient. Now, I don't want you to get the idea that I sit around and read e-mail all day. Most of the time, I give everything a cursory glance and move on. Even with that, I see all sorts of very odd and personal conversations: people discussing their sex lives, people making plans to quit and find a new job (how stupid can you get?), people criticizing their managers, etc., etc. Most of these people would be very, very embarrassed to know that we could and do read their e-mail.

I've written about some of this before, but there's a few pointers I'd like to give with regard to proper care and handling of e-mail. Those of you with an IT background can feel free to add your comments as well:

1. Don't use your business e-mail address for personal e-mails. I know this is a tough one, but your business e-mail address is not yours. If you have internet access at work and have to stay in contact with your friends during the day, set up a Yahoo! or Hotmail account (they're both free; I prefer Yahoo!).

2. Learn to use the BCC (blind carbon copy) function of your e-mail client. This way, the people who you are sending that joke to don't know who else is receiving it. This will keep spammers from getting your friends' e-mail addresses and slow down the spread of viruses.

3. Don't put anything in an e-mail that you wouldn't write on the back of a postcard. I break this rule all the time and I should know better. If it's that important or personal, make a phone call.

4. Don't send everything to everybody. If you're like me, you can break down your friends and family into several groups: people who you can send dirty jokes to, people who have cable or DSL connections, people who are raging liberals, etc. If you have a fast connection, be considerate of your friends on dial-up; they don't appreciate getting enormous video files of a guy getting run over on the freeway. Trust me on this.

5. If you don't know what it is, don't open it. Spammers and virus writers are smart, but evil. They know what tempts you and they will use that to get you to open their crap and download attachments. Think of e-mail as food: if it looks tempting, it's probably bad for you.

Also, please feel free to e-mail me (see link on the left) if you ever need help setting up e-mail lists or using the BCC function of your e-mail client. You can also visit The PC Gurus and send questions to our little band that way. The guys on there are kind and patient, the way techies should be.

I was going to talk about Catholicism today, but I guess my heart's not in it right now. Tune in tomorrow and hopefully I'll have something a little more insightful to say.

Tumbling Down, After

Right now, the Presidential campaign seems to be centered around an event that did or didn't occur on a river in Vietnam 35 years ago. As time goes by, I begin to believe more and more that we will never know the truth of what John Kerry did or didn't do to deserve his commendations. Memories are faulty; written reports are even more so. Anyone who has seen a military personnel review can attest to this. I was an average sailor; I followed orders and did what was expected of me. But if you were to read my reviews, you would think I was John Paul Jones and Admiral Nelson rolled into one. In the Navy, these reviews can mean the difference between a stellar and a dead career. Thus, most senior enlisted men and officers are loathe to give bad ones. The write-ups turn into, at times, a work of adoring fiction.

The same flowery prose can also be found in the citations for awards. Often, these citations are written by people who did not witness the actual event and who rely on written reports, which are themselves sometimes agrandized. This is why a Swift Boat veteran can say that there was no enemy fire in an area when his Bronze Star citation mentions withering machine gun fire from all quarters.

Kerry likes to talk about his Vietnam experience; it has, in fact, become one of the cornerstones of his campaign. There are two reasons for this. First, it gives him a perceived edge over the President---the Dems have made his National Guard service into the equivalent of draft-dodging, something that, hopefully, will bite them in the ass given the thousands of National Guard troops serving on active duty for this war. The thinking here is that since Kerry served in Vietnam, he is better suited to be Commander-in-Chief. I could write a book about why this is a flawed assumption, but you don't have that kind of time.

Second, and more importantly to his campaign, Kerry wants Vietnam to steal focus from two larger issues in his past: he came home and called his shipmates war criminals (yet did not attempt to mention this while serving with them) and he has the most liberal voting record of any Senator from 1986 onward. In case you haven't noticed, liberals can't get elected in this country unless they lie. This works for them because there are enough soft-skulled Dems out there who don't pay attention and who are only guided by their emotions. In fact, the Dems are counting on stupidity and misinformation to get them elected. Bill Clinton, call your office.

