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...

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?

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.

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.

CETME
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.

FN-FAL
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?

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.

Conclusions:

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.

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":

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20041231.shtml

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...

Therefore:

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!

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:

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/will/story/11889488p-12776369c.html

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.

Hypocrites and moneygrubbers at the UN, as usual.

U.N. official slams U.S. as 'stingy' over aid

The US makes the single largest contribution to aid the Asian countries that were hit with the flood...15 million, compared to 4 million from ALL of Europe. Mr. Egeland ought to examine how much his own country (Norway) gave before he starts calling other countries "stingy".

What an ass [burro].

This is going to be a short post as no words I could come up with could do this topic justice.

It speaks for itself:

http://www.starnewspapers.com/star/spedit/col/19-co1.htm

Hello All,

With the onset of Christmas and its resultant lawsuits filed by the ACLU, I am reflecting a bit more on atheism, religion, and the public sector.

Two things I will mention somewhat randomly, neither of which I can claim credit for...

* Jeff Adams mentioned this, how liberal PC types insist that we use the allegedly inoffensive "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". Somehow that is supposed to be less offensive to minority religions and those who are atheists. The word "holiday" is derived from "holy day". How ironic! Happy Holy Days to you too!

* Jonah Goldberg made a quaint observation in a recent column, which I will post here:

By my rough calculation, 99.87 percent of Christians who say “Merry Christmas” to people who aren’t Christian do so because they’re trying to be nice. And, by my equally rough calculation, 97.93 percent of people who take real offense when they’re on the receiving end of such Yuletide wishes are trying to be a pain in the — uh, well, they’re trying to be a pain. Let’s put it this way. If you were in Morocco (and a non-Muslim) and someone said to you, “Have a nice Ramadan,” you’d probably say thanks respectfully and leave it at that. But some people are aghast that, here at home, someone might say “Merry Christmas” to them without first making sure they’re Christians.

Well put, my Jewish compadre.

Anyway, I was thinking about atheism vs theism, and the absolute disdain with which most atheists view "faith". The existence of God, most people will agree, is not something that has been proven or disproven definitively, in a scientific and observable sense. The very fact that there is so much disagreement on this in civilized, educated societies further illustrates that. Therefore, any views held on the existence or unexistence of God are based on...you guessed it...faith. It requires faith to be an atheist. An atheist hasn't proven God's existence or unexistence...his belief that God does not exist is an article of faith.

Weird example because my brain has not yet defrosted (its 14 degrees outside, and no, not Celsius). How about the existence of a being named Sidney Borkenheimer that lives on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy? Dead serious. The non-nutjobs among us are saying, not likely. You may be right, it isn't likely, but as none of us have ever been in the Andromeda galaxy and can hardly observe it even, none of us have the ability to say whether or not ol' Sid exists. We can look at statistics and make a reasonable guess, but any acceptance of a conclusion is based on faith.

OK, this is for all the theophobes out there. Time and time again we are told that public mentions of or references to God/religion are strictly verboten and "unconstitutional", thus all these lawsuits about Nativity scenes and Christmas carols and such. It went so far that a principal in California (where else) forbade a teacher from distributing copies of the Declaration of Independence to his students because of its reference to God. So the Declaration of Independence has been ruled unconstitutional, essentially (so maybe we are back to being colonies of the Empire???). No, let's go a step further shall we, and examine Article VII of the US Constitution:

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.

Doesn't that just frazzle your wig? Not only a reference to God, but an acknowledgement that He is "our Lord"? If that isn't unconstitutional I don't know what is!

Yes, the Constitution is unconstitutional.

What ludicrous banter. The nation was founded on religious freedom...the idea that people could freely and openly express their religious views without fear of oppression or suppression from the government. The ACLU and its ilk is doing its part to undo that freedom...the idea that religious freedom is something that can only be whispered of in homes and churches with the doors well-bolted. OK, thats a bit of an exaggeration, but they certainly aren't fighting for freedom of expression at all. You've got to realize, its not about freedom from religion, as the secularists want. The Founding Fathers never promised you the right to not have to witness or come in contact with the views of others. In fact, its just the opposite...you should be free to openly express your faiths/views/etc. It is very much tied to freedom of speech...its essentially a smaller subsection of that. The Left likes to make a big deal about freedom of speech but it is all too quick to seek government censorship of religious expression.

