28 January 2005

On Morals and Legislation

I've only got ten minutes or so, so I must be brief. Yesterday I heard a local talk show blowhard...err...host talking about local legislation to tax porn and strip clubs, and he was lambasting it as an attempt to legislate morality. While I see his point, I think people like this rarely do themselves, at least to its full extent.

What about cigarettes? We tax those heavily...even outlawing them outright in certain places. That is a "sin tax". Russ Johnson, if you are out there, what is your position on taxes on cigarettes? Alcohol? Gambling? Should casinos be heavily taxed? Let's be consistent, please. One way or the other. The gay activists who scream about people legislating morality also need to look at the cig nazis and make sure they are not aligned with them. Oh, you could say, "well, cigarettes are being outlawed because they pose a health risk". Well, as the who-knows-how-many victims of AIDS could attest, if they had survived, there are heightened health risks of that lifestyle (in general) as well. I am not being judgemental, its just the unfortunate facts.

As for me, let's just go for a flat income tax, or a national sales tax, and leave it at that. Adjust the spending to the taxes, not the other way around.

OK, done with my brief snippet.

26 January 2005

The Charge of the Light Brigade
by Alfred Lord Tennyson
Half a league half a league
Half a league onward
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred:
`Forward the Light Brigade
Charge for the guns' he said
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred
`Forward the Light Brigade!
Was there a man dismay'd
Not tho' the soldier knew
Some one had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do & die,
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd & thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot & shell,
Boldly they rode & well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.
Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack & Russian
Reel'd from the sabre-stroke,
Shatter'd & sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd & thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot & shell,
While horse & hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them
Left of six hundred.
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wonder'd.
Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!

25 January 2005

Work-Related Vent Post

Well, right now it feels a bit like that eery, haunting calm that follows a devastating hurricane...you look around and see the ravaged landscape, but birds being to chirp again and the wind only rustles softly.

OK, I'm getting a bit dramatic. I have a Gollum-ish relationship with computers ("he both hates and loves the Ring, as he hates and loves himself"). They are my bread and butter, they are my only marketable hobby/skill (people aren't bashing down my door for my guitar designing, gun collecting, and drink reviewing). All yesterday and most of today as thousands of dollars and potentially more hung in the balance I've worked like mad, and now that I've resolved most of the emergencies I sink back into the warm coccoon of quietude that populates most of my days. Most of it arises of working with cheap, old, and unreliable tools. Old operating systems (98, 95, NT4), really old software, and ancient, dust-encrusted hardware. Sure, if it still works, why replace it, but the question is, how much work does it/will it require to continue making it work? Work is time and time is money! It's all right though, mgmt is coming around and I'm getting a delightful new rack of server-oriented goodies. Oh Frabjous Day, Calloo, Callay!

But yeah, I had to extract a corrupt mdb file from an old computer, and then hack into it (unfortunately none of my computers have the requisite program, Microsoft Access, so I had to use a really poor shareware MDB viewer). But I made it work and saved the company time, money, and headache. And I am comically proud of my little achievement, which is why I am on here strutting around with such braggadocio. Yes, my minions! Bow to your unflappable, unstoppable, inimitable Computer Nerd Commandant! Huh-hoy.

Yes, I'm asking for it...a corrupt disk on the server or something. Well, that would be perfectly ironic and kismet or fate or whatever they call it...but for the fact that THAT VERY THING HAPPENED YESTERDAY TOO. These computers had been behaving themselves so nicely. The server is running NT and it's over 5 years old...running continuously for that long. The old girl is getting on in years.

Enough DorkSpeak. Well, enough of that kind of DorkSpeak anyway.

I'd like a nice chopper simulation. A serious one with good physics. I grew up on Gunship and Gunship II, Janes Longbow, and Comanche 1, 2, and 3. To tell you the truth, after playing Comanche 4 I realize how poor the physics are. Maybe the new choppers are that "fly-by-wire" but the collective was totally unrealistic. But anyway, I'm a huge fan of the Battlefield series (1942, Vietnam) and with the advent of BF Vietnam I was at first quite disgruntled by a difficult and hard to control flight system for the choppers. It is really strange...its somewhat "arcade-y" in that there are very few controls and you can't look around in the cockpit or control much, but the flight mechanics I found to be a lot more realistic...the aircraft seems to have heft and weight, and it takes some skill to fly it well...skill I have started to develop. Nothing like popping over the hills, scooting through canyons, hugging the terrain...ahh yeah. I only wish I had broadband so I would be stuck raining fire down on the stupid CPU bots in single-player mode. But I digress...it would be nice to have a nice chopper sim that had the detail of earlier sims with the challenging and entertaining flight physics of BFV. Maybe I should just get Microsoft Flight Simulator and putz around in a civilian chopper...but buzzing the skies over metro areas like a traffic reporter is not nearly so much fun as zipping in and out of rugged jungle terrain in pursuit of an enemy convoy.