If they're serious about victory in November, the Republicans need to marginalize Kerry's Vietnam service and concentrate on his 1971 testimony before Congress and his voting record. These things can not be disputed or spun; they are accurately recorded and have dozens, if not hundreds, of first-hand witnesses. I realize that his exaggerated tales of heroism say much about his lack of character and his willingness to lie to gain a following. But continually harping on a 35-year old incident is, in the long run, a loser.

Thanks, Mav

I'm not a big Tom Cruise fan. He's a good enough actor, but his open, enthusiastic support of Scientology is, ummm, a little (OK, very) weird. But I read something that made me take another look at Mr. Cruise and at least made me think that he's not a windbag like so many of his peers:

"Politics is something that is very personal to me," he tells the AP. "I am not going to comment publicly who I'm going to vote for. ... I don't want what I say to become a political football."

"It's their right to do that and I respect that," he says, adding, "but I do believe and I encourage people to go out and study the issues, get beyond the propaganda."

Wow.

Products of History

Most of you know that I am a computer geek. In fact, I can say that I'm a full-time computer geek. But my first intellectual love is history. When I started college, I wanted to major in History. Some overly-influential people in my life talked me out of it, but I have always wished that I had pursued that path. The problem with history today is that it has been overly-politicised, mainly by the Left on college campuses. For example, no paper about Thomas Jefferson is complete without mentioning his affair with one (or more) of his slaves. While this is certainly the truth, how does it compare with his authorship of the Declaration of Independence? He was a man of his times; as I've said before, I never wanted to nominate him for sainthood.

So I was pretty excited today when I read that the History Channel is going to present a special about the War of 1812 in September. For most of you, this is the first time you have given any thought to that war since you left high school (I know some of you aren't long out of high school; for us older folks, it was an eternity ago). My interest in American history is concentrated in the period from 1860-1945, a range of years from the beginning of the Civil War to the end of World War II. These years saw the United States become a world power, both militarily and economically. The War of 1812, even for someone as interested in it as I am, is sort of a hazy event.

So I've decided that I need to read up on American history again, from the beginning, just like I did in high school. There are parts of it I find depressing and/or boring (the Teapot Dome scandal, anyone?), but I feel as if I have a responsibility to be "up" on our history. For too long, I have read things relating to history that I have enjoyed, but were repeats of things I had read about from other sources (I think I've read every book written about D-Day, for example).

I believe we all have a responsibility to have a working knowledge of our own (and the world's) history. Everything going on today, from terrorism, to social security, and on and on and on, has its roots in our history. Many times, understand how something came about is as important as understanding the thing itself.

Hero

We hear every day, over and over again, about all the bad things happening in Iraq. Well, I thought that I'd share this little story with you since you're definitely not going to hear about it on the nightly news.

A little explanation is in order, though. For those of you who don't know, it's important to realize that corpsmen (medics) in the Marine Corps are actually sailors. This goes back to the days when the Corps was not a seperate service. So, every Marine infantry group includes a certain number of Navy corpsmen. They often refer to these young men as "Doc", a term of respect towards a guy who might just hold their lives in his hands one day. And so, with that in mind:

(From www.navy.mil): "Secretary of the Navy, Gordon R. England presents the Navy Cross to Hospitalman Apprentice Luis E. Fonseca, Jr., for heroism during the battle of An Nasiriyah, Iraq, in March 2003. Under attack and without concern for his own safety, Hospitalman Apprentice Fonseca braved small arms, machine gun, and intense rocket-propelled grenade fire to evacuate wounded Marines from a burning amphibious assault vehicle. He stabilized two casualties with lower limb amputations with tourniquets and administered morphine, while organizing the evacuation of four wounded Marines, again exposing himself to enemy fire to treat wounded Marines along an offensive perimeter. His timely and effective care saved the lives of numerous casualties."

The Navy Cross is the highest award a sailor can receive after the Medal of Honor.