The best column I have read in a good long time. I very much wanted to post the whole text here, and nearly did, but legal better judgement prevented me:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulgreenberg/printpg20041216.shtml

Read it, I implore you. Put things in perspective.

A letter from a Marine officer in Fallujah, posted on the Internet (thegreenside.com), borrowed with much gratitude from Wes Pruden...I just thought these were worth sharing. Think twice before you condemn a Marine quick to defend himself and his fellow Marines.

"As the Marines cleared an apartment building, they got to the top floor and the point man kicked in the door. As he did so, an enemy grenade and a burst of gunfire came out. The explosion and enemy fire took off the point man's leg. He was then immediately shot in the arm as he lay in the doorway. [Another Marine] tossed a grenade into the room and ran into the doorway and into the enemy fire in order to pull his buddy back to cover. As he was dragging the wounded Marine to cover, [the] grenade came back through the doorway. Without pausing, he reached down and threw the grenade back through the door while he heaved his buddy to safety. The grenade went off inside the room and [a Marine] threw another in. He immediately entered the room following the second explosion. He gunned down three enemy all within three feet of where he stood, and then let fly a third grenade as he backed out of the room to complete the evacuation of the wounded Marine. You have to understand that a grenade goes off within 5 seconds of having the pin pulled. Marines usually let them 'cook off' for a second or two before tossing them in. Therefore, this entire episode took place in less than 30 seconds."

A second example: "A squad leader was wounded as his squad was clearing a house when some enemy threw pineapple grenades down on top of them. As he was getting triaged, the doctor told him that he had been shot through the arm. [The squad leader] told the doctor that he had actually been shot 'a couple of days ago' and had given himself self-aid on the wound ... He firmly told the doctor that he was a squad leader and did not have time to get treated as his men were still fighting. There are a number of Marines who have been wounded multiple times but refuse to leave their fellow Marines. It is incredibly humbling to walk among such men. They fought as hard as any Marines in history and deserve to be remembered as such. The enemy they fought burrowed into houses and fired through mouse holes cut in walls, lured them into houses rigged with explosives and detonated the houses on pursuing Marines, and actually hid behind surrender flags only to engage the Marines with small arms fire once they perceived that the Marines had let their guard down. I know of several instances where near-dead enemy rolled grenades out on Marines who were preparing to render them aid. It was a fight to the finish in every sense, and the Marines delivered. Perhaps the most amazing characteristic of all is that the morale of the men is sky high. They hurt for the wounded and the dead, but they are eager to continue to attack. Not one of them would be comfortable with being called a hero even though they clearly are."

Well, I haven't posted in a while, and much has happened in the meantime, and many thoughts I have intended to document here, but alas, time is not on my side. So many issues I have at various times desired to expound upon, but I just don't always have the opportunity. Not that this is some repository of intellectual brilliance by any generous stretch of the imagination, but I feel like I've let many ideas slip through my fingers in the last week, and that is somewhat of an unhappy thought. More commonly though, I read something utterly brilliant by someone else and neglected to link it here, which isn't so bad.

The marine in Fallujah who capped the dying terrorist. Oorah for that guy. In all seriousness, he was scared. He'd been shot in the face the previous day (so I read). His unit had lost one man and had five wounded by booby-trapped corpses the previous day (or days, don't recall). How much movement does it take to pull a pin on a grenade? Not much, I'd have shot just about anything that moved too. Shoot first, ask questions afterwards. War is not about fairness or justice, it is about winning, because until you win, there will be no fairness or justice. Our boys should play it safe. The terrorists have already demonstrated their fondness for suicide attacks so a fatally wounded man attempting to blow himself up with a few infidels is a plausible and likely scenario. Do I think this was necessarily the case? No. The odds are decently in favour of this guy just groining or moving because of the pain. But take no chances. If you pull a gun on a cop, does he wait until he has determined that, oh, its just a non-functional replica? No he does not, he puts a bullet in you post-haste. Take down the threats...even potential unverified threats. Much truer in wartime than in police activity.

Again, this is all so frighteningly reminiscent of Breaker Morant. Great movie...please do yourself the favour of watching it.