Bear in mind, this was a childhood dream of mine. I dreamed of one day piloting an RAH-66 Comanche for the US Army. The slow, gnawing recognition that my horrifically bad eyesight would dash any chance of entering flight school of any kind was needless to say a rather bitter pill. It was about that time that I consoled myself with a change of plans...I started preparations to apply at Annapolis. Army pilot? Maybe not. Sub skipper? A bit more possible.

NEEDLESS TO SAY....I didn't end up cruising the deeps of the ocean hunting commies either. I'm quite fortunate that I haven't had to serve in such a capacity, to be honest. So many things I would have missed out on, and given my physical lack of fitness I have to be honest...I'm probably of much more use to the country, the economy, and the people of the world in general in front of a keyboard and not charging into combat with a rifle. But should Uncle Sam call, I'll be here. Over the past few years I've been quite torn on the issue of military service. The old side of me (that in my late teen years had fallen asleep) yearns to don the uniform and serve. The new side of me wants to move on, spend my free time with the love of my life, and eventually raise a family. Not that the two are incompatible at all, but service would seperate us to some extent, and service in a combat zone, especially, is something that I look at with new eyes, now. I was once ready to go in and pay any price necessary...and while I remain that today, it is with reluctance. Not for myself (for those who have hope, death is only the entryway to everlasting peace and glory) but for, again, the love of my life, to whom I would be unspeakably loathe to deal such loss. And besides, our country would be in a much worse state if I would be of more value to it as a rifleman than as a computer technician. I know my gifts...and long distance marching is not one of them unfortunately. Is this all a copout and excuse? I don't think so, but I don't know, I'm just trying to do some honest reflection. I realize what a useless Army lieutenant I would have been. Soft-spoken, unassertive, rather shy...entirely incapable of rallying a platoon of my peers to charge "into the jaws of death, into the mouth of Hell". I have a poetic appreciation for the gallantry of men in combat...something that has been lost in the post-Vietnam era, and has often been misinterpreted as a love of war itself.

As a child I attempted to memorize the (above referenced) Tennyson poem The Charge of the Light Brigade. "Theirs not to make reply, theirs not to question why, theirs but to do and die." The same inspiration I felt then wells up now. Call it foolishness, call it machismo, call it what you will, but I see and have always seen an amazing virtue and admirable courage in the men that fight for us, and though now my path has taken me elsewhere in one of life's merciful and gracious turns, I once aspired to follow that path. In the sixth grade I pored through "The Art of War in the Western World" not to be confused with the much shorter and less practical "Art of War" by Sun Tzu, which I have also read. I now own that book...it is a masterful, if somewhat unknown, analysis of war and tactics. My understanding of tactics in particular was strongly shaped by the book in particular...the idea of heavy infantry/light infantry/heavy cavalry/light cavalry is as relevant today as it was 2000 years ago.

OK enough ranting...

20 January 2005

When Does Life Begin: Conception or Birth?

I increasingly find this question absurd, very nearly to a comic extent. Here is the irony. The liberal pro-abortion crowd (let's drop the misleading and euphemistic "pro-choice" and "pro-life" titles for now, shall we?) takes the non-scientific, traditional, almost faith-based viewpoint. The anti-abortion crowd has the cold, logical, and scientific viewpoint. Here's why:

The idea that life begins upon exiting the womb is the conclusion an unscientific and ignorant mind would make. It is the conclusion drawn from surface appearances, not underlying scientific fact. Rapidly advancing medical science has put forth a great deal of evidence showing that life is not "switched on" when the baby is pushed more than 50% out of the womb. The baby develops an independent heartbeat, an independent brain that becomes quite active in the womb, and it has distinct DNA. I've used this trite example time and time again...but when a woman is carrying a male foetus (if you will) in her womb, that foetus carries a unique DNA and for that matter, a Y chromosome that the woman does not have ANYWHERE else in her body. So "get your laws off my body" doesn't apply! As I recall from middle school biology a woman's body doesn't have a Y chromosome so logically that IS NOT her body. In her body? Yes, it is...but it is not her body.

Besides that, what of Siamese twins? Are they not two independent beings? Why can't one terminate the other if he or she feels inconvenienced? Surely that would make life easier...and possibly make survival of the first more likely. Why is a Siamese twin denied freedom of choice in that matter?

The supposition that life does not begin until birth is illogical, unsupported by any evidence, and unscientific. The Left is usually enamoured of the world of science, but in this case it is counterproductive and they cling to an outdated and disproven assumption. Remember...as George Will said in a column I linked below, "That a life begins at conception is a biological fact, not a theological tenet". It is not a matter of religion or personal morality. It is science. Examine the question solely from that perspective. Once you reach a conclusion (which I personally am convinced is conception), then is when you can examine questions of morality. Is it moral to end another's life without consent? If so, under what circumstances? Is it moral to kill a baby outside the womb for convenience? Is it moral to kill a foetus/baby inside the womb for convenience?

It is harshly sobering to see the efforts of the pro-abortion lobby to dehumanize the unborn. They are foetuses, or even just tissue to them. Does that bring to mind anything else? Those who justified slavery often felt that the Africans were less than human, like animals, or livestock. The Nazis considered Jews subhuman. See a pattern?

19 January 2005

Moscow Plans To Erect Stalin Monument

"Mr. President...I'm beginning to smell a big fat commie rat..." - General "Buck" Turgidson

"Women have achieved parity with men in most fields. You'd think feminists...would be celebrating but in many ways they've never been more despondent." - Christina Hoff Sommers

Quite illustrative, really, of a theory I've had. Previously I've thought of it in context of the civil rights movement. There is an activist class, the leadership of a movement. In feminism, it's NOW and the radical feminists. In the so-called civil rights movement it's Jesse Jackson and his ilk. In the past half century we can see amazing, almost unthinkable strides toward "parity" in both of these arenas. So much progress has been made...and we see an ever-increasing desperation among the radicals! It seems the closer they come to reaching the goals they set for themselves decades ago (as if they haven't already passed by those goals in many ways), the more bitter and aggressive they become. There are a number of possible reasons why. Perhaps some of the aging nags of NOW realize that their "independent" family-free life of activism was not as fulfilling as they imagined it. Perhaps they see more and more people nearing contentment with the progress made (and therefore spending their time and donations elsewhere). Perhaps the Reverend Jackson knows full well that if he declares victory against prejudice and starts speaking of the virtue of an America that has grown remarkably colourblind, especially on a relative scale, his coffers will dry up (who will need him around to play the race card then?) and no one but the history books will remember him. There is a drive towards self-preservation in all humans, and we should not be so naive to assume that these selfless activist heroes are truly dedicated to vanquishing the evils of racism or sexism. What pays the gas bill at Rev. Jackson's house? Racism. What pays for his nice suits? Racism. What pays for his luxury limo rides? You guessed it...

Likewise for feminists. As more and more women start to realize that doors are pretty much open to them (except for combat, dang it, what oppression that is!), feminism is rapidly fading into a footnote of history. And as their core issues melt away beneath them, the feminist leadership grasps for another issue (any issue!) to rally the troops and the fundraising with. Of course, you know as well as I do, that would be abortion. I'm not going to expound my views on that...an issue for another day perhaps, but that discussion is best suited to a more Socratic dialogue. But the feminist movement has become so fringey and radical, that basically they've turned into not only a pro-choice movement, but a pro-abortion movement, seeking to make abortions as common, easy, and available as possible. The enthusiasm with which they support, seek, and follow after the termination of unborn [children/tissue/foetuses/babies/sons or daughters/etc.] definately brings to mind Hitlerian parallels...they are the S.S. of the unborn.

OK, I'm going into it. It is a question of right. Right to choice...that's an interesting right!!! There is NEVER a blanket right of choice and any remotely aware thinker knows that. I don't have the right to choose to shoot you. I don't have the right to set off hand grenades in my back yard. But back up...why don't I have the right to shoot you? Clearly, because it infringes upon your rights. So why must my right be subjugated to yours? Because right to life trumps right to choice. It's a more important right, one of the fundamental rights we are granted by God (and yes, by the Constitution). You will not find the right of filicide anywhere in the Constitution.

There are so many, many ways to oppose abortion its ironic the country is so evenly split (if that indeed is the case). I mean, let's take a very humanistic societal viewpoint. When a mother decides to end her son or daughter's life before birth (for reasons of convenience, or fear, or whatever), she is not only depriving that child of life...she is depriving society that child! Her child will no longer be able to grow up and become a part of society. Think of the people most valuable in your life...realize that "choice" could have freely removed them from your life. That terminated child will no longer be able to become a good husband to a wife who now will never know him. With the millions upons millions of terminated children, think of how many of those could have grown up to become artists, musicians, scientists, teachers...or even just good friends, or hard workers, or loving parents. Sometimes I gloss over what a tragedy it is, as I tend to usually focus on the pure logic of an argument, but there is an immense sadness and tragedy about abortion. I know a lot of people like to bring up (as I think Goldberg called it) the Holy Trinity of pro-choicers: rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Those are rare cases, and I'm not adamant about those kind of things, and am not about to advocate a certain stance on them. I can empathize with both sides, allowing those rare-condition abortions, and outlawing it altogether (if a man is dying from kidney failure in a hospital, is it fair to kill another man against his will for kidneys to save him?). But the fact is those circumstances aren't in dispute. The vast, vast majority of abortions are convenience-based. Admittedly, that makes these women seem shallow, and it isn't always the case...fear is another major factor I'm sure. Life is hard, and rarely fair. But life is also sacred. It is so immensely ironic that we can have such a relaxed attitude about the dismemberment and debraining (there's probably a better word for that, but that's what happens) of children inside the womb...but as soon as they pop out, we as a nation would choke with disgust and outrage if babies were to be "put down" by their mothers.

Also ironic that the liberals who fight so hard to withhold even the most primal right from unborn children are usually the same people who fight for "animal rights". The manatee has rights but a human child does not?

I don't have any problem with freedom of choice. As pretty much a libertarian, I celebrate it and advocate it far more than most liberals I know. However, liberty has constraints, and when it infringes upon the liberty of others, especially such a core, essential right as, well, staying alive, then we cannot allow that freedom. Also, let's remember, freedom is not innately virtuous! It is a concept neither good nor bad in and of itself. Freedom to kill, freedom to steal, freedom to injure...none of those freedoms are desirable in a society.

End rant. Questions? Comments?

Still pondering, Dragunov versus HK91. The HK91 is probably better for home defense...its shorter size, powerful cartridge, and shock-action design make it the best thing short of a submachine gun. However, the Dragunov would be a great piece to take to the range...designed for sniper-like applications it is accurate. Not to mention exotic and beautiful! Hmmm. And I'm as yet unsure whether or not I would add a scope to the HK (or FN-FAL), because while I'd like a nice scoped gun to hone in some accuracy, scopes are not a good thing, again, in home defence. If I want quick and accurate shots at close to medium range, iron sights are the way to go. Perhaps if I get a big raise and a big tax refund, I can get a scoped Dragunov for the range and a bayonetted, iron-sighted HK for the bedroom, and retire the Enfield. I could also build a submachine gun (in semi-auto configuration, you federal agents, you!) with a parts kit and a reciever, but I've always had more love for the military rifles.

17 January 2005

An Ode to Gunfever.

Yes, every now and again I become interested again in expanding my arsenal. Until recently, I was mostly interested in either large caliber single action revolvers (either 45 Long Colt or 44 Magnum) or the Lee-Enfield Jungle Carbine, of late, in homage to the glorious expiration of the "assault weapons" ban, I am gravitating towards the military rifles of the latter half of the century. So far, here are the ones I am interested in:

Dragunov Sniper Rifle
A beautiful, wonderful looking weapon. Semi-auto, based on the Kalashnikov (loosely) it is not a true sniper rifle and cannot compare in accuracy to a proper bolt action, but it was designed to add a longer reach to Soviet infantry squads with a marksman. I love the extended barrel and cutout wood stock...it's a beautiful weapon no doubt. I'd take this beauty over an AK anyday. Although shooting Russian ammo could potentially be expensive...I'd have to check.

A Spanish version of the HK91 assault rifle. I had the pleasure of shooting an HK91 last year, belonging to a friend of my father-in-law. Absolutely menacing...what a powerful weapon. It is a heavy gun, though...have to start working out a bit if I wanted to shoot it regularly (without a gun rest or bipod). I prefer the wood stock version, and I'd probably get a scope for it as well.

The classic and widely successful Belgian assault rifle. Beautiful and elegant, nice long barrel, holds 20 NATO 7.62 rounds. Very nice looking rifle.

I also was interested in the bullpup British rifle, the SA80, but I've read everywhere that this was an atrociously bad gun, and it seems to be unavailable for civilians. I'm leaning most towards the CETME, currently, which has great firepower, a shorter length, a bayonet, and probably the best price. It would replace my 1918 Enfield as my home defense weapon (outside of Debra's 38 snubnose). Would-be intruders would be well-advised to avoid my house as much firepower can and will be brought to bear on unwelcome guests! ;) The Enfield admittedly isn't the perfect home defense weapon, being very long, and with a relatively slow bolt action. With a modern semi-auto assault rifle, I get the advantages of a rifle (hard hitting high velocity shell, good accuracy, and bayonet in the event of someone charging at me) with the rapid fire of a pistol and slightly more manageable length.

Ironically, I watched an unsurprisingly liberal piece on 60 Minutes about the Barrett 50 caliber rifle. What a beautiful, powerful gun. The piece was obviously designed to ruffle the feathers of liberals and frighten the weak-kneed into thinking these guns pose a threat to them. It had the exact opposite intended effect...I knew of the Barrett, but viewing it again prompted much curiousity and I shopped around online and visited them online. Hopefully it will generate interest among others as well (especially those who can afford one, unlike me). I could write in defense of gun rights but I feel no need. The irony is liberals and gun control Nazis want to outlaw these specialty weapons that are rare, expensive, and specialized. For a criminal or a terrorist, the Barrett has a vast array of disadvantages. Why would anyone choose to use it? The Beltway sniper attacks were using the common, low-calibre .223/5.56 shell. The Barrett is a giant rifle akin to the old anti-tank rifles of the 30s. It shoots slowly, it is unwieldy, and it is harldy easy to conceal. It is of use on the battlefield where ranges are very long and the soldiers are well trained, but most US snipers use the M40 bolt action anyway...a superior gun for most scenarios. The fact is almost any criminal or terrorist could do more damage with a pistol than with a 50 caliber rifle.

And a ban is not going to keep them from acquiring one.


Moving on....a word of advice...stay away from unpasteurized, unfiltered Normandy cider. I had a 2000 vintage bottle and it was atrociously bad, like liquid rot. Into the sink it went. Don't waste your money! The Frogs need to distill their cider...not bottle it. It is ironic that the regions with the best distilled spirits have substandard wines/beers, usually. Cognac and Armagnac produce very weak, thin wines. Normandy produces crappy cider, as mentioned above. Kentucky certainly isn't known as a brewing state. Scotland isn't particularly revered for its ales, but I for one am quite fond of them...so maybe that analogy breaks down. Well, look at the reverse...the breweries of Belgium, Germany, and England are second to none, but aside from some sparse schnapps distillation in Germany, none of those nations do much distilling at all. When you've got such a fine product already, why distill it?

14 January 2005

Brian Chontosh is a graduate of the Churchville-Chili Central School class of 1991, graduate of the Rochester Institute of Technology, husband and expectant father. A first lieutenant and platoon leader in the Marine Corps, he was rolling up Highway 1 in a Humvee on the march into Baghdad when, as they say so picturesquely, "all hell broke loose." Chontosh moved to the side of his column, looking for a way to lead his men to safety. As he tried to make a way through the Iraqi line, his Humvee came under direct enemy machine-gun fire. He told his driver to floor the Humvee directly at the machine gun emplacement that was firing at them and had his gunner on top with the .50 cal unload on the Iraqis. Momentarily there were Iraqis slumped across the machine gun and Chontosh was still advancing, ordering his driver now to take the Humvee directly into the Iraqi trench that was attacking his Marines. The Humvee went forward and Chontosh jumped out the door, carrying an M16 and a Beretta. He ran down the trench in the face of mortars, riflemen, machine guns and grenadiers, and killed them all. He used the M16 and the Beretta until each was out of ammo. Then he picked up two dead men's AK47s and fought with them until each was empty. He even fired a discarded Iraqi RPG into an enemy cluster, sending attackers flying. When he was done, he had cleared 200 yards of entrenched enemy fighters, killed more than 20 and wounded at least as many more; he was later awarded the Navy Cross, the Navy's second highest award.

Only the words of Cartman could do this justice..."Kick***!"
OK...it's time to vent, my friends.

The "band" known as Jet (no, not the magazine for my friends of the pigmented persuasion) is not so much a band as a collage of blatant classic rock ripoffs. I would say they are masters in the art of ripoffery, but to be honest there is nothing masterful about what they do...it's painfully obvious. No subtlety, no "paying homage", it's pure imitation. Perhaps what gets my proverbial goat is that I hear them on the snot-nosed "alternative" station that prides itself on having only the freshest, newest music...and they have a healthy amount of spite for the rockers of the 70s. And yet they play this band that up until now I have basically considered to be an AC/DC cover band with a smarmy nowhere-near-Bon-Scott-or-Brian-Johnson-or-even-Elmo vocalist.

And today I hear this song...it isn't enough that they've aped AC/DC without shame, they have to offer up a mimickry of the Beatles. "Look What You've Done" was a nice sounding song at first...and my awareness of its Beatles-ness grew slowly. I could list all the musical similarities (it is shameful how many Beatles "sounds" are in there) but the worst part is the lyrics:

"Look what you've done, you've made a fool of everyone" - Jet

"Sexy Sadie, what have you done, you made a fool of everyone" - Beatles

There comes a point when homage is no longer being paid and it's just nauseatingly bad plagiarism. Excuse me while I go barf out me breakfast...I must cleanse my ears with The White Album.

Oh, and don't get me wrong. I understand they are probably zealous fans of such music (imitation = sincerest flattery). I'd love to do likewise and probably would. I suppose I'm more annoyed by the music stations and fans who parade their pretentiousness around, considering themselves superior to the dinosaurs of "classic rock", and then play Jet like it's some new music or something. Look at the bandname even...McCartney? Wings? "And Jet, You know I thought you was a little lady suffragette!"

Rant over.


Jet (the band, not the Wings hit) is pathetic, but I empathize and understand.

96.5 the Buzz and many (not all) of its listeners are pretentious self-important sods and musical ignorati.

AC/DC is a lot cooler than I once gave them credit.

The Beatles, now and forever, rule.

10 January 2005

This is not something I address often, nor do I have any intention of fully addressing it, but it's a pet issue of many liberals.

First off, Thomas Sowell has a refreshingly analytical column on the misnomer of "gay marriage rights":


And secondly, this is much more whimsical, but for those still hung up on definition issues as relating to gay marriage, please examine the following algebraic analysis. Note that "!=" is "not equal to".

X = male
Y = female
//Pretty straighforward so far, eh?

X != Y
//*Most* of us can agree on that...male and female are different inherently.

X + Y = A
//Heterosexual marriage...

X + X = B
//Male homosexual marriage...

Y + Y = C
//Female homosexual marriage...


A != B
A != C

So there you have it, an enormously trite and imperfect analysis but I'm sure that would make it fit in quite nicely with the majority of rhetoric being thrown around on this issue!

07 January 2005

Two Brief Points:

  • The weekend is here. Hoorah. Time to sleep again.

  • George Will is friggin brilliant. For evidence and to read what are essentially my own views on abortion (albeit in expertly explained expository), read this:


04 January 2005

Time for an update...although I daresay I am not riled up with some new policy travesty or political ramblings. Perhaps I'll just offer up a tepid regurgitation of some of the mild events/ponderings of late...

Well, maybe not even that. Initial dubious reports of Zarqawi's capture elicited a bit of cynical optimism on my part, but its too early to say and the US is denying such reports. It'd be nice to bag him...although I can already anticipate the ACLU suing for his release from Guantanamo.

The Belgians continue to fascinate me with their brewing prowess...its practically alchemy. New Year's Eve was toasted with a very impressive Chimay Grande Reserve. Though my allegiance still lies with the traditional English styles. I ought to form a tasting club...as if my Pretense-O-Meter wasn't already flying off the charts! Bally roger, cabbage crates coming over the briney, and dropped his can in the Bertie. No more RAF banter, sorry. I should jolly well say so, old fruit.