Opaque Lucidity

Blog Overkill?

Jack Shafer wrote a column for Slate last week concerning his attendance at a Harvard conference on blogging and journalism. The article is rather lengthy, but worth a read for it shows, in my opinion, how misunderstood blogging really is by many people in more established fields of communications.

Shafer compares the blogging craze to the introduction of portable video cameras. They were going to revolutionize the world and bring Hollywood to its knees because Everyman would now have the power of film-making at his fingertips. Now, Everyman uses his video camera to film his kids' soccer games and Hollywood movies are more successful than ever. Video was over-hyped and it soon fell back into perspective. The film industry adjusted, branched out and moved on. Shafer says that what is considered old media today (print, network television) will adjust to the onslaught of the blog and life will go on. The blog, he writes, is a "new media wrinkle."

I can't help but agree with Shafer on some of his points. Blogging is a very large fad right now. I can name perhaps twenty people in my immediate circle of family, friends and acquaintances who blog on a regular basis. Technorati.com claims that there are over seven million blogs. No matter your hobby or career, someone is blogging about it right now.

But the numbers are deceiving. It's hard to quantify, but I've read that between 35-40% of blogs are dead inside of a month. Many are only updated weekly or monthly. Many are very personal in nature and are not really intended for anyone outside of a tight circle of friends. Still others are so focused on one topic that they only acquire a niche following. So to put it in perspective, there may only be 100,000 or so people who are blogging about current events and the political scene on a daily basis in the United States. A trend? Yes. An avalanche of new media? Not yet.

Will blogs change how we receive our news? Probably, in that we will begin to demand that our reporters be more accessible. I see a day coming when reporters will generate buzz for a story by putting it online 30 minutes before a newscast or posting interview notes. This is a great thing for journalism because it makes another Rathergate almost impossible. If a reporter can withstand the scrutiny of millions of eyeballs, he can withstand anything.

When this craze has died down (and it will), there will still be the few dozen top-tier blogs who will continue to lay it out there for those of us who find TV banal and lazy. People like me who sit in the tenth row and throw snowballs at the cheerleaders will have to be content with what little attention falls between the cracks. We will never be treated with a great deal of respect and, to be honest, we shouldn't be working for that anyway.

The Choice-Conscious Consumer

Dennis Pragar had a guest on last week touting his book on our culture of choice (unfortunately, I was not in a position to write down his name or the name of the book). The author's premise is this: while some choice in society is good, too much choice has unintended consequences. He focused on increased unhappiness as a result of too many choices. For example, imagine you have $25,000 to spend on a new car. You have dozens of choices in that price range, even if you narrow your decision to one type of vehicle. The author's assertion was that many people, even after the purchase, are unhappy with their vehicle because there were so many other possibilities which might have brought greater satisfaction. In some circles, this is considered a type of "buyer's remorse."

I guess I've been blessed in that most of my buying choices in life have been limited by my wallet. I've never spent more than $15,000 for a car, a very pedestrian sum that limits one's choices to about 10 decent models. But then, I've never seen a car as a measure of my manhood or a member of the family; they are as disposable as toasters.

I guess it is a true sign that we have gone from comfortable to decadent when a man can write a book about choice being a problem in society and it's taken seriously. I think most of the choices we have in consumer goods come from the marketing people who feel the need to constantly dazzle us with the newest and most improved whatever. In the end, I think the almightly dollar does more to dictate our choices than anything. If not, then how would Wal-Mart/Sam's Club have ever become what it is today? If pickles are $1.99 for a 30 gallon bucket, a lot of people are going to buy even if they have no earthly idea what to do with that much cucumber.

Sorry if I've rambled a bit; there was supposed to be a point in there somewhere.

Iraqi Blogs

Hindrocket over at Powerline has posted a list of Iraqi blogs. Most of them make for interesting reading; they are pre-MSM filtering, like good, strong coffee for the American soul.

On another note, I noticed that Powerline, too, used "Redux" in their Kerry title this morning. For what it's worth, I beat them by a little over 45 minutes. No, I'm not bragging; I'm just flattered that I might actually be on the same wavelength as those guys in the Great White North.

Kerry Redux

Senator John Kerry's appearance on Meet the Press this morning was his first since his loss in the Presidential election. He is, for all intents and purposes, the Kerry you knew then: vague, talking-point inclined and tan. Very tan. And despite nearly a full hour of questioning, the overriding theme was not one of a future-looking figure planning of 2008, but of a man who, depsite his loss, has not learned a single lesson from November.

On a positive note, Kerry took all the blame for his loss. His one caveat was that since he gained votes in all the battleground states, a shift in votes to Ohio would've meant a Democratic victory. Tim Russert reminded the Senator that the same could be said for the President in places like New Hampshire and Oregon. And if your aunt was a man, she'd be your uncle. Numbers alone do not tell the story of American elections. It's all about numbers in the right places, and the President had more. Re-engineering the vote into a fantasy victory is best left to Howard Dean and Micheal Moore.

The Senator mentioned his famous four-point plan for Iraq. Can anyone list these four points for me? I'm sure one of them includes the UN and/or France, Germany and Russia (those three nations without which a coalition doesn't exist in the mind of Democrats), but what are the other three? Seemingly, it is enough that he says a plan exists---details are for non-believers. Vote for me not because I have a history of action, but because I care more.

Kerry claims that foreign nations have offered to help with police training and have been rebuffed by the White House. Who? Syria? Jordan? Saudi Arabia? Could it be that the countries offering have no sense of or love for democracy? We don't know because, like his conversations with foreign leaders who endorsed him, no names are or ever will be forthcoming.

The Senator claimed that this election was purely a reaction to 9/11. On one hand, it was. The modern Democrat Party has a long history of turning conflicts into quagmires and drawnout occupations. Since 9/11, only Republicans have shown the willingness to do what it needed now: finding terrorists and killing them. When it comes to matters of war, the American people do not take the Democrats seriously.

But 9/11 is not the only reason for Kerry's loss. The real reason lies with the man himself. This election was about lies: lies told about a trip to Cambodia that never happened, wounds that did not merit Purple Hearts, protests that demeaned men with whom Kerry served and other lies of convienence ("I'm personally opposed to abortion, but...") that turned the American people against this fortunate son from Massachusetts. In the final analysis, one thing remains as clear now as it was in November: John Kerry doesn't get it.

"This proves that we are now free"

The polls in Iraq are now closed. There have been deaths today, both Iraqi and allied, but the AP is estimating that turnout may have been as high as seventy-two percent. We won't know any hard numbers for more than a week, but if the 72% number holds, it will be higher than any turnout in the US since 1900. Would you walk 13 miles to vote?

Already, the bias of the MSM is showing. Tim Russert on 'Meet the Press' did not mention turnout estimates at all (they were mentioned in passing by Brian Williams in Iraq), despite the fact that his network embraced in accurate exit polls in this nation as if the election depended on them.

More on MTP in an hour or so.

Liberty Moves Forward

It is dawn on Sunday in Iraq. Today, for the first time in over 50 years, the Iraqi people will elect their own leaders. This right, taken for granted here, has been incredibly costly for the American people. Over 1,300 American soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen have died to secure this day. Thousands more will never be whole again. The end of this election cycle will not mean the end of violence or discord in Iraq; in fact, it will probably get worse. But only for a time.

Democracy is the natural state for human organizations. We were meant to be free and to follow leaders of our choosing. Freedom of political choice was not invented, but discovered. Dictatorships, theocracies and the like are abberations in the natural order. But it takes desire and sacrifice to maintain liberty. One day soon, the Iraqi people will have to decide for themselves if they are willing to sacrifice for this lofty goal.

On Sunday in the United States, you will undoubtedly hear critics say that a democratic Iraq was not the goal of the 2003 invasion. As the MSM media will cry from their ivory towers, this war was about WMDs. Those who needed a reason to oppose this war for their own purposes have clung to this falsehood. Instead of arguing this point, I point you to the actual war resolution voted on by Congress in 2002. Here's an interesting item located therein:

...Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population...

The WMDs were gone by the time of the invasion. Only a fool thinks they were never there. But if this nation's sacrifice in Iraq is to be considered worthwhile, the experiment of democracy must at least be attempted in Iraq. And if it succeeds, history will judge our efforts justified.

Missing Medal of Honor

I play games online. Yes, I'm that guy, the 33-year old who still buys the occasional PC game. Guilty. I don't get to play very often, maybe three or four hours a week. But I enjoy it a lot and, if I didn't have any responsibilities in my life, I would probably play more than is considered healthy. The only online games I play are called FPSs, or first-person shooters. They are all basically the same: two or more teams hunt down and kill each other.

I started online FPS play with a game called Medal Of Honor. It was set in World War Two. I began playing because some of my friends in Texas had joined a clan (a formalized team). I played for several months and had a pretty good time. Work and some internal politics made me back away, but I came away from the whole thing with a pretty good feeling. The people who played were, for the most part, fairly mature; those who weren't were dealt with harshly.

So I bought Half-Life 2 when it came out a few months back. Included with the game is an online FPS called Counter-Strike:Source. Needless to say, I jumped right back into the scene after more than a year out. Man, oh, man...things are different.

Even though the game is rated as violent, many of the players seem to be 13-15 year old males. As some of you know, there is nothing worse than a teenaged boy. I know; I was one. The server that I play on most often is in St. Louis (close servers deliver better performance) and it's a beatdown for me, an average player at best, to even show up. The "good" players blame the not-so-good players for every loss and missed opportunity. What was once a form of relaxation is now almost a cause of stress.

I guess my point is that if this is the future of online game play, then I don't want to have anything to do with it. I don't know if kids are just "punkier" now or maybe more homes have broadband internet access. I realize that many of these kids are really zit-faced skinny nerds hiding from the world in mom and dad's basement and that online gaming is the only way for them to feel special, but what's a grown man to do to blow off steam?

I want an adults-only gaming service. We would play the same games, but with only people over 21. I read somewhere that more people over 30 buy games than people under 30, so there must be an audience for this out there somewhere. Call me---I will be your leader.