The atrocities of war are not committed by normal men...they are committed by normal men under abnormal circumstances.

How foreboding of me. I'm really not feeling so serious. Oorah to our boys, carry on, and let's end this post.

Sayonara to Yasser "That's My Baby" Arafat!

No tears of remorse for yet another terrorist sent on to his eternal "reward". A man of peace? He died in peace, at least, a slow death in a hospital bed surrounded by skilled doctors and close family and friends. Contrast that to his victims. Innocent children, fathers, mothers, wives, husbands, aunts, uncles, all sorts of people who left for work or school without their loved ones having the opportunity to say goodbye, to express their love one final time. This is a "freedom fighter"? We call a man who refused peace at every turn in favour of murdering Jews a "man of peace"? What twisted thinking. In a world where we are all so careful to "remember the Holocaust" we seem quick to forget the wanton murder of Jewish innocents in Israel.

We give credence to terrorists when we eulogize this thug, this brutal murdering monster. Can't you see? When we speak effusive praise for this slimeball, we authenticate and legitimize his methods. A terrorist is now a hero? What a message that sends! I don't care whether the cause was just or not. That isn't the question. No cause warrants terrorism. Goodbye Yasser, enjoy your stay, you'll be there a while.

Here is another digression...

I've been interested in how exactly to jump back into the music world, so to speak...and I've been considering opportunities and talking with a few people on the matter. One thing I was thinking about is some Christian musicians' mindset that secular music is *inherently* bad, as is playing such music. While I applaud the sentiment of wanting to dedicate one's talents to ministry, and share the sentiment myself, I find a kind of hypocrisy there. Should Christians who have skill as painters only paint nativity scenes? Should Christians who have skill as writers only write about theology? Should Christians who have skill as plumbers only service toilets in Christian homes? I'm a fan of jazz music, and I've played in a couple jazz groups. The music we played was improvisational and instrumental. No lyrics, no message, nothing. It was just music, perhaps not edifying in any way more than being pleasing to the ears of jazzers in the audience, but it was a great experience. Like I said, if a man wants to paint for a living, he'll have a hard time finding enough work if he obstinately adheres to a dogma where he will only paint religious subjects. While I'm not advocating at all an embrace of "sex drugs and rocknroll", I'm just saying we as Christians should examine this stuff objectively and honestly. Some Christian musicians get so caught up in using their music as a tool to deliver the Gospel in an easy to swallow package. They concentrate so much on the practical effect, on the message to get across through lyrics, that they lose sight of why someone would want to listen to music in the first place. (Caveat, I'm not one of those people who has ever gotten much from lyrics, I'm definately more a music guy.) If you concentrate on aping popular styles of music and injecting a Christian message into it, it seems more like marketing than music. Keep in mind the composers centuries ago who would dedicate wordless symphonies to God. Their works were designed to reflect the beauty and awe of God and His creation. All without words. As far as I know none of them ever rhymed "strife" with "life". Yes, I know some of you Christian songwriters know exactly what I am talking about. But that is what motivates me. I detest marketing and never want to use music that way. I want it first and foremost to be excellent. I, again, detest the notion that we as Christians should accept wimpy, watered down, lame caricatures of what secular musicians are doing, Christian remixes if you will. It's like low-fat ice cream. It tastes bad but its good for you. Why eat it then? What is the point of ice cream if it tastes bad? What is the point of music if it sounds bad? If you just want to deliver a message, write it down into a book and have it published, don't layer on a cheesy pop soundtrack over it and call it contemporary Christian music. I'm all riled up, I admit, as I find it agregiously irritating for a lot of the mindless tripe that is recorded out there to be labelled "Christian". Remember what and who we represent!!! Strive for excellence, Brothers, and above all do not allow yourself to settle for tepid, mediocre mock-music if you dare do it in His name!

That said, I suppose there are a lot of people out there who are very genuinely aspiring to glorify Him, not just in a strategic marketing sort of way, and maybe they just haven't developed as songwriters. What can I say, I'm a picky elitist, that is a flaw of mine. However, He isn't, and that sort of joyful noise isn't impeded by what I might consider to be pathetic writing.

Rant over. Have a wonderful day.