Success

I don't know who wrote this; it's one of those things that shows up in your inbox from time to time. I thought it was worth sharing:

'"An American businessman was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican
village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the
small boat were several large yellow fin tuna. The American
complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long
it took to catch them. The mexican replied only a little while. The
American then asked why didn't he stay out longer and catch more fish?

The Mexican said he had enough to support his family's immediate needs.
The American then asked, but what do you do with the rest of your time?
The Mexican fisherman said, "I sleep late, fish a little, play with my
children, take siesta with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each
evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos, I have a full
and busy life, senor.

The American scoffed, "I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You
should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds buy a bigger boat,
with the proceeds from the bigger boat you could buy several boats,
eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling
your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor,
eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product,
processing and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal
fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually NYC
where you will run your expanding enterprise."

The Mexican fisherman asked, "But senor, how long will this all take?"
To which the American replied, "15-20 years."

"But what then, senor?"

The American laughed and said that's the best part. "When the time is
right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the
public ad become very rich, you would make millions."

"Millions, senor? Then what?"

The American said, "Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal
fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with
your kids, take siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the
evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos."'

Castaway

At some point in my life, I decided that I didn't fit into any mold. I don't want to say I became a rebel, because that word has been advertised to the point of meaninglessness. You know, be a rebel like all your friends when you wear the right shoes. I'm not different for the sake of being different; it just worked out that way. I've never been full of angst, or been really angry at the Man. I just refuse to live and obey The Rules without question or thought. I believe one big problem this nation has is that way too many people are living the lives that others imagine for them; this is normalcy and everything else is second-rate. So be it.

But there are times, like now, when I feel very alone. For reasons I still don't understand, I can not help but measure myself with the same ruler by which society judges me. I try to keep in mind that happiness should be everyone's first goal: the ruler says that there must be certain outward signs of conformity or else you will be disabled by your surroundings. It is these outward signs that I lack.

This feeling always passes with time. I look around, take an inventory of my life and realize that I should be happy. Most of the time I am. I just don't want to look back at these days and wish I had been a little more "normal".

Setup

From www.aopa.org. In the article, GA stands for "General Aviation":

'Here's the proof that GA airports really are small communities and that the "residents" know when something is amiss. Yesterday, alert folks at a general aviation airport contacted authorities who nabbed two suspicious characters before they could cause trouble.

"This incident demonstrates the validity of the Airport Watch concept," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "Vigilant pilots and airport workers make the best security force because they know who does and doesn't belong at the airport. They can easily spot the things that just don't seem right."

But there's more to this story, including a twist worthy of Paul Harvey.

The story begins as a man telephones an FBO at St. Louis Downtown Airport (CPS), not far from the Gateway Arch, and asks about chartering a helicopter. About an hour later, two men of Middle Eastern appearance walk into the FBO, pull out cash to pay for the flight, and present driver's licenses from two different states as ID. Office staff notices their car is registered in a third state.

"Things just didn't smell right," said St. Louis Downtown Airport Director Bob McDaniel, "so the mechanic took them into the hangar to see the aircraft, while the office person called the FBI and local police." (Airport Watch guidance says to call local police or the FBI if you suspect an immediate threat to life or property.)

The helicopter was blocked by other aircraft, and the mechanic used that as an excuse to stall the two suspects, who began unloading backpacks and odd-shaped luggage from their car.

Local police arrived shortly and hauled the suspects off to jail in handcuffs. Police discovered box cutters and other potential weapons hidden in the bags.

And now (with apologies to Paul Harvey), the rest of the story.

After a little time behind bars, the two "terrorists" confessed that they were NBC employees from New York. Their assignment: A story on how "easy" it was to get information and directions to a helicopter and then hijack it. St. Louis was their first attempt; the network reportedly planned similar tries to penetrate security at airports around the country.

"Kudos to the folks in St. Louis for using the Airport Watch concept to thwart this 'terrorist' attempt," said Boyer. "Praise, too, to the local police for responding quickly and appropriately.

"And to NBC: We appreciate that you accurately reported these misguided escapades on tonight's network news. And we hope this gives you — and the other media who make a living by generating unnecessary fear — ample reason to stop making GA a security scapegoat." '

Asshats

Pharisees?

It's things such as this that make me incredibly angry at some of the idiots in positions of power within the Church. On one hand, you have people who stand on silly, outdated rules, as if the difference between heaven and hell is unleavened wheat. On the other hand, you have people who want no rules and who scoff at the concept of any sort of hiearchial authority. Damn.

Still Learning

I'm in a playful mood tonight and, to be honest, I need a break from bitchin' about politics. So, I thought I'd share some of the things I've learned from watching commercials on TV. I don't watch much TV, so you could probably do better than me here. Feel free to add your own observations:

1. If I love my children (if we had children), I will buy an SUV.
2. Men with good hair are powerful, sexually and economically.
3. Children are smarter than adults in all situations.
4. Overweight white men are stupid, lazy and inconsiderate. ALL of them.
5. All men who suffer from sexual dysfunction are incredibly good-looking.
6. If you're a woman, you aren't taking enough pills. Pills=happiness.
7. Only thin people eat at McDonald's.
8. Anything that contains lettuce is a salad. ANYTHING.
9. If you're eating carbs, the terrorists have won.

My name is Matt, and I approved this message.

Standardize!

You may have read that NASA has decided to use robots to repair the Hubble Space Telescope. This is cool and all, but I read something later in a forum that struck me as strange: evidently, only a limited number of components on the Hubble were meant to be replaced. Already, several items (like one of the mirrors) that were never meant to be serviced have been replaced. This makes the repair missions much more complicated and, therefore, more expensive.

Up to this point in the history of the American space program, it seems as if much of what we send into orbit and to other places in the Solar System have been one-of-a-kind items that cost a gazillion dollars and take years to design and build. There has been an initiative of late (begun by the Jet Propulsion Lab) to design and use cheaper components, some of them off-the-shelf or borrowed from earlier designs. It doesn't look as if this idea has worked itself into the heart of NASA just yet.

If we're ever going to go to Mars or back to the Moon and avoid a tax revolt, our government and/or private industry is going to have to begin standardizing our space program. I know that it is already standardized to some degree in that satellites are designed to be able to be lifted by this or that rocket or fit into the bay of the Space Shuttle; I'm talking about the level of standardization that we see in many Earthbound industries today.

Look at the construction of a home-built PC, something that I know pretty well. I can buy a case, motherboard, CPU, video card, etc. and know that, within certain limits, everthing is going to work pretty well together. The holes drilled into an ATX-compatible motherboard line up perfectly with the holes in the backplate of the ATX-compatible case. All the power connections are standardized, too; in fact, even an inexperienced tinkerer could build a PC with a couple hours' training. He might run into the occasional problem, but that's how one gains experience.

Our space program should be the same way. Say we want to send a probe to dig around on one of Jupiter's moons (a very worthwhile project, in my opinion). Instead of designing a brand-new driller/digger/rover, we would roll out the Low Gravity Rover Design that would work on rocky planets with little or no atmosphere and could carry any number of generic science modules based on the needs of the mission. A mission to Venus would be a different deal altogether given it's high temps and caustic atmosphere, but a rover designed for that planet would most likely work anywhere in the Solar System with dry land.

Of course, I'm no engineer and I know that space travel is a tad more complicated than building PCs. But history tells us that standardization is what has made almost every mode of transportation and everyday device economically feasible. I believe it is only by embracing standards that we're ever going to go anywhere again.

"That's Cambodia, Captain"

It seems that as more and more time goes by, the less and less I can really say I know about John Kerry. Here's what I know about Kerry's Vietnam service:

1. Kerry was an officer in the Navy (the American one)
2. He served with Navy riverine forces in Vietnam
3. He served on a Swift boat (which looked amazingly like Gibson houseboats).
4. He received three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star.
5. He came home and, before Congress, called his shipmates war criminals.

Here's what I don't know about John Kerry's Vietnam service:

1. The truth about how he received his medals.
2. Where he was on Christmas Day, 1968 (this is central to his credibility).
3. Whether or not the actions he ascribed to his shipmates ever occured.

I was born in 1971. The only memory I have of Vietnam is the fall of Saigon in April, 1975 and that memory could very well be false. Part of me wonders why a war that ended almost 30 years ago is even an issue in this campaign. Then I remember: John Kerry wanted it this way. It was he who found the Green Beret he saved in 1969 and showed him to the world. It is he who touts his experiences in Vietnam as proof that he is ready to be Commander-in-Chief. He is, after all, "reporting for duty."

We will never really know what happened to John Kerry in Vietnam. My gut tells me that he probably exaggerated some of his experiences, as soldiers and sailors have done since the first cavemen returned from the first war. But if even half of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's accusations are true, then John Kerry has a serious credibility problem that must be addressed. And this time, it's not lying about an affair with an intern; it's about what happened in combat where lives were at stake.

But I ask you, my Democratic friends: would it matter to you if you found out he lied about some aspects of his service? Or are you so jumpy for a Democrat in the White House that you would dismiss any sin, regardless of how damaging it could be in the long run?

Observers

Evidently, there are going to be international observers watching over our elections this November. Excuse me, but I need to have a WTF moment.

It seems that this all started ealier in the year when a group of Congressmen (all Democrats, wouldn't you know) wrote a letter to UN Secretary Kofi Annan asking for UN observers to uncover any "civil rights violations" that they alleged happened in 2000 in Florida (seemingly, no one is interested in asking why thousands of inmates were allowed to vote, since they voted 90% Democratic---now why would that be?). Annan responded by saying that the UN does not have the resources to accurately monitor an election in a country as large as the United States. However, I guess this monitoring group will be happy to monitor disputed areas (i.e. areas that the Dems think they should win but don't).

This story is a microcosm of how modern Democrats function. The Dems long ago lost the ability to win elections by running on issues; Michael Dukakis' promise to raise taxes is a bitter memory of a Democrat telling the truth about his liberal agenda. Now, their speeches and written musings are about little more than telling you what they believe is wrong (Bush is President) and emotional appeals about jobs, fairness, victimhood, etc. You would be hard pressed to find one concrete, explicit, detailed action promised by John Kerry in anything he has said since he came back from Vietnam (did you know he was in Vietnam?).

By bringing in some sort of international oversight team, the Dems hope to introduce some element of doubt when G.W. is reelected. All they need is ONE observer (probably from some third-world dictatorship or theocracy) to cry foul and it will be enough to introduce doubt into the mind of their followers. This was successful in Florida in 2000; the mountain of evidence pointing to a clean election (for God's sake, even the NY Times couldn't find anything) is ignored by the Dems and their lackeys in the elite media.

You think 2000 was bad? You ain't seen nothin' yet. The Dems will do anything to win, even if it means destroying this nation in the process.

Devil's Alternative

On this day in 1945, at 8:16AM local time, the world's second atomic bomb (the first was a test bomb exploded in New Mexico on July 16th) was detonated over a hospital in the center of downtown Hiroshima, Japan. The hospital was not the target of the weapon; a T-shaped bridge nearby had served as the aiming point. The bomb was set to explode 1900 feet above the ground. On its casing was scribbled several messages including "Greetings to the Emperor from the men of the Indianapolis". The USS Indianapolis, a heavy cruiser, had been torpedoed and sunk by a Japanese I-boat (submarine) after delivering parts for the atomic weapon to Tinian Island, the base from which the air mission was launched.

After dropping the weapon, the Enola Gay (named after pilot Paul Tibbet's mother) and her accompanying instrument and weather planes made a steep, turning dive to get away from the blast. They then headed back for Tinian. In Hiroshima, 80,000 people died immediately from the blast, including a group of American POWs being held in the city. Later, nearly 100,000 people (figures vary according to the source) would die from their injuries. The city was cut off from the outside world for two days; the government in Tokyo did not believe the reports they were receiving of a city-destroying bomb. The Allies demanded complete and unconditional surrender from the Japanese, but the ruling military leaders considered this unthinkable. But there was a small group of realists who understood that the war was lost.

Three days later, Bock's Car dropped another atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki. It was only after this second mission that the Emporer made known his desire to accept the Allied terms of surrender. As he said in a broadcast to the Japanese people (the first time his voice had ever been heard in public), "We must accept the unacceptable, bear the unbearable." Hostilities ended on August 15th and the formal surrender was signed on September 2nd in Tokyo Harbor on board the USS Missouri. The Second World War was over, six years and one day after it began.

What you have just read is what actually happened in the two weeks before the end of the war in the Pacific. The actions of the United States have been a source of debate ever since. In fact, rumor has it that the surviving crew members of the two missions still receive hate mail. Some critics claim that Hiroshima was not particularly important in a strategic sense but that it was bombed because it had not been seriously damaged during conventional raids. There is also a racial component to the criticism in that many believe nuclear weapons would not have been used against Germany. There is also a military aspect: Japan's navy and air force were decimated; she may have surrendered anyway in time. Or, perhaps the atom bomb could've been tested, in public, on an uninhabited island that Japanese officials would've been allowed to witness.

I will not attempt to answer all of those criticisms here. What I will do is present what was being planned for Japan before the weapons were used.

Planning for the invasion of the Japanese home islands was well underway by August, 1945. The conquest of Japan was to be called Operation Downfall and it would happen in two seperate invasions: Operation Olympic (invasion of the southern islands in the chain) and Operation Coronet (invasion of the Tokyo Plain). Olympic was to involve an initial landing of 500,000 troops, many of them belonging to divisions transferred from Europe after the end of hostilities there. The second invasion would've involved that many Army personnel plus the entire Marine Corps. Both invasions would've required the commitment of 90% of the US Navy (all 74 of her aircraft carriers) and untold contributions from England, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. It was projected that the war would not end until 1947 and that the United States would suffer 250,000 casualties. Up to that point in the war, in both the European and Pacific Theatres, American losses had been a little less than 400,000, depending on who you ask.

It has been projected that more than a million Japanese civilians would've lost their lives defending their homeland. The Imperial government had gathered millions of able-bodied citizens and taught them to fight with old rifles, spears and even bamboo sticks. Every beach on every island had been cleared of brush and trees so as to create free-fire zones with no cover for invading troops. The Japanese Air Force had nearly 5,000 aircraft in ready reserve for use as kamikazes against the fleets offshore and there was no shortage of volunteers willing to fly them. Japanese civilians had already shown a willingness to fight to the death and commit suicide instead of surrender on the islands of Saipan and Okinawa.

The invasion of Japan would've had an enormous effect on the American homefront as well. Although they were protected from direct fighting by two oceans, the American people had sacrificed much in order to assure that we remained the Arsenal of Democracy. By 1945, that willingness was wearing thin. We hear stories today of rationing and war bond rallies and how high everyone's morale was. These stories are true, but many historians believe that another two years of war and the transfer of millions of men to the Pacific from Europe (instead of the expected trip home) could've planted the seeds of unrest. A huge number of casualties in a very short period of time (the Olympic invasion was projected to cause as many as 50,000 casualties on the day of the invasion) would have been a huge blow to the nation's morale. Would there have been protests in the street? It's doubtful, but it definitely would've changed the nation's attitude about defending Democracy around the globe. It is doubtful that Korea would've been defended at all after such a costly loss less than a decade earlier.

Another factor to consider is Soviet intentions. The Soviets declared war on Japan in August right after the Hiroshima bombing. They probably would've done so anyway, meaning that Japan would most likely be divided between north and south just like Korea is today. It's economy would probably be a shadow of what it could be; this would have economic effects all over the globe.

I'm not going to say that the use of nuclear weapons was a great idea. Like all decisions in war, it was a choice between two evils. But not using them would've left us with a fundamentally different society and a world that, in my opinion, would've been more likely to consider the nuclear option.

"Me" Persecution

As I've mentioned before, I put together a little Tech News of the Week write-up for the PC Gurus newsletter. I linked to a funny column concerning how many people give phony information when filling out registration forms online. But one quote in the article really ticked me off for various reasons. It went something like this: "With Ashcroft breathing down our necks, I have several e-mail addresses that I use when I...".

Ashcroft is breathing down "our" necks? Really? Should I be frightened? Sheesh. There are several things to take away from this. First, the person being quoted names Ashcroft as if it's a given that he is some sort of Gestapo leader and that everyone knows this and agrees with it. People who make these broad statements of "fact" bother me, mainly because they tend to be pseudo-intellectual morons who run in circles with other heavyweights who do nothing but nod in agreement with the crap they spew. They whine about the Patriot Act and how we will all soon be living in concentration camps because of it despite the fact that none of them have actually read it, know how many people have been prosecuted under it or how many times it has been successfully challenged in court (zero on both counts, for those of you keeping score at home).

Second, generalities such at this make me think of people like Bruce Springsteen. Bruce and some other musicians are going on tour this fall under the banner of "Vote for Choice" or "Vote for Good Hair" or "Vote to Bring Back 1968 and Free Love" or something like that. They mean to defeat the Evil Bush with their music and enlightenend onstage outbursts of genius (we learned more from a three minute record, baby, than we ever learned in school ---- damn: Stephen Hawking, call your office) that will leave the audience motivated to bring America back to her senses, or something. What the tour is really about is the crying of an puberty-ravaged little boy who didn't get asked his opnion: "Look at me! Look at me! I've got something to say!". Shut up and sing, asshat.

I blame the Baby Boomers for most of this. I know that some of you are Boomers, but please hear me out. Most of you (especially those of you who are late Boomers) grew up and became productive members of society. But some of the Boomers who were of age during the Vietnam War did something else: they tried to change the rules. Many of them didn't want to serve their country, so they made the war into an unjust calamity (don't get me wrong---it was mismanaged as hell) while the better men than they went without question (and, yes, I count John Kerry among the better men, although there is some question as to his truthfulness about his service). And they marched and had love-ins and some of them even became terrorists against their own country.

So what did they accomplish? Nothing. The war was not shortened and their protests only gave aid and comfort to this nation's enemies (Think about that the next time Michael Moore cries like an unpaid whore about "supporting the troops" while the insurgents in Iraq can read every word he writes about this country). Today, they would have you believe they made a difference in some way. They have become our professors and our leaders of the mainstream media, so they can mold and control that message. But when they have passed away, history will remember their actions as sound and fury, signifying nothing.

So while the lame losers worry about Ashcroft beating down their door as if anyone cares what they do and Springsteen bores his ever-shrinking fan base, those of us who know better will see them as they truly are: self-absorbed cry babies who didn't get their way, nothing more than a speedbump in our recent history.

We didn't choose these times, Bruce; sorry you're so angry about it.

13 Going On 30

Kelli and I watched the movie "13 Going on 30" last night. Laugh if you must. For those of you unfamiliar with the film, it's about a 13 year old girl who wants desperately to be popular but fails at every turn. She wishes over and over again that she were 30; one morning she wakes up and she is (the adult is played by Jennifer Garner of "Alias" fame). From there, all the predictable things happen: the "I've got boobs" moment, the realization that adult men want sex, the realization that she has done some pretty underhanded things as an adult. It was more entertaining than I expected, but that might be because I like Jennifer Garner quite a bit as an actress.

The movie touches on a recurring thought that runs through my head: we slowly give up everything we hold dear as children in order to get along in the world. Obviously, some things don't change such as love of parents and siblings. But most things, like innate trust in people or dreams of fame and fortune, get swept aside by the need to keep a job, run a house, raise kids, etc. Some people call this maturity, and I guess they're correct: dreamers don't accomplish much. But I can't help but wonder whether or not we would be happier if we worked harder to hang on to our childish yearnings.

Atrocity Lies

Here's a little light reading about our Vietnam hero:

Swift Vets Against Kerry

I didn't hear a shot fired in anger during my time in the Navy, but I am ashamed that he served in the same branch of the military as I did.

My Creed

I was going through some old mail tonight and I found this from Sept. 5, 2001. I posted it once before on my old Blogger page, but I think it is worth repeating. It is something I wrote one night at work, and I think it does a pretty fair job of summing up what I believe. You'll notice that I don't use the word "Republican" anywhere.

Creed of an American Conservative

1. I am proud to be an American. The United States is the greatest nation the world has ever known. We have not only created a model for other nations to follow, but we have fought, many times, to ensure that the people of those other nations could know freedom. If you believe that European socialism is somehow more advanced or more "fair" than the Great American Experiment, please move to Europe because we are sick of your whining.

2. I am proud of our history. I know that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves; I am not nominating them for sainthood. They were men of their age and had character flaws like all great Americans. What made them and others like them great were their ideas and their willingness to see those ideas to fulfillment at the risk of their lives and reputations. Writing them out of our children's history books in the hopes of diminishing their importance will not dim them in the eyes of those of us who know the truth. We are the nation we are today because of the decisions taken by those who came before us. Overall, they did a damn fine job.

3. I like guns. I am not a hunter or a marksman. I do not have a shotgun rack hanging in the rear window of my pickup. I like guns because they are a physical manifestation of our freedom. Like it or not, many people throughout the world owe their freedom to Americans with guns who knew how to use them. If you don't like guns, don't own one. Just be glad that you could if you wanted to.

4. There are no hyphenated Americans. If you are living here now, your forefathers came here from somewhere else. It doesn't matter how they got here: land bridge, sailing vessel, slave trader, steamer, plane or wading through a river. What does matter is that we are all here now and were are one nation, indivisible. If your parents or grandparents were treated badly, join the club: we were all discriminated against. You have two choices: move forward and embrace the opportunities laid out before you or hold your hand out for something you don't deserve.

5. America is not an economic superpower because of big government. High taxes and increases in social spending did nothing to make this country what it is. Prosperity did not come from Washington. American is economically strong because of the millions of tough, hard-working men and women who are out there every day greasing the wheels our economy. Government is almost always a hindrance to economic strength and stability.

6. My taxes are too high. I don't mind helping to pay for defense, highway programs and education. But don't tell me that I have an obligation to help foreign nations who never have a kind word for us or artists who aren't talented enough to make it on their own. I work too hard to be giving away as much as I am. Once again, if you think you have an obligation to pay "your fair share", please move to Europe, where confiscatory tax rates are the norm.

7. You do not have the right to be safe at the expense of my freedoms. If you need a law to tell you to wear a seatbelt, you shouldn't be riding in a car. If you don't want to wear a helmet when you ride your motorcycle, that should be none of my business. Do I think it's foolish? You bet. But it's your life and you may do as you please with it. And don't tell me that safety laws are "for the children". Parents are supposed to be responsible for their children's safety, not federal and state governments.

8. All nations are NOT equal. We do not have an obligation to make ourselves weaker because other nations feel inadequate. As stated above, we have set a path for the rest of the world to follow. We should not be punished, economically or militarily, for being successful. We defended the free world all during the cold war and they should be damn glad that we were here to do it.

Now, as I post this, there is news that Washington and New York are on high terror alert. We are at war. This is not a law enforcement issue. Fortunately, this administration understands that. And that is why now, more than ever, I consider myself an American Conservative. Everything else pales in comparison.

Richmond

I forgot to mention this earlier, but I am in Richmond, VA because our office here is moving and their network needs to be set up. I welcome the change in my otherwise somewhat boring worklife, but I hate being alone in a hotel room (thank God for free broadband access). I can't imagine how people are able to travel once or twice a week and still maintain their sanity. I feel disjointed when I travel, as if everything is out of place.

So anyway, I probably won't be making any entries for the next few days. I'm working all day tomorrow and then hitting the road to go home, which will undoubtedly leaving me more than a little exhausted. I can't make these nine hours runs like I used to.