Speechless

I saw this on Fark. It has not been re-touched:

Ah, the future.

TypeKey Shoptalk

You may have noticed that the procedure for posting commentary here has changed. In order to circumvent the wait for manual inspection of your post, you need to go to TypeKey and register. It's free, but you do need to give them a legitimate e-mail address. Also, please know that, when you post here, your real e-mail address will be visible to visitors. The first time you go to comment after registering with TypeKey, you will be asked to log in to the service before commenting. That's it.

If you have any questions or difficulties, please e-mail me.

Elder Statesman

Radio Blogger has some excerpts of Bill Clinton's interview with Charlie Rose in Switzerland. As I read through it, I couldn't help but think that he's trying to establish himself as some sort of elder statesman in an attempt to finally establish a meaningful legacy.

If you're old enough to remember the Carter Administration, then you knew a time when former Presidents all but disappeared. They wrote books (Richard Nixon), ran charities (Jimmy Carter, until recently) or played golf (Gerald Ford). They would answer the current President's call for service, like the recent call from President Bush for President Clinton and President G.H.W. Bush with regard to tsunami relief. But they almost never spoke on current issues. There was no law against it; it was a tradition that had been honored since the earliest days of the country.

The dawn of the 21st Century saw a change. The two biggest violators of the tradition have been Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Carter has voiced strong opposition to how the war on terror is being handled. After a while, he begins to sound like that know-it-all retired guy who hangs out at the barbershop---you have to listen to him because that's the respectful thing to do, but you laugh at him behind his back.

President Clinton is a different animal. He doesn't attack the President directly, but rather talks about what he sees as America's past and present foreign and domestic policy mistakes. He comes across as the confessing sinner, sorry that he had to lead such a mess for eight years. European audiences, always looking for a reason to hate us, love the message.

I don't expect anything different from Clinton. After all, his wife is going to run for President in 2008, so he must frame this administration as a failure, even if indirectly. Further, nothing he said in the Rose interview is blatantly false (although some of it is intentionally vague, such as what happened in Iran in the early 1950's). He even said he likes President Bush but that "we're very different people". Really?

Presidents, present and former, are forever changed by their tenure in the White House. They lead the free world and oversee the world's only superpower. Their face, their words and their actions forever represent this nation. I don't expect Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter or anyone else to sing President Bush's praises at every opportunity; that would be disingenious. But is it too much to ask for them to be ambassadors of the good things that this country has wrought? We have done far more for the world than we have done to it--who better to convey that message than former living Presidents?

Why You Need A Codename

I was standing in the doorway of my manager's office yesterday afternoon when the conversation turned towards the next version of Windows, codenamed "Longhorn". As we pondered when it will be released, one of my co-workers asked, "So they're going to call it Windows Longhorn? That's not very good." I explained that Longhorn is just a codename cooked up by the development team and that some well-financed group would come up with the retail name, which I submitted should be Windows Craptastic! or WindowsNMO (for Not the Mac OS).

If you work for a large enough company, you know the pain of having someone way, way outside of your command structure come into your little corner of the world and start asking questions. You can't just blow the person off because that's not very professional; yet, you really don't have the time or the inclination to get into the nitty-gritty details.

Here's my solution: give all projects, no matter how small or tedious, a codename. I like different types of fish because there are thousands of them and they range from harmless to deadly. Here's how a typical conversation would flow:

Interloper from Accounting: Hi, Matt. How are ya?
Matt: Fine. How are you?
Interloper: Well, let me tell ya....(3 minute dissertation on terrible life)....oh, whatcha workin' on?
Matt: Swordfish
Interloper: Swordfish?
Matt: Yup.
Interloper: What's that?
Matt: I'm sorry, are you cleared for Swordfish?
Interloper: I don't kn...how would I know if...
Matt: If you don't know, then you probably aren't.
Interloper: Yeah, I guess you're right. (Walks off scratching head)

Think about the implications for a moment. As use of codenames spread throughout the company, you would be considered a real power player if you knew what they all referred to. Thus, people would become afraid to ask what a codename meant because they wouldn't want to appear clueless to their co-workers. Even worse, upper management would not want to appear clueless in front of the employees. That would lead to conversations such as this:

Senior VP: What's Matt working on?
Manager: Hammerhead.
Senior VP: Oh..um...oh...really?
Manager: Yes.
Senior VP: Hmm...well, that's great! Tell him to keep up the good work.
Manager: Will do.

Of course, there will be people who won't play along. These people should be terminated early before they can spread their rot to the rest of the organization.

Can you tell it's Friday?

A New Day

A hearty thanks to all of you who posted and sent reassuring e-mails concerning our little "problem" here. I had someone suggest that we just ignore the miscreant, but it's pretty hard to do when the person is that obnoxious and his attacks are that personal.

I'm not going to have much time to tweak the comments section today, so if you post something and you don't see it appear right away, please be patient; I'm still manually approving everything.

Also, I have decided to leave the comments to old posts open for 5 days unless a certain post is "hot", in which case I'll leave it open until it quiets down. This will cut down on the spam that appears on archived posts. And, since I can now comment safely as myself, I will begin doing that as well. One day taught me how hard it is to not post a (to us a Sly-ism) hot sports take when someone disagrees with me. I miss the interaction.

So, with this post, our little adventure into attempted usurpation ends. Let's get back to the business at hand: politics, culture, tech stuff and all the other odd stuff that makes our world go round. There is much to talk about.

Sounding All Clear

Thanks to the genius and generosity of my friend Kyle, I have been upgraded to version 3.15 of Movable Type. This means that comments can be much more secure and, hopefully, you won't be prodded to play poker online all the time. I'm getting ready to hit the rack, so I won't do too much tonight. Suffice it to say that, right now, everyone's comments will have to be approved by me before they become visible. If you comment tonight, just post as you normally would; I will check them at some point in the morning. I'll give more details later.

I can't thank all of you enough for being there for me.

Belay My Last

You know what? I want to thank Hash for his e-mail of five minutes ago. He made me change my mind. This is not how a man handles his troubles. I'm going to continue to leave the comments open today and from here on out. However, since this subhuman treehugger wants to imitate me, I'm not going to post any comments. So if you see Matt or Kelli, it's not us; open fire.

If you don't post here, please start. If you post here often, please post more...like 20 times a day. Let's see what this asshat is made of. Somewhere, he's going to make a mistake (he's already made a glaring one by telling us all something about his private life---see if you can find it) and we'll be there.

Until further notice, the comments area of this blog is a free-fire zone and John Kerry ain't here to pull anyone out of the water. If you are easily offended, please just read my posts and skip the comments. You have been warned.

As Basil King said, "Be bold---and mighty forces will come to your aid."

Say Goodbye

Unfortunately, I have had to discontinue the comments on all current and future posts until further notice. My friend Hash got the last post in, possibly forever. This action has been taken as the result of one person's undying need for attention. I can not police this blog 24 hours a day and I can not have people pretending to be me. He is requesting an apology for something that was entirely of his doing; since I'm not a liberal, I do not apologize for things of which I am not guilty.

I know who his home service provider is, who his company's service provider is and the area of country in which he resides. He was also able to route his posts through a server in Amsterdam. I also have some other information gleaned from his posts that I will not publicize here. I have already taken the first step towards legal action against this individual. Stupidity has a price.

For those of you who have posted intelligent, insightful comments over these many months, thank you. Hopefully, things can return to normal one day. As always, feel free to contact me via my e-mail link on the left-hand side of this page. It has been a pleasure sharing this space with all of you.

Secretary of Haze

In my NyQuil-induced haze of Tuesday and Wednesday, I missed the post over at Powerline concerning a USA Today editorial by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Sec. Albright suffers from two things common to out-of-the-spotlight liberals: arrogance and forgetfulness. Her analysis of the situation in Iraq would be hilarious if not for the fact that she actually had the job of spearheading this nation's foreign policy.

She states that the insurgency in Iraq seems to grow stronger all the time, mainly because we do not have enough troops on the ground. I don't seem to recall her giving the same analysis to the situation in Somalia in 1993, when clearly under-resourced Americans were denied tanks and other armored vehicles because then-Secretary Warren Christopher and President Clinton did not want to heighten tensions in Mogadishu. How would that sound for a bumper sticker: "Christoper denied, Americans died." Albright must surely know something that the Pentagon and all of our intelligence agencies don't, since we've never really heard any hard numbers about the insurgency. I'm no math whiz, but if A is unknown, then isn't A+1 or A-1 still unknown?

In her brief summary of how to turn things around, Albright mentions that the US should "do what it takes to secure the cooperation of Iraq's neighbors". because "the bad guys in Iraq are truly bad and cannot be allowed to win". Well, I'm glad we at least agree on who the bad guys are. The last time I checked, none of Iraq's neighbors (except Israel) were bright lights of democracy. I could be wrong, but I doubt any of them are wild about the idea of a democratic Iraq. How could we bring them on board? Well, we could abandon Israel, turn Iraq over to whichever group has killed the most Iraqis during the insurgency, and begin gassing the Kurds in the north. Or, by golly, we could take the risk of having a free and democratic Iraq and hope that other nations in the area follow suit one day. Or maybe, just maybe, Secretary Albright doesn't really think that people with brown skin can handle democracy.

Finally, Albright mentions that the administration needs to "admit mistakes". Is this a game of table tennis or a war? Yes, mistakes have been made and anyone with a brain knows what they are. But whiny groveling to the likes of Ted Kennedy or the UN will do nothing for Iraqis; it would, however, do everything for Albright and the party she represents.

The Times, They Are A Changin'

I had to ban someone from this blog last night, something that I have never done to a human being in the nearly 3 years I have had a blog (1.5 years here and 1.5 at the Dattblog). The only way to ban someone is to block their IP address, which is fairly easy to foil if you know what you're doing (and this person evidently does, since he has a broadband connection which normally assigns "sticky" IPs). Why was he banned? Because he made a derogatory comment to my wife, who is also an author/administrator of this blog. Yes, that's a sore spot. Deal with it.

I'm not really angry about the events of the past couple days, just a little disappointed. This blog is popular enough that something like this was bound to happen, and it will happen again. I guess it sort of dings my faith in people a little bit. Such is life.

I've decided to change the way some things are handled here. For the most part, it's no big deal; these things will just make it easier for me to manage the blog and, hopefully, will make it a more enjoyable place for people to come read and be read. I'm not allowing comments to this post; these rules are not up for debate. If you have a question or a concern, please drop me an e-mail. Those of you who know me know that I am fair. And so:

1. All opinions are welcome here. Those of you who are regular "commentarians" (Hash, Sly, Joe, Troy, Tony, David...sorry if I missed anyone) make this site more enjoyable and thought-provoking and I hope you will continue to do so. All I ask is that you try to keep comments on-topic. Some diversion is normal, but there are many people out there who try to turn every argument in their direction so as to make it about them, not about the issue at hand. If you read other comments or forums on other sites, you know what I mean.

2. No flamewars. I'm as guilty as anyone about this, especially when someone makes me angry. If you don't know what the term flamewar means, then you probably have nothing to worry about. If you're thinking about making a personal attack, don't; I can and will remove your post. Argue the topic, not the poster. If you want to be a pre-pubscent boy, you can go to Slashdot or Fark, where chaos reigns.

3. I'm not going to comment about my own posts. I almost always post commentary on something I write, but I'm not going to do it anymore. Like the late Johnny Carson, I will let the work speak for itself. If someone disagrees with me and you think I'm right, then you'll have to step up and comment. If I have made some sort of factual error in my post, then it's up to me to go correct it IN the post, not in the comments. So if you see a comment from "Matt", you'll know it's not me. Losers have been known to imitate others on blogs; you need to defend yourself. If it happens to you here, drop me a line and I'll fix it.

4. Only the previous two days of posts are going to have open commentary. On or about the beginning of the third day (hey, I have a day job!), I will close the comments section on anything more than 72 hours old. You can still read the comments, but you will not be able to add to them. I didn't want to do this, but experience has shown me that, in most cases, people stop commenting on a post after about two days anyway. This will allow me to keep the postings clean and delete any miscreants who might wander in.

That's it. Thank you for reading. If you feel that some of this hit you squarely in the face, please don't run away. Come back and take your place at the table. But, as Jim Rome says, have a take and don't suck.

One Plate, Two Forks

I'm home from work today with a pretty bad cold, so I've had quite a bit of "deep thought" time. As I read back over my posts before the election and some of the links therein, one theme is constant: our nation is divided like never before. The 2004 election was close; 2000 was even closer. Anti-war protests, while not common, are no longer rare. A snapshot of our times would be enough to make one worry about the future.

But I disagree with the entire premise. I do not believe that this nation is any more divided now than it was, say, a generation ago. There are several reasons why I say this; for the sake of my aching bones, I'll be brief:

1. Communication is better now among common people than it has ever been. The fact that you are reading this blog is proof that anyone with an internet connection and an opinion can now air their laundry for the world to see. I know many of my readers personally, but I dare say that I would not have come into contact with many of you if not for this space. I believe that forums such as this one inspire people to share their opinions more than ever. Before common use of the internet, how much political debate did you have with people outside your family? You may have had some but, for some of us, political and social debate is now a daily part of who we are. Thus, I know more about your opinions than ever, which makes a difference in opinion seem larger than it would've seemed before.

2. Division in our country is nothing new. Look at the debate over slavery in the 1850's or civil rights in the 1960's. These debates split families and, in the first case, caused a war. We will have no civil war over Iraq or Social Security or the New York Times. I think we all like to see our time as being the "most" something, but we do not own the day with regard to cultural division. But, because of reason number one above, we know more about it.

3. The media loves a good fight because we love a good fight. Why is reality TV so popular? Because it's all about fighting and personal divisions. The news networks, in my opinion, are "awfulizers"---the worse you can make a story, the more people will watch. Thus, a few hundred protesters at the inauguration become a symbol of a nation divided. Nevermind that there are always protesters in Washington, DC.

Do we have problems? You bet. But I look at intelligent debate, overall, as a good thing, not a sign of division. And the fact that any slob with a cold can talk to the world from his computer (and be taken seriously by a few) is awesome.

The Proud 31

You know by now that 31 Marines have been killed in a helicpoter crash in the western desert of Iraq. They were all members of the 1st Marine Division and were flying in a CH-53 Sea Stallion, the monster machine that is one of the workhorses of the Corps. Details are forthcoming.

I don't know anything about those 31 Marines. They may have been members of the same unit, or they may have been a random collection of people who just needed a ride back to Baghdad or wherever the flight was going. There would've been at least two officers on board, but most of those on board were probably enlisted.

I do know that they were from everywhere. Maybe there was the guy from NYC who had never seen a desert before he joined up sitting next to a guy from New Mexico who had never known anything else. There could've been the guy from North Carolina (there's always a guy from North Carolina) whose father and grandfather had been Marines. On the narrow bench across from him there may have been the guy who had had a giant argument with his dad over enlisting but did it anyway. The Marines were his family now.

They were from every ethnicity found in this nation. To most of them, race had become irrelevant---these Marines were their brothers. They trusted each other with their lives not because they were ordered to, but because they were trustworthy. They flew into battle in machines that are, in many cases, older than they. And though you didn't ask, they did it for you and me.

Vox Blogoli One, 2005

Hugh Hewitt has posted his first Vox Blogoli of 2005. In case you don't know what I'm talking about, head over to his site (linked under my "BLOG" section) for a closer look. Basically, it boils down to this: Hugh puts a link or a passage on his site. Our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to post our thoughts on said article or passage. We then send our site links to Hugh, and he posts them on his site. It's great fun and it allows those of us who are active bloggers to read stuff we may not have seen before. So here's the passage (from Jonathan Rauch in the New Atlantic---no link to the article because it requires a subscription):

“On balance it is probably healthier if religious conservatives are inside the political system than if they operate as insurgents and provocateurs on the outside. Better they should write anti-abortion planks into the Republican platform than bomb abortion clinics. The same is true of the left. The clashes over civil rights and Vietnam turned into street warfare partly because activists were locked out of their own party establishments and had to fight, literally, to be heard. When Michael Moore receives a hero’s welcome at the Democratic National Convention, we moderates grumble; but if the parties engage fierce activists while marginalizing tame centrists, that is probably better for the social peace than the other way around.”

I immediately thought of three things when I read this. Let's take them in the order of appearance:

First, I know it's just an example, but is Rauch trying to make the point that most pro-life advocates are willing to bomb abortion clinics? I almost stopped reading there because that one sentence indicates to me how out of touch the writer is with mainstream America.

Second, and more central to the theme of the passage, is the unmistakeable link on the Left between inclusion and peace. It is Chamberlain coming back from Berlin, telling the world that Hitler is a man he can do business with. It is unbelieveable to me that writers like Rauch do not understand that Micheal Moore and his equivalents on the Right (I dont' know if there is such a thing, but let's assume there are) are who they are precisely because they are outside of the tent. Their rabblerousing is the only thing that keeps them in existence. Once you invite them to the Convention or invite them to the table of rational debate, they cease to be who they are. It's the Yassar Arafat Rule: you can take the man out of the fight, but you can't take the fight out of the man.

Finally, I think Rauch need to recognize that there will always be people who are willing to take it to the streets in support of a cause. Our world is full of professional protesters, people who do nothing but organize demonstrations. And you know what? Sometimes it takes an angry throng in the streets to bring about change, both here and abroad. I hope we never live in a country where no one cares enough to speak his mind in the public square.

Class vs. Jackass

Mel Gibson's religious blockbuster "The Passion of the Christ" missed out on main categories, but did pick up nominations for cinematography, makeup and original score.

Michael Moore's gamble to hold his hit film "Fahrenheit 9/11" out of the documentary category - to boost its best-picture prospects - backfired. The movie was shut out across the board.

If you know anyone who lives in or near Hollywood, then you know that Michael Moore ran full page ads in Variety and other trade publications, essentially begging for Academy Award members to nominate his propaganda hit piece for Best Picture. Well, well, well, Mikey....now you know who your friends are. Your guy lost the election and now you're about as useful to the Left as a rifle to a Frenchman.

Moore reminds me, in this way, of the unpopular kid at school who has something the other kids don't have, like a swimming pool. Everyone will come over to his house to swim, but no one really likes him. When winter comes, he goes back to being an outcast. I hear Blockbuster is hiring.

Mel Gibson, on the other hand, did nothing to promote his film for Oscar consideration. I didn't see The Passion, nor do I have any desire to. But Gibson decided, rightly, to make this film because it was burning inside of him. Then, when it was a huge success, he decided to let the work speak for itself. He won't win any accolades from the movie industry, but I know he'll have the respect of history.

Fermi2

This on Drudge:

FLASH: Fermi 2 nuclear power plant in Michigan is shut down... 'We have a leak of reactor coolant into the containment structure... leak rate was about 75 gallons a minute but is reducing,' John Austerberry, spokesman... 'there is no indication of a radioactive release'... MORE...

If true, the damage to the struggling nuclear power advocates in this nation will be almost total as this story will be completely blown out of proportion to real events. Jane Fonda, call your office.

Death From Above

I'm going to go be sick now.

Rehab

So I started a diet today. To be more specific, Kelli and I started a diet today. It's the first time that both of us have started a specific, meal-planned diet together, which gives me hope of success. The first two weeks will be the most difficult, for there are many, many bad habits I need to change. The 173lb. man who graduated from boot camp in March, 1990 is now carrying 100lbs more on the same frame. I'll be 34 in May. How many obese 80-year olds do you know?

I have tried countless diets in the past decade and all of them have met with failure. Those of you who have tried to shed pounds understand from whence I come. I realized, about four years ago, that permanent weight loss will require not just short-term sacrifice, but a change in our lives. Years of working nights took their toll on me, with too many trips to Taco Bell and White Castle. I'm being public about this change because I have a guilt thing about breaking a diet in front of people who know I'm dieting. There is no substitute for public shame.

So please keep us in your thought, especially over the next two weeks. The road is long. Thanks.

45,000,000

Saturday was the 32nd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in the United States. The feminist movement and liberals in general have done a great job of making the abortion debate an argument about women's "rights". Thus, anyone who opposes abortion is anti-woman and probably doesn't want them voting, either. In their 1973 ruling, the Supreme Court said that the "right" to abortion "eminates from the penumbra" of the Constitution. Nevermind that the word "abortion" existed in the 18th century (it referred to a terminated pregnancy after "quickening"---the time when the mother could feel the child's movements) and that many of the people who support abortion somehow have a problem with the clear wording of the Second Amendment.

Pro-life advocates make the argument that national legalization of abortion (it was legal in a number of states before 1973) has lowered the value we place on life in general. This assertion is impossible to verify; after all, there are groups who say the same thing about rap music, movies and video games, yet no one can prove it. But there is one aspect of our lives that the abortion debate has definitely affected: the meaning of the word "right".

In the heyday of European monarchies, the serfs had no rights. Our Founding Fathers tried to remedy this by granting us (well, white males, anyway) three basic rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's broad, but with good reason. The Founders understood that there would be future changes that they could not predict. Thus, the courts of the land could interpret and, if necessary, change the constitution. Those three basic rights, along with the right to vote, have now been extended to all Americans who have reached the age of majority.

Even in our country, rights have limitations. Generally, the rights of the individual stop when they begin to overlap the rights of other individuals (I can't shoot someone who cuts me off in traffic, thus threatening my ability to pursue happiness) or society in general (I must sell my property to the government if they can prove that it will be used for the public good). There is a constant debate concerning what should and should not be a right, which is a good thing. But overall, our society has slid further and further down the road towards a universal concept of rights: that is, if enough people think something should be a right, then it should be.

You may be thinking that this is how a free society who elects its own leaders should function. But consider for a moment that, until 1920, women could not vote. There had always been a sufferage movement, but it was a vocal minority until after the First World War. Does this mean that women should not have been given the right to vote in, say, 1840? Of course not. It was unethical and immoral, but most Americans either ignored the issue or didn't think that women's sufferage was the way to go.

Thus it is with abortion. You can speak about it in euphamisms or vague politically-correct buzzwords, but that doesn't change the fact that it's about killing a pre-born life. Even someone who subscribes to a life full of situational ethics must admit that it is, at some level, abhorrent. Calling abortion a right doesn't make it one (regardless of skewed constitutional interpretation), nor does it make right.

The Pueblo Incident

Today in 1968, the USS Pueblo, a Navy intelligence ship, was intercepted by North Korean torpedo boats in international waters. The Pueblo was lightly armed and had no choice but to surrender. The 83-man crew was taken to a compound outside of Pyongyang where they were held for 11 months. President Johnson, already taking heat over the Tet Offensive still raging in Vietnam, chose no direct retaliation.

Eighty-two of the crewman were released (one sailor died from injuries received during the piracy) after the United States admitted that the ship was spying in North Korea's territorial waters (the ship was 16 miles out, not inside the 12 mile limit) and promised not to do so in the future. However, the most interesting part of this whole thing occured while the sailors were still being held.

The North Koreans had the grand idea of staging a propaganda photo shoot to show the world how well their prisoners were being treated. Only a group of American servicemen could've thought up what came next: they told their captors that an extended middle finger was a sign of good will and respect. Thus, many of the photos showed the men casually giving their guards the finger.

The Tao Of Hugh

On Thursday, January 20th, I had the great honor of being mentioned in a post on Hugh Hewitt's blog. I had called into the show to express my thoughts on the President's inauguration speech. Hugh liked something that I said ("This was a speech for Americans not yet born") and so I got a chance to plug this blog.

I was looking at the stats for this site this morning and I discovered that, on January 20th, Opaque Lucidity received more unique visitors (over 1200) than any other day since I moved here from the Dattblog in September 2003. Of course, most of those are bots of one type or another (I don't know how to glean true human visitors yet, and I may not want to know), but I'm sure that at least 200 new people arrived here for the first time.

For those of you who are new, welcome. I hope you bookmark this page and return often. I post six days a week (seven if something interesting happens over the weekend) and sometimes more than once a day. Most of the posts concern politics, but I also make observations about life, both general and personal. If you read back through the archives, you will find posts aimed at friends and family. It's just what I do---I write about whatever's on my mind that day.

Feel free to comment, but be aware: the regulars here love a good debate. Bring both guns and be prepared to check back often. Welcome aboard.

And thanks, Hugh.

Scared Of Truth?

Wow. That's about all I can muster right now concerning this Diana West column in the Washington Times. Please, please take a few minutes and read the entire piece. Then come back; this is something we really need to talk about.

Thanks to the guys over at Powerline for the link.

Two More Thoughts On Yesterday

I was a little shocked when I read Peggy Noonan's column this morning. Noonan worked in the Reagan White House, so she's not exactly a lightweight conservative. Yet she expresses some reservations about the President's speech yesterday. Namely, she believes that he has thrown his weight behind the foreign policy moralists and abandoned the realist side of the coin that says we must pull our punches and realize that we can not, or should not, democratize the world.

It must be difficult to live as a journalist inside the Beltway and not become cynical. But I think Noonan is missing a few things in her analysis. While I will agree that the President's speech did seem overly optimistic on the surface, we must look at it compared to other inauguration speeches of our age. When JFK proclaimed that we would pay any price or bear any burden to insure the survival and success of liberty, he did not say American liberty. Like this President, he recognized that freedom is not given by governments, but is a right of all men for all times and places. Governments can either protect freedom or take it away; they can not erase it.

The terrorists in Iraq understand that a democratically-elected government spells the end of their way of life. In Syria and Iran and all the other Middle Eastern nations ruled by theocracies or monarchies or despots, a democracy in their midsts doubtless causes headaches. I think the President's speech was aimed squarely at those who fear freedom. It wasn't a threat of invasion, but a promise to promote democracy wherever it sprouts.

I think many pundits came away from the President's speech believeing that he wants to free the world. We can't do that, and we won't. But like the domino theory of communism, democracy has its own effect on neighboring states. We have started a fire in Iraq; the President just said that we're going to bring in more firewood.

As I watched the inaugural parade yesterday, I found myself reading the signs and listening to the chants of the the protesters. Their words were retreads of the Johnson-era "Hey, hey, LBJ..." stuff and their signs still accused the President of being a war criminal. My first thought was that each generation should have to come up with orignal anti-war slogans, but then I had a much more serious second thought, a lesson of history that the ne'er do wells holding signs will never understand.

The United States won the Vietnam War on the battlefield. After the Tet Offensive in 1968, both the Viet Cong and the NVA were decimated. But the other battle, the one taking place on college campuses and in newsrooms across this country, had a very different outcome. Over here, the left won the day. Public support for the war went away, leaving President Johnson and President Nixon after him only one choice: get us out of the war. In January, 1973, that's exactly what happened--the US signed a seperate peace treaty with the North Vietnamese.

Two years later, in April, 1975, North Vietnam completed its conquest of the South. The "brave" protesters who wanted us out of Vietnam got their wish. But the cost was steep: the communist government sent thousands to "re-education" camps and executed perhaps a million others. A million Cambodians suffered a similar fate. Thousands of families died in the Pacific while trying to escape the tyranny let loose by American abandonment. The awful lesson was that peace is not the absence of war, but instead is the absence of oppression.

Now, 30 years and a generation later, they still don't get it.

One For History

I noticed that ABCnews.com is already saying that the President's address today was "shorn of almost all reference to the political issues of the day." Can anyone in the MSM see beyond their own shadow for a second to realize that this inauguration speech was written for the ages, for people around the world and for Americans not yet born?

I thought President Bush's speech was a triumph and was probably the best speech he has ever given. Like the guys over at Powerline, I, too, thought back to Theodore Roosevelt's 1910 citizenship speech:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Today is a day for all Americans of all political stripes.

16th For The 43rd

Today is the 16th time in American history that a President has been sworn in to a second term. George W. Bush joins a line of men, both famous and infamous, who have sought and secured eight years in the White House. Some, like Presidents Eisenhower and Clinton, have presided over relatively peaceful and prosperous times. But today we focus on those who have governed through war, as this President is doing. History is a harsh master; we do not yet know how G.W. Bush will be judged from the distance of generations. But I believe that history is also, ultimately, fair over a long enough timeline. When the people who are most biased (those who bore direct witness to events) are gone from the scene, only the discovered facts of all sides remain without passion or prejudice.

James Madison was in the White House during the entire War of 1812. He saw the people's House burned by British troops and his wife become a national hero when she and her servants saved a painting of George Washington and other priceless relics. Few realized it at the time, but this war truly guaranteed our independence from European powers.

Abraham Lincoln's presidency was consumed by the Civil War. His second inaugural address is, perhaps, one of the greatest speeches ever delivered by an American President. When he gave it in March, 1865 (inaugurations were in March then) he had almost exactly a month to live. In that month, the war would end but hatred of this man by a radical few would continue. We will never know what kind of peacetime President Lincoln would have been; we do know that he saved the Union.

The United States became involved in World War One during Woodrow Wilson's second term. From a military standpoint, the infusion of American men and arms turned the tide against Germany and Austria-Hungray on the Western Front. Wilson dreamed of a world body that would prevent future wars of this magnitude, but his League of Nations could not find support in our own Senate. It continued as a largely impotent body until 1946. Many believe this failure killed Wilson.

Franklin Roosevelt is the only President to be sworn in four times. His first two terms were dominated by the Great Depression, his last two by the Second World War. Roosevelt is seen as both savior of the free world and communist appeaser by those who debate such things. While I could argue either side with equal fervor, it is doubtful that any other man of his generation could have lead the nation through those dark years.

Dwight Eisenhower was sworn into his first term during last full year of the Korean War. He promised an end to the war and he delivered in 1953, albeit with a divided nation that haunts us still.

Richard Nixon's second term saw the end of American involvement in the Vietnam War. People under 30 today only know Watergate as Nixon's legacy. But he ended the Vietnam War, broke the diplomatic ice with China and became a staunch ally to the state of Israel. Nixon became a respected elder statesman in his later years; I hope that is how he is remembered when the John Deans of this world have passed.

So, today, George Walker Bush joins these wartime two-termers. He will not receive the accolades due him from a biased press and an uninformed but maliced public. But I have faith in history and I believe that, long after we are all dead and gone, this President will be remembered as the man who took the fight to a nebulous and immoral enemy who threatened us on our shores.

Rice Burner

Dr. Condeleeza Rice's confirmation hearing before the Senate began yesterday. Most of you are probably aware of her exchange with Senator Babs Boxer of California, so I'm not going to repeat it here. The first part of the exchange is here.

Senator Boxer is aware, no doubt, of Dr. Rice's viability as a Presidential candidate in 2008; thus her disgraceful display. Rice will be confirmed, but it is important for the Dems to have this record on file, especially when it comes to Iraq. Those of you who consider yourself Democrats need to ask yourselves if Boxer represents what you want your party to be: sniveling, exaggerating (or lying, depending on who you ask) and weak-willed. If you want to have any chance of regaining the White House or the Congress, you would be well-served by marginalizing the Boxers of your world.

I feel particularly defensive about Dr. Rice because I like her so much. My thoughts about her can be summed up in something Cal Thomas wrote about her two years ago: "While her peers were singing 'We Shall Overcome', Condi just went out and did it." I don't think I'm overreaching when I say that she could be the next President---she already has my vote.

Agony Of The Flirt

The department in which I work consists of four people: three men and one woman. We are all in our 30's, and three of us are married. The lone woman has been married for 20 years (she was very young) and is attractive. I get into the office at 7; she gets in at 8. Our other co-workers arrive around 9, so we have about an hour where it's just the two of us. And before you think it...THIS POST IS NOT ABOUT ME, ASSHAT.

I mention the time because eight in the morning is when many of our phone repair and paper delivery people arrive. Over time, you get to know these guys pretty well. I'm sure they're decent men, but , almost without fail, they flirt relentlessly with my female co-worker. It's funny to watch, although I dare not point it out to her or them. This morning, a phone repair guy came in. As he was leaving, he turned to her and said, "Now you stay warm, OK, hon?" Would I have received such a touching expression of concern? Not on your life!

I have observed that most men become blithering idiots around beautiful women and I don't understand it. Many of these women are aware of the feelings they cause and take advantage of male weakness. Some women are oblivious to it. Some women think that the attention lavished on them has nothing to do with sex; these women are normally young and haven't learned the harsh reality that is a man. But we blunder on like a hungry pack of dogs, most of us ignorant of how stupid we really look and act.

Case in point: our Secret Santa Program. My Secret Santa (the person giving me the gifts) was an former Miss Louisville (I didn't know there was such a thing). It was assumed that I would be all gaga (sp.) over the prospect of finding this out on the Friday before Christmas. I was appreciative, but not overly excited. Why? Simple:

1. I'm married, and happily so.
2. If I was single, I would still have to deal with the fact that she is married.
3. Even if we were both single, I wouldn't necessarily want to spend time with her because it has been my experience that many people, not just pretty women, are self-centered wastes of time.
4. Even if I wanted to spend time with her, she might not want to spend time with me because I can be a self-centered waste of time.

So when I see a beautiful woman, I try to keep those four things in mind. It keeps me on track, which keeps me happy. And in my house ;-)

1990

I didn't mention it yesterday because of MLK and everything I wanted to say about that, but Sunday was the fifteenth anniversary of the day I left for boot camp. I have two polar reactions when I think of that day: it seems like yesterday and it seems so far away that it could've been someone else's life. Either way, that is the day I became an adult.

Sunday was also the 14th anniversary of the beginning of the first Gulf War. Like you, I watched it on CNN. I was in Nuclear Power School then, fighting from a desk. To me, then, it was exciting. But I was young, stupid and safe.

Adding To The List

Every morning during the week (and most Saturdays), I take a tour of the "big cities" in the blogosphere. Hugh Hewitt, Powerline and the blogs of friends and family are always on the list. But there are many, many blogs out there that I hit at random at least three times a week, some several times a day. Over the next day or so, I hope to add links to most of these. I will list the personal blogs of friends and family first, but after that nothing will be in any particular order. Most are political, but if you're reading this I assume that you are at least somewhat interested in politics. Please take the time to look at them at least once; you never know what you might find. This blog thing is going to impact all of us in ways we've only begun to imagine.

One of the blogs not linked here yet is Captain's Quarters. Captain Ed has posted an incredibly thought-provoking piece concerning the upcoming Iraqi elections. The last paragraph really struck me:

Don't underestimate the power and promise of self-government, especially for a people who have endured brutal and genocidal tyranny for most lifetimes. Don't overestimate the power of those who take their freedoms for granted and who appear to believe that democracy only works with Europeans. Increasingly, they have been revealed as defeatists and moral relativists who don't have much faith in democracy at all.

Amen.

Deficit Sweats

Harry Truman supposedly said once that he wanted a group of one-armed economists because the ones he currently employed kept saying, "But on the other hand...". My morning blog-run turned up an interesting post on Powerline that was linked to a column by Lawrence Kudlow in the Washington Times concerning the (gasp!) shrinking budget deficit.

Don't expect NPR or Dan Rathernot to do a big story on this any time soon. Why? Because it means that both Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush were right about tax cuts: if you give people more of their money back they will spend more, that will help generate more tax revenue and the economy will benefit. Shocking. This stuff is pretty much Macroeconomics 101-type stuff so I'm sure it goes unnoticed in the hallowed halls of the socialist elite who run the mainstream media. After all, if the red states can understand it, it must be too base to be useful.

Progress Of The Dream

Jesse Jackson was in Jonesboro, GA. yesterday to preach about the life and work of Martin Luther King, Jr. According to Jackson, King's dream is still marred by economic inequality and war (funny how that war thing crept in there). Jackson was with King when he was gunned down on April 4, 1968. In fact, you could say that King's death really gave rise to Jackson's career.

You will hear argued today how far we have come towards acheiving a colorblind society. In my opinion, we have acheived much, but there is much more to do. Racism is still alive and well in this country, but I believe it has been pushed into the fringes of our society; into the caves of those who must blames others for their failures.

But there is one segment of our society in which racism is as strong as ever: the so-called black "leadership". These self- and media-appointed individuals continually promote the concept of victimhood to any who will listen. I'm talking about the Jesse Jacksons, Al Sharptons and Quaze Mfumes of this country who exercise the worst form of racism that exists today: the assumption that all people of a certain skin color or ancestery should or do think the same way. This blind belief is echoed in advertising, music and political speech. If it is offensive to me, I can only imagine what it must seem like to a black man or woman who does not subscribe to the victimhood mentality.

People like Jackson need the victimhood class to grow. Without it, he is a nobody, a relic of the past. He must have a segment of society who sees racism around every corner so that he can continue to blackmail companies for donations to his cause. He has grown wealthy on the perversion of his friend's dream.

What would Dr. King say today?

Sirens of Titan

You probably saw the blurry pictures of Titan posted on the web last night. But, through the miracle of computer enhancement, we can finally see what's really on the surface:

Attack Of The 50-Foot Pop-up Ad

I don't like awfulizers. An "awfulizer" is a person who takes a situation which may or may not be bad and then describes it to others in the worst possible terms. I first ran into awfulizers in the Navy. There was one guy in particular who had been in my boot camp company who was the worst one I had ever met. My friend Dave Robertson, who was also in our company, and I would run into this guy in the Nuclear Power School. He was ahead of us in school because of his rate (I'll explain all this someday) and he loved to tell us how awful it was up ahead: "Oh, man, wait till you get to CMR (chemistry-metallurgy-radiology). I'm barely making it." The guy was very intelligent, which made his story somewhat believeable. After he left, Dave would stand there with his white hat back way too far on his head (like something out of a war movie), look off far into the distance and mutter around his dangling cigarette, "Goddamn that guy."

I was reminded of that guy this morning when I read this article in the LA Times. The story is fairly straight-foward: people are beginning to go offline because of spyware, adware and viruses. With this being the LA Times and all, there is no statistical proof that people are not going online as much (other than a smaller than expected increase in online purchases, which doesn't mean much). We are treated, as is the fashion in newspapers now, with heartbreaking stories of a few individuals with no computer skills who managed to hose their systems.

In the Times' defense, they do mention MS Windows' security problems. They don't, however, mention some of the things that people do to end up with spyware: go to online gambling sites, porn sites and sites that offer cool, free software (like free screensavers). They don't mention how much spyware now comes bundled with mainstream software (AOL's Instant Messenger comes bundled with Weather Bug, a notorious offender) or is downloaded with illegal stuff from Kazaa, eDonkey and other P2P networks. That's not to say that you can't get spyware innocently; it's just not as common.

I believe that stories such as this are the beginning of a push towards a climate in which everyone but the user is liable for damage to a home or business PC. The article mentioned Dell and internet service providers (ISPs) as somehow being at fault for this stuff. Dell? They sell PCs which run Windows (or any other OS you feel fit to put on it later). ISPs? They provide the road for you to drive down. Should the state be responsible because you hit another car on their interstate? How long until the lawyers get involved? After that, the hue and cry will be for government oversight and control. Everyone will pay more to cover the ISPs' cost of compliance with rules and regulations that will, ultimately, do nothing to stem the tide.

"I thought it was going to be like a television set — I'm going to sit right in front of it all day and have some control and learn things, scan for airfare and travel,"

It was never a TV and it should never have been sold to you as such. Your car isn't a bicycle---it takes time to be good at using it. If you're not willing to spend some time to learn to use your PC (or at least be responsible for it), then don't cry when it doesn't work for you.

Can you tell this hit a button for me?

Your Tax Dollars At Work

No freakin' way:

Most bizarre among the plans was one for the development of an "aphrodisiac" chemical weapon that would make enemy soldiers sexually irresistible to each other. Provoking widespread homosexual behaviour among troops would cause a "distasteful but completely non-lethal" blow to morale, the proposal says.

Huhuhuhuhuh....you said 'blow'....huhuhuhuhuh. You can't make this crap up.

More On The Establishment Clause

My nephew Tony has put up a wonderful post about the First Amendment and Creationism vs. Evolution. Take a few minutes and go over there. While you're at it, give him some props. Blogging needs to be encouraged.

On The Upper Gauge

If you don't live in the Kentuckiana area, you may not know that the Ohio River has once again come over her banks. High water is a yearly occurance here, but every few years the right combination of snow and rain here and upriver causes flooding. The river has crested now and, barring anything unforseen, should be on her way back down in a few days. A few roads have been blocked off in the downtown area and the enormous floodgate doors are in position, but the worst is over. All that will remain this time next week is the reminder that despite our technological advances, we are still at the mercy of extreme elements.

My family has lived in this area for 120 years. My father, two of my uncles and my grandfather made their livings on the river in their youth. Every spring was filled with mud, worry and repair of the wooden docks if they were underwater for too long. Growing up, there were three years that now come to mind whenever I think of floods: '37, '45 and '64. Those years represent the three worst floods in this area in the 20th century and my family lived through all three.

1937 was a depression year, so most of the people affected by the flood were already destitute. My grandfather told me one time that he and one of his brothers took a rowboat and broke out the front window of a grocery store. Once inside, they took all the canned goods they could carry off the tops of the flooded shelves. This was during the days when looters could be shot on sight.

The flood of 1945, like most floods in this area, came in the late winter/early spring. The Army brought in German prisoners of war from Fort Knox to work in Louisville. My dad, who was 12 at the time, clearly remembers the Germans, still in their uniforms, filling sandbags just a few blocks from his house. I have often wondered if any of those men are still alive and if they remember the year they helped hold back the Ohio River.

By 1964, my parents had tired of life on the river. In '63, they moved to the house they own now. It is only a few blocks from the river, but high enough that only a flood of Biblical proportions would touch them. The flood that spring turned out to be an adventure for one of my uncles. He and a friend helped my grandfather load his furniture onto a wooden barge. My grandfather then went to someone else's house to spend the night, confident that his son had the situation under control. Unbeknowenst to them, they had overloaded the barge until the dry seam (the line above which the wooden barge was not water-proofed) was underwater. The barge started to leak, forcing my uncle and his friend to patch the many holes with tablecloths and dinner napkins. All they had to work with were butter knives.

I am disconnected from the river now; it's just nice scenery for the drive home. The river made those men tough by its abuses, tough in ways I never had to be. I don't know whether I am richer or poorer for that.

On The Scene

Most people in the military do not carry weapons or ever get the chance to shoot at people. This may come as a shock to some of you, but the truth is that most of the people in the military keep things running so that other people can go and kill people or destroy things. That doesn't mean that they don't go into harm's way; it just means that killing bad guys isn't a part of their daily lives. I thought of this today as I read this post over at Powerline. The Navy helicopter pilots flying supplies into Sumatra and other places are trained to hunt submarines (among other responsibilities). To them, a sub is a target, a threat that must be destroyed before it can act. Most of those men and women will never stare an enemy in the face before they shoot him. So when they embark on a humanitarian mission like the current one, their job becomes personal in ways they probably never imagined. The following e-mail was posted at Powerline in its entirety. They were given permission to publish it by the e-mail's author, a Navy commander and pilot. I have no doubt of its authenticity, unlike the crap that is already circulating about this tragic event:

[W]hat you've seen on TV or in the newspapers can't even begin to give you an idea of the scope of the tragedy visited upon the people of Sumatra. I have flown over the vast majority of the affected area, and it is simply mind boggling. ... The charts that we use to navigate with as we fly just aren't accurate anymore. We go to where the charts tell us a town is located, and there is nothing there. ... Whole towns of up to 10,000 people simply do not exist anymore. The only evidence of there having ever been families going about their daily lives are the scattered concrete slabs where their homes used to be. ... Now imagine this as you fly down the coast for over a hundred and forty miles. As I write this, the CO of the Abraham Lincoln is speaking over the ship's intercom system about how survivors relate that the wave that struck them was over 60 feet in height.
Unfortunately, I was not able to fly my first mission until the sixth day of the relief effort because I was assigned to the Combined Task Force Headquarters in U-Tapao, Thailand as a liaison officer to the HQ from the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group. My first drop of supplies was in a town called Keude Tenom, about 70 miles south of Banda Aceh, where relief supplies are being staged for further transport to the affected areas. We landed in what used to be a small field just on the outside of the town. Hearing the helicopter approach, I was amazed to see approximately 100 people materialize out of nowhere and surround my helicopter. You could see the weariness in their eyes even through the excitement of seeing the 2,500 pounds of rice we were delivering to them. They immediately rushed to the side of the helicopter where one of my crewmen was doing his best to unload this precious cargo as quickly as possible. I distinctly remember seeing an older woman with a baby on her hip as she stood to the side of the crowd looking longingly at the 40 pound bags of rice being taken away. As we took off, I could only hope that she and that baby would be able to share in the simple rice that we had left behind.

Let me end this by saying what an honor it is for me to be given the privilege of serving with the men and women of Helicopter Antisubmarine Squadron TWO . They work long hours ensuring that our helos are ready to go every day, and then ask what more they can do to help. ... These people deserve the respect of every American who sleeps peacefully at night knowing that their freedoms are safeguarded by truly dedicated individuals.

Hang Up

If this wasn't so sad, it would be funny. The National Radiological Protection Board of Britain released a study yesterday stating that children under the age of eight should not use cell phone because they stand a greater chance of developing ear and brain tumors.

If accurate, that's shocking. But what's really shocking is this little tidbit from a Times Online article:

The news prompted calls for phones to carry health warnings and panic in parts of the industry. One British manufacturer immediately suspended a model aimed at four to eight-year-olds.

WHAT?!?! This can't be real. I know that Europeans love their cell phones, but isn't this going too far? What does a four year-old child do with a cell phone? When is he not with his mom and dad? "Son, call down to the pub, see if they're open, then run down there and get me a pint and a pack of smokes. There's a good lad."

I was born too late.

It's Pat! Going Down the Tubes!

From Drudge:

'AIR AMERICA' RATINGS TURBULENCE IN NY CITY: Surprising many observers who expected it to shine during election season, all-liberal upstart WLIB (1190 AM) -- base station for Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo -- actually headed south, shedding 15% of its summer audience to finish fall at 24th place in just-released ARBITRONS...

Many media observers are going to read the above snippet and conclude that most people who listen to talk radio are conservative and, thus, Air America doesn't stand a chance. After all, the big players in talk radio are all conservative: Limbaugh, Hannity, Medved, Hewitt, etc.

The failure of Air America lies in its presentation, which is tied to its political leanings. There is no Air America affiliate in Louisville (your town probably doesn't have one, either; they seem to be limited, for the most part, to blue counties on either coast), so my experience with them was limited to the six months or so in which I had an XM radio. Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo are the only two big names on the network, so you can already see why there's trouble. Franken can't make a coherent statement in a debate, much less carry his own show. Garofolo is...ummm...well...stupid. I don't mean uninformed or on the wrong side of issues---she's just not smart in the extreme. She somehow confused the ability to memorize lines and repeat them with the ability to be quick-witted and insightful.

The rest of the miscreants on Air America are either political hacks or has-been DJs from NY and LA. They might be interesting if they had more to contribute than goofy one-liners: "Bush stole Florida, man" "Dude, Iraq is another Vietnam" "Huhuhuh...you said 'Bush'...huhuhuhuh". One show bleeds into another because no one has anything interesting to say. There is no talk of issues, only diatribes about what the other side is doing wrong. Even if you're liberal it gets old.

Air America is a microcosm of what's wrong with the Left in this country. They have no new ideas, no solutions other than to tell you that what's going on now doesn't work. It's the Yassar Arafat school of politics: you can throw grenades with the best of 'em, but once you're in charge you can't manage a room full of 6-year olds. They master the sound byte but can't talk about details because the one-liner quip defines them: "Bush lied, people died". Whatever.

About 15 years ago, Mario Cuomo started a movment to get more liberal voices on talk radio. His reasoning was that conservatives ruled the airwaves only because liberals hadn't been given "their fair share" of time. Well, Governor, you finally got your wish. Was it everything you hoped for?

Another Yawner

I received an e-mail from someone who reads the blog regularly asking me why I didn't have more to say about Rathergate and the CBS report released yesterday. If you go to some of the blogs I have linked down on the left, you will find that it is the topic du jour and will most likely remain so for a few days.

The simple answer is that, in my opinion, there is nothing new to report. The big blogs (Hugh Hewitt, Powerline, Lileks, etc.) all did a great job of dissecting the goings-on at the Tiffany network and the fact is that there is nothing surprising in any of it. A few people were fired, Dan Rather gets to retire when he chooses and Les Moonves loudly proclaimed that the mistakes made were not the product of bias but rather of sloppiness caused by a tight dealine.

Is anyone shocked by this? If so, what did you expect? Clarity? An admission of generations of bias? Oh, come on---they investigated themselves and all they come up with was an admission of poor research. It's like the mafia investigating John Gotti and discovering that he's only guilty of being a little too flashy now and then.

I've said this before here, but it's worth repeating: the Big Three Networks have no future in the news business. This century will belong to the cable giants and online sources. News has become a 24-hour business where the deadline is always right now. The dinosaur that is CBS has proven that it just can't operate accurately under those conditions.

The Alias Geek Rant

I just sat down to watch the season premiere of 'Alias'. I won't go into the plot points; if you watch it, you know. If you don't, then it doesn't matter. Anyway, Sidney and crew have a new HQ this season. It's cool, modern and white. The old place was a little more conventional; this place could be an art gallery. So as I surveyed the new place, I caught sight of cool-looking LCD displays in the background. Then the nightmare began.

All the PCs and monitors are Gateways. That's right, Gateway. The cheapest pieces of crap imagineable. The old HQ had Dell PCs and servers. I'm sure Gateway offered up some great cash for the placement. But the horror!!!!

If the new place is white, why didn't they use Macs? The new iMac is damn near the coolest thing I've ever seen and the G5 towers and screens are silverish. It would match wonderfully.

My God, I've gone around the bend, haven't I?

The Firings Will Continue Until The Truth Comes Out

CBS News has fired four people for their role in "Memogate". My favorite paragraph:

The panel said a "myopic zeal" to be the first news organization to broadcast a groundbreaking story about Mr. Bush’s National Guard service was a key factor in explaining why CBS News had produced a story that was neither fair nor accurate and did not meet the organization’s internal standards.

Myopic zeal? Is that what you call liberal bias? Let me write that down.

People's Choice?

Michael "Make Mine a Triple and Don't Go Easy On the Cheese Sauce" Moore won a People's Choice Award last night. I'm sure that those of you who consider Moore some sort of folk hero will look at this as a real choice of the people. Oh, how wrong you are!

The People's Choice Awards used to be determined by polling done by the Gallup Organization. Now, they are done online. Any honest statistician will tell you that online polling is, at best, biased towards certain demographics (like the Slacker demo who think Moore is the best thing since sliced bread because Mom and Dad are still paying their way in the world). Moore actively campaigned for this award. Here's the strange thing: the letter that Moore posted on his website begging people to vote for him is gone. Hmmm....how could this be? Isn't Moore an honest broker who just wants to be a voice for the little guy?

For those of you who are still fans of this asshat: wake up. This guy's a fraud and it's later than you think. You're not that stupid. Or are you?

Of, Not From

You've heard of Michael Newdow, although you may not know his name. He's the California (shocking!) lawyer who tried to have the words "under God" taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Not comfortable with his little bit of infamy, he has now filed a complaint in D.C. seeking to remove prayer and all "Christian religious acts" from the Jan. 20 inauguration. Before we get into this, let's take a look at the first Amendment to the Constitution:

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.

It's pretty amazing to me that such heady stuff resides in one sentence. The first part of the sentence has come to be known as the "establisment clause" in that it prohibits the government from establishing a state religion, ala' the Anglican Church in England. This was a concern of the Founding Fathers because the 13 colonies were very, very religiously diverse (albeit all Christian) and there is no better way to start a civil war than to elevate one faith above another.

There is nothing in the First Amendment guaranteeing a life in which atheists can go without ever seeing a Bible, hearing Christian music or being in a room in which prayers are being recited. As the saying goes, we are promised freedom of, not freedom from, religion. Like it or not, we live in a country whose laws and traditions are based on Judeo-Christian ethics. We have become the most tolerant nation on the planet not because we ignore religious precepts, but because our civil authorities have embraced them.

Academic historians love to remind us that our Founding Fathers were not particularly religious. In some cases, this is true. But neither were they atheists or even agnostics. They were theists, meaning that they acknowledged the existence and authority of a higher power. More importantly, they believed in absolute standards of right and wrong and understood that those standards were not the perview of a secular elite.

I think that this is a problem of two extremes. Radical atheists, who have little understanding of what came before or what exists outside of themselves, don't want the likes of Pat Robertson running the country. Fundamentalists think that radical atheists are Satan's invading minions. But most non-religious people I know don't really give a hoot about whether or not the President is sworn in using a Bible. And most religious people I know do their own thing. No one is beating down anyone's door on Sunday morning making everyone go to church.

I feel about avowed atheists the same way I feel about most fundamentalists: they are angry about life in general but express it via "the cause." It doesn't matter what the cause is; it's just where they ended up. They probably have more in common than any of us could ever imagine.

The Great American Something

Kelli and I are discussing a new book idea, something so simple that I'm surprised we didn't think of it before. All the research is done, the plotline already conceived. Sheesh.

Shop Talk

I received a few e-mails from people who never knew about the Dattblog until I linked to it yesterday. I am flattered that people want to read my old blog, so there is now a link to it on the left under the 'Blogs' heading. I swear, I don't even remember writing some of that stuff.

Also, I have decided to go back to only displaying 7 days worth of posts instead of 21. If a post continues to be popular, I will repost it under a newer date so you guys can continue to beat on each other. By the way, your comments have become, in my opinion, the best part of this. If you don't post comments, you should consider doing so; it's a good tension reliever and a great way to get slammed by people you may not even know. ;-)

UNocracy

Powerline has a quote from one of our diplomats who blogs and is actually on the ground doing tsunami relief. His respect for the UN is enormous. Here's a sample:

If we had waited for the UNocrats to get their act coordinated, the already massive death toll would have become astronomical. But, fortunately, thanks to "retrograde racist war-mongers " such as John Howard and George W. Bush, as we sat in air conditioned meeting rooms with these UNocrats, young Australians and Americans were at that moment "coordinating" without the UN and saving the lives of tens-of-thousands of people.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

The Pentagon's budget is to be cut by $55 billion over the next six years. The Navy (which means the Marines also) and the Air Force will bear the brunt of these cuts. This translates to fewer F-22s (the next-generation plane that was slated to replace the F-15), fewer V-22 Ospreys (the aircraft that was slated to replace many of the Marines' aging helicopters), fewer Virginia-class subs, fewer new destroyers and the possible retirement of one active aircraft carrier.

These cuts were proposed after the White House asked all federal agencies for cost-cutting plans in an effort to reduce the federal deficit by half. The Defense Department has been juggling money anyway in light of the unexpected expenses incurred in Afghanistan and Iraq (yes, I don't think they planned too well for the insurgency in Iraq), but their budget cuts can not, with good reason, be taken out of the money used to fund their operational budget. Thus the cuts in Navy and Air Force programs while the Army is seeing its budget actually increase by $25 billion over the next six years.

These budget cuts are a terrible idea for several reasons. First, there is an issue of naval force projection. Our Navy and Marine Corps constitute a rapid response team that can go anywhere in the world in the event of a crisis (like the areas affected by the Dec. 26 earthquake and tsunami). The Army, while a very effective fighting force, requires enormous logistical support and pre-planning. A smaller Navy reduces the ability to respond quickly to emergencies and limits our response ability once a task force is on the scene. This could result in more US casualties reminiscent of the early days of the Korean War, when a token force of US soldiers was sent to defend South Korea with little support and were quickly decimated.

The second issue is one of future deterrence. We now have the best Navy and Air Force in the world in both raw numbers and technological advantage. This edge came at a great price during the Cold War. We have maintained that edge only because of the fall of the Soviet Union. But there are other giants on the horizon, namely China. The Chinese (People's Liberation) Navy is now a regional power and, within a generation, will be a true bluewater-capable force. The ships-of-the-line we have now were all designed and mostly funded during the Cold War. If warship construction is slowed in this country (the Navy now buys approximately two ships a year), two things will happen: shipyards will close and skilled workers will move to other career fields. And for those of you who point to the Second World War and our fast build-up to a wartime footing, let me remind you that the industrial base in existence then no longer exists in this country (can you guess where it is?).

That industrial base, or lack thereof, brings me to my final point: design lag. Military ships and aircraft have become increasingly more complex over the years. A Nimitz-class aircraft carrier takes nearly a decade to build. Compare this to the Second World War, when American shipyards built over 70 aircraft carriers in a little over four years. Of course, ships now possess much more "punch", so a fleet of 12 carriers can now do the work of a few dozen from sixty years ago. But keep in mind that the next generation of ships and aircraft (those that will be built 20 years from now) are just now being designed. If we do not keep improving hardware in the construction pipeline, we will not only lose our technological edge in the coming generations, but we will lose the time it takes to gain that edge back.

I fear that Congress and the White House are trading current budget cuts for future security. This may seem paranoid, but a military planner in 1925 could scarcely imagine the events of 15 years later. What are we imagining for 2020?

501

Yesterday's last entry marked my 500th blog posting since I began Opaque Lucidity. Before that, I had the Dattblog, which is still up and going if you want to read some stuff going back to the early summer of 2002. Without the constant feedback and support I receive from so many of you (especially from my lovely wife, Kelli, who is my biggest fan), I would've given this up long ago. Thank you.

In Good Company

I talk about good movies here now and again; hopefully, this will become a regular topic. I am trying to see a preview screening of "In Good Company" because Grace Hill Media, the film's promoter, is trying its hand at promoting and reviewing movies via smalltime blogs such as this one. It's sort of guerilla marketing, but I don't mind talking about a movie that I've seen and Kelli and I are, in my opinion, pretty fair and balanced critics.

Of course, it doesn't hurt that I think Scarlett Johansen is exceedingly beautiful or that Topher Grace is a smart, funny screen presence. We'll see how well they pull this one off.

Like Father, Like Son

In case you haven't noticed, I have a special place in my heart for sailors and Marines. I was one of the former and have close friends who are or were the latter. Plus, as I like to remind them, the Marines ARE a part of the Navy (I hear keyboards being pecked at).

With that in mind, take a look at this article from the LA Times. I've never read anything quite like it.

All We Have To Fear...Is The Blog

Hugh Hewitt's book, BLOG, is out. If you don't know who Hewitt is, you need to get to know him. His radio show may not be on in your area, but his influence in the blogosphere is large and growing. My guess is that he will be a household name by the 2006 mid-term elections. Frequent visitors to this blog will remember that I met Hugh once and it's the only time in my life that I was actually in awe of a celebrity. I owe him much; I don't know if I would still be blogging without his influence.

Anyway, Hewitt's radio show producer has his own blog and he hosted a Fark-like Photoshop contest centered around the cover of 'BLOG'. All of the entries are here, but my favorite is this timeless classic:

I know; call me a history geek.

Moore Drivel

It seems that Michael Moore still believes that Bush lost this election but somehow stole the vote in Ohio. Message to Mikey: only the ignorati and the conspiracy nuts are listening to you.

Uncomfortable

A situation has arisen at work, something that has been going on for some time but of which I was not aware until I began working days nearly a year ago. It involves a co-worker, someone who I have known for the better part of five years. The entire situation can be summed up in one question: at what point do you inform management about a fellow employee's questionable behavior at work?

I've never been a rat and I don't like people who are. Here's how I look at it: if you help rob a bank, feel guilty about it, go to the police and turn everyone in, you're a rat. If you're in line at a bank when it's robbed and you help the police by giving a description of the robbers, you are being a good citizen, not a rat.

I will not delve into the details of this matter except to say that this employee's activities are beginning to affect my morale. It is not yet making my job more difficult, although I see that coming in the future. In the end, it just makes me angry that this person has been getting away with something for years and is either oblivious or indifferent to the fact that many people know and have said nothing. Which brings up my final point: after this long, why should I be the one to say anything?

If you've ever run into anything like this (I'm sorry I've been vague), please post your thoughts. I know what I would like to do---actually doing it is another issue entirely.

That's Bidniss

My friend Hash sent me this article last night. A couple weeks ago, I wrote here about Microsoft's purchase of an anti-spyware software company. Now, "insiders" are saying that MS plans to make this software part of a subscription-based service that will include, presumably, anti-virus software as well. If this rumor becomes a reality I will, as I promised, be done with Microsoft. Period.

I know what some of you are thinking: "But Matt, they have a right to charge for their product and sell it any way they see fit." Correct. In fact, Microsoft has the right to sell all of their software on a subscription basis, something that they are doubtless considering right now. But please allow me to draw a comparison and then tell me, honestly, if you still think what Microsoft may be doing (I say "may" because these are still rumors, albeit well-founded ones) is fair to consumers.

Imagine that you are a fan of the Corvette. You have owned every model year of Corvette (you trade them in often) since 1992 or so. This past fall, you bought a brand-new 2005 Vette. It's a beautiful, fast machine. One day, you are on the GM website when you notice a link to a manufacturer's warning about the 2005 Vette. Please keep in mind that neither GM nor your dealer contacted you about this warning; you stumbled to it on your own. Later, you find out that the local Vette collectors club knew of the problem (they scour the website regularly), but you're not a member so no one told you.

The problem is in the engine compartment. Some of the vehicles just overheat, some overheat and cause head and/or block damage and some of the vehicles catch on fire. GM decides that, instead of issuing a recall, they will fix the design problem in some future model year (they won't say which). In the meantime, they have created a fire extinguisher system for the engine compartment. The flame retardant cartridges (available only from your local GM dealer) must be replaced monthly. They are not free. However, if you pay a subscription fee, they will ship you a new cartridge every month. No one has been hurt in a fire (the chances of that are slim), but quite a few cars have been completely destroyed. And there, in your driveway, is your 2005 Vette. Congratulations.

If the above scenario actually occured, it would be the lead story on every news broadcast in the nation. Congress would call for inquires. If you think I'm kidding, ask someone over 50 what they remember about the Corvair.

The current virus/spyware mess exists because of design flaws in Windows, Internet Explorer and Outlook Express (along with server-side apps like IIS). These three products come bundled together (MS claims that Windows can not run without Internet Explorer) so most users use them. Only in the last year or so have free alternatives like Firefox and Thunderbird begun to make inroads into MS's dominance among browsers and e-mail clients. Most people who use their PC as an appliance don't think to look for alternatives to products that came with their machine. And why should they? Should everyone who owns a PC have to make a hobby out of the thing? MS certainly doesn't want you to; they've spent billions on advertising trying to convince consumers that Windows will save them time so they can do other, more important things with their lives.

You can say that it is my right as a consumer to buy any operating system I want and that it is Microsoft's right to sell any operating system it wants. True. I will not go into all the ways in which MS has become a defacto monopoly and all the ways in which they manipulate every market in which they compete through quasi-legal use of their R&D and advertising dollars. I also know that some of you are saying, "But my machine works fine." It may, but 80% of you have spyware on your machines and don't know it.

In even a medium-sized company such as the one I work for, using Windows on desktop machines is troublesome. Even a network as secure as ours is now plagued by spyware and even the occasional virus. Without the necessary Windows servers to run the software we must use which only runs on Windows, none of this would be a problem. To paraphrase my friend Troy, "Look at the anti-virus software I use on my Linux machine....oh, that's right, I DON'T HAVE TO USE ANY."

Many people, including folks on talk radio, confuse geek-hatred of Microsoft with anti-capitalist sentiment. If you think the same of me, you haven't been paying attention. In fact, my problems with Microsoft exist partly because their practices have worked to actually stifle capitalism in many arenas. Being pro-business, which I am in spades, doesn't mean that every decision taken by every corporation is good and just and worthy of defense. But there's another post in that argument; stay tuned.

Site Meter

There's a new link on the left side of this page called Site Meter. It keeps track of how many hits this blog receives a day. However, I have noticed that the numbers recorded so far are quite a bit lower than the site administration software indicates. I'm going to leave it there for a month or so; it's free, so I can't expect too much, I guess.

Fight The Man, Dude

Deacon over at Powerline has posted a few paragraphs about the European Leftists who are at work in Iraq. He notes that the Confederacy in this country also worked pretty well during the Civil War, yet no one seems as eager to defend the working government of that regime as they are to defend Saddam's. If a working government is all that is needed for Leftist credibility, then they need to leave Israel alone as well.

There is a strong sense of childishness among Leftists, both here and in Europe. Michael "Thickburgers, Two, With Cheese" Moore is a prime example of this in the United States. He made his name by pointing out the deficiencies of The Man: GM, the NRA, the Bush Administration. He stated that the insurgents in Iraq were the modern equivalent of Minute Men. Why? Because they're standing up to The Man just like a small, struggling group of colonies did in the 1770's. Nevermind that they are trying to promote a return to despotic theocracy while The Man is trying to promote and grow democracy. It is the rantings of a spoiled child, shortsighted and incomplete. Yet millions of people love him because their thought patterns tend in the same direction: immature, shortsighted and incomplete.

The Left in Europe is no different. They have a long, long history of embracing tyranny as long as, to use the old description of Mussolini, the trains run on time. Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Napolean, etc., were all given a wide berth until confrontation could no longer be avoided. Ireland, one of the first to lodge a protest against our invasion of Iraq, couldn't even take a stand against Germany during World War Two; their hatred of the British manifested itself in a statement of neutrality. One can't help but wonder how long until some regional tyrant is once again allowed to grow out of control under the watchful eye of a do-nothing Euro-American Left.

This Military

You may recall that the pictures of Abu Gharib were pushed in our faces for six weeks or more. Will we hear about the exploits of the men and women of the Abraham Lincoln and her Strike Group six weeks from now? How much are you hearing about it now?

"...have courage to meet the demand of our profession and the mission when it is hazardous, demanding or otherwise difficult; make decisions in the best interest of the Navy and the nation without regard to personal consequences;
meet these challenges while adhering to a higher standard of personal conduct and decency..."

Tea With Kofi

To really see the humor of the following story, you have to understand a little about the New York Times. The Old Grey Lady, as the old media refers to her, is in a crisis. Once the "newspaper of record" for our nation, it has been beaten over the head with scandal: reporters who made up stories out of whole cloth, far left-wing opinion posted on the front page as news, etc. It is, in essence, the NPR of newspapers (without taxpayer funding, of course).

The NY Times is now written for those who live in Manhattan and the ignorati in the rest of the nation who believe that they should be lead by a socialist elite. So when this story appeared today, I wasn't surprised. Kofi Annan was called to a meeting in a swank NY apartment a few weekends ago. Those gathered were the leftist elite of this country, all of them worried about Kofi's career and the UN's dying worth in the world. What struck me as funny was that these people really see Kofi as some stateless head of state, like the leader of the world or something equally ridiculous. According to the Times, the attendees were wondering why Kofi didn't "clean out" his inner circle like the President does after a first term.

Um, let's see....BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL CROOKS! He can't get rid of his inner circle because they know where the bodies are buried (literally and figuratively, no doubt). Right-thinking people in Washington know this, which is why they are asking for Annan's head on a platter. The fact that the US went directly to India, Australia and Japan to form a coalition to aid in tsunami relief was a stroke of genius and it shows how ineffective the UN really is. You've heard a lot about the fact that GW Bush stayed in Crawford after hearing of the tsunami (as if his ranch doesn't have a phone), but you heard almost nothing about the fact that Kofi stayed at his vacation ski lodge for three days after receiving the news.

Maybe the John Birch Society wasn't all that kooky after all.

Acting!

Kelli and I are watching Morgan Freeman on 'Inside the Actor's Studio'. I am a huge fan of his, despite the fact that I know almost nothing about him outside of his acting resume'. He is a serious Everyman---he can portray God and he's lovable; he can portray a tough and you're scared of him. He's rare.

I acted in high school. I don't think I was very good at it, but it remains one of the few things about that time that I miss. There is no feeling that leaving the audience with a feeling----I made people cry and laugh, sometimes in the same scene. I have talked here often about how I feel about Hollywood, but it has more to do with culture and less with the craft. I have a great respect for good actors, because I know personally how hard it is. And, God, I miss it.

Depth of Sin

Thoughtful post from Hugh Hewitt, a former Catholic:

Also in the Los Angeles Times this morning, an article on a Catholic school and the controversy over whether to enroll the child with gay parents. I doubt there is a Catholic school in the nation that doesn't have children within it whose parents are divorced and remarried outside of the church, using birth control, or missing Mass on a regular basis. In fact, as a matter of doctrine, I believe all of us are sinners. Proponents of exclusion of the children are thus raising one form of sin to a higher level of condemnation than all others, so high, in fact, as to condemn the innocent children for the sins of their fathers.

This is what happens when small people, who can not have power or control anywhere else, hide in their religion. These people are all around you: the first to condemn instead of being living examples of good will. This is what drives those of us with doubts away from the Church.

And yes, the Church should hold firm to its beliefs. But if you believe that the Church is a path to salvation, then turning away those who you see as sinners is condemning them to a life without the grace of God. Whose is the greater sin?

Auld Lang Syne

Happy New Year!

By God, I've been bloggin for two and a half years. What a run it's been.