In Honour of the Dubious Death or Non-Death of the Leader of Palestinian Terrorism, we proudly present:

The Parrot Sketch:

A customer enters a pet shop.
Mr. Praline: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
(The owner does not respond.)
Mr. Praline: 'Ello, Miss?
Owner: What do you mean "miss"?
Mr. Praline: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
Owner: We're closin' for lunch.
Mr. Praline: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this parrot what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.
Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
Mr. Praline: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Owner: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!
Mr. Praline: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up! (shouting at the cage) 'Ello, Mister Polly Parrot! I've got a lovely fresh cuttle fish for you if you show...
(owner hits the cage)
Owner: There, he moved!
Mr. Praline: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the cage!
Owner: I never!!
Mr. Praline: Yes, you did!
Owner: I never, never did anything...
Mr. Praline: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO POLLY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!
(Takes parrot out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
Mr. Praline: Now that's what I call a dead parrot.
Owner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!
Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!?
Owner: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.
Mr. Praline: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.
Owner: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.
Mr. Praline: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home?
Owner: The Norwegian Blue prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable bird, id'nit, squire? Lovely plumage!
Mr. Praline: Look, I took the liberty of examining that parrot when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its perch in the first place was that it had been NAILED there.
(pause)
Owner: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that bird down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart with its beak, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!
Mr. Praline: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this bird wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised!
Owner: No no! 'E's pining!
Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!
(pause)
Owner: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek behind the counter) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, we're right out of parrots.
Mr. Praline: I see. I see, I get the picture.
Owner: I got a slug.
(pause)
Mr. Praline: Pray, does it talk?
Owner: Nnnnot really.
Mr. Praline: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?
Owner: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)
Mr. Praline: Well.
(pause)
Owner: (quietly) D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?
Mr. Praline: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.

The All-Important Update:

Yes, I know scores of you were sitting around wondering what became of my runny salsa. To put your collective minds at ease, I was able to reduce it it down to a very thick, potent salsa. Extremely hot. Like salsa concentrate, basically. I'm finishing off a bowl of it right now, as the Irish Stew that is finishing up in the slow cooker is not smelling too wonderful. Who likes turnips? Oh well, its food, and it kept Irishmen from starving at least.

Team America is the year's funniest movie, bar none.

Enough of this unimportant jibberjabber. Goodnight.

V I C T O R Y

Sorry my lads and lassies, but for Blogger's burps and indigestions I would have posted sooner. I daresay listening to "Glamour Profession" by Steely Dan is forcing me to fight off a growing temptation to lapse into Eustace mode, my babies. But I shall refrain to let the funk ebb and flow so freely. AGH! There, you see!!!

Anyway, guys, the last week has been quite a wonderful time. Hard work (little of it mine) paid off, and a sweeping victory and mandate for the conservative platform. I stayed up quite late on Tuesday night, until around 3AM when I decided to do what the pantywaist networks were afraid to do, and call the race for Bush. I celebrated with the 50ml bottle of Hine Triomphe cognac I had saved for months for the victory. The grapes used to make that finest of spirits were picked from the vine when Eisenhower (or perhaps Truman?) was president, and its age showed well, it is worth every penny of its exorbitant price which I will be unable to pay again for a good long while. Anyway, it was a glorious win. Bush of course swept with 51% and a nice electoral majority. He got more votes than any president in history. The electoral map was a swath of red, with only blue pockets on the Left Coast, the Northeast, and a few industrial states (unions) to the North. And Tom Daschle was tossed out of the Senate, decapitating their power there and sending a message that we don't care for obstructionism as a status quo method of doing business on Capitol Hill. We increased our majority in the House, and more importantly, got up to 55 in the Senate, giving us a better ability to defeat ill-used filibusters. And while we lost a couple Congressional races in Kansas City (to Cleaver and Moore), I expected that, and the defeat of McCaskill was much more important to me. Glad to have Blunty Boy in the Governor's Mansion.

This all spells great news for the Supreme Court. Hopefully we can replace the aging Supremes with a less aggressive, more constructionist Court that will simply do its job and enforce the Constitution. I don't want an "active" Supreme Court, I just want one that will stick to the letter of the law, and make decisions on what the Constitution says, not what they think is "right". Let's get them back to doing their appointed job...nothing else.

Well, the Dems are depressed and rightly so. It's difficult to understate the gravity of this election. It represented so much more than whether we have President Bush or President Kerry. It represents a defeat of an active liberal press doing everything it could to influence the election, within and without the bounds of ethics (Dan Rather!). It represents a defeat of the liberal elites who said that Bush was a numbskull and would be promptly tossed out (these same liberal elites now think the election represents the stupidity of Americans...there's just no losing gracefully for them, is there?). It represents an endorsement by the majority of Americans of conservative policies, foreign and domestic (and I might remind you "Democrats" that we live in a "democracy", like it or not). It represents an immense victory for conservative ideals.

Kerry deserves a mention...I respect him now more than ever. Whatever his faults, he was well-bred and brought up with some sense of honour it seems. His concession in the face of obviously insurmountable odds spared the nation a lot of headache. Thanks for calling off the lawyers, John. His concession speech was moving and noble, and his words of encouragement for Democrats to not let this embitter them, but to strive to unite and work together, were quite refreshing. No, I don't regret my vote by any stretch, but I am thoroughly grateful for his gracious and honourable conduct after defeat was obvious.

Although here's one funny thing to note...after the President won big, the next major question posed by liberal politicians and the press corps was "what will you do to heal the divide?" Bush is going to try, as he did in his first time, to make sacrifices and offer Democrats what they've been after (education bill, energy bill, health care bill). But the more important thing to realize is that they are the losing Party. It is up to them to get on board with the winners selected by America. You want the divide healed? Step a few feet in our direction...its your responsibility, not ours. If John Kerry was the one selected by America, would the Democrats have to adopt a conservative agenda to "heal the divide"? No, Bush has a mandate. The American people have spoken, so he has the responsibility to govern as he campaigned. Truth in advertising, you know.

I'm eating salsa I made, which is far too runny. I'll have to cook it down next time. Or use drier tomatoes. "Yes, I'd like some reduced-water tomatoes please." I'm worried I'm going to spill it into my keyboard. Oh well, keyboards are cheap. Here's a strange idea. They have things called Grapples at the store, pronounced "grape"-les. They are apples that are somehow injected with artificial grape flavour. Looks like an apple, tastes like a grape Jolly Rancher. If that don't beat all. I almost succumbed to the temptation to purchase them but the price (a whopping six bucks for four Grapples) kept me from giving in. What has the world come to, when we have to use inject artificial fruit flavour into FRUIT.

Ahhh, Bootsy Collins...your music brings out the funkiest in me. Groovytown.

Yes, the ambling randomness of this post has deteriorated into jumbled babblings on whatever passes the not-too-strictly-guarded doors of my brain.

Why does Hyvee not carry lamb? I wanted to make Irish Stew tomorrow. Now I've got to make some silly beef version. Oh well, it'll be good. I assume it will at least, because it has carrots, potatoes, and turnips in it. I don't know what turnips are and have never had them before. We'll see tomorrow. A natural pairing for such a meal would be Irish stout, but all I have on hand is Boulevard's Dry Stout, which is a reasonably nice brew but a overly thin lightweight compared to some of the better, heartier Irish/English ones (Guinness Extra and anything by Samuel Smith or Young's). The Boulevard is designed for American lager drinkers who don't like a thicker, wine-like mouthfeel...they want thin, crisp, and bubbly. Oh I could go on for you-don't-want-to-know-how-long but the pretentious meter just turned yellow (high alert, as yet uncritical) so I'd better shut up.

All in all, what a week for Republicans. Something to savour no doubt, but no time to slack off or get comfortable. To liberals, I'm sure your dismay is profound and painful, as long as your denial isn't insanely deep-rooted. I'd caution you, for your sake, against bitterly labelling Americans as idiots. You only show yourself the idiot, and manifest what liberals have believed all along, that Americans are dumb sheep that don't what is best for them, and it takes the guiding hand of a liberal government to run their lives for them. If you haven't sunk to that depressing level, then we'll see you on the field of ideas...the rematch will come soon enough!

One other note...Ann Coulter wrote a scathing criticism of Karl Rove this week that I found thoroughly unwarranted. She claimed in the wake of our victory that it should have been a much broader win but for Karl Rove. She wanted the campaign to focus on gay marriage and social conservatism instead of terrorism, and that that would have made our victory even larger. Bullca-ca. As one who enjoys reading her columns and agrees most of the time, this was a slipup in my opinion. The whole crux of the conservative view on gay marriage is that it is not a federal government issue. It is not a crucial issue to the country. Sure, in light of strong support for gay marriage bans across the country, it looks like a winning political issue, but those bans that were passed were state bans. It is a state level issue...irrelevant to the Presidency. Most people don't care about gay marriage like they care about terrorism. So Ann Coulter, you're usually pretty on target, but this week, well, maybe you had celebrated a bit too much and weren't thinking quite straight. It's happened before, when I disagreed strongly with my favorite columnist, Charles Krauthammer. So far Jonah Goldberg hasn't triggered an angry disagreement from me yet, though. Good job, Jonah.

OK, I'm getting terribly ranty and this is too long.

Have a good night ladies and gents.

"Let us to it pell-mell, if not to heaven, then hand in hand to hell" - Shakepeare's Richard III

And so the beginning of the end arrives, this political cycle winds to its climax. My lovely wife and I spent the morning standing in line at a local church to cast our ballots. Not surprisingly (given election board incompetence) our names weren't in the book, so we thought we might not get to vote. They got it straightened out with a phone call, but I was about ready to scream "Voter suppression!!! Get me Jesse Jackson!!!" Thankfully I didn't have to resort to that. On a side issue, there is a somewhat funny, somewhat poignant comparison to be made...our names were blotted out and not found in the Book of Voting, and we were nearly cast out into outer darkness. Alright, not quite appropriate analogy.

But this is it, my friends, the final poll, the one that counts. My stomach sinks with that eager feeling of anxiety before the start of an important contest. Oh well, my ballot is cast, my voice was heard. Let the people (no, not the lawyers) make their decision. Want a UN lapdog whose campaign talking points are parroted by the number one terrorist in the world? Well, it's your choice, America. I hope you make the right one.

Rush had an interesting point. Osama Bin Laden once attacked us with jetliners, and now, all he can do is attack us with a tape. This is what he has been reduced to. I'm by no means saying he is no longer a threat or that we can breathe easier, but look at it...we've been promised over the past three years countless attacks on our soil by the terrorists, and we've kept them so much on the run that in three years they haven't pulled off even one. All he can do is issue threats via Al-Jazeera. He is on the run, an insipid coward fleeing for his life into dirty little mudpits just like Uncle Saddam. Stand and fight, you worthless worm. We'll get him, and his dishonoured corpse will be welcomed into eternity where the 72 virgins he is expecting will be nowhere to be found.

This is a side issue, but I've been thinking about AIDS. We are spending more on AIDS research than on research of heart disease, which kills vastly larger amounts of people. It is an easily preventable disease. We could eradicate it permanently if people would modify their behavior. Sure, there are innocent victims of AIDS, the children who contract it from their parents, and the odd blood transfusion victim, but those are far less common. Most people get it from promiscuity. So here's my solution. Take the billions upon billions we are spending on AIDS research, and use it to have mandatory screenings of all adults every year or two. Then, criminalize the knowing transmission of AIDS. You'll have mandatory screenings for AIDS, so ignorance will be no excuse. You could have a contract to fill out and sign for a partner to give consent if you have AIDS, but if you have been tested positive for HIV, and you sleep with someone without them having signed a release form of some kind, you should be guilty of a felony, in my opinion. We need to stop the SPREAD of AIDS. Get at the source. The problem is, the Left doesn't want to give up a promiscuous lifestyle, so it insists we spend billions upon billions in search of a cure, so we can all get back to the business of "free love" and whatnot. You think AIDS is a problem? Well, then, keep your pants on and most likely you won't be at risk. They used to require STD screenings as a prerequisite for a marriage license. It isn't a bad idea...it would promote the public health. It's admittedly not sensitive and could be very cruel, but certainly less cruel than the transmission of such an STD to an innocent person without their knowledge.

What a tangent. Anyway, vote for Bush today. If you are registered to vote and support Bush, and you don't get out and vote today, then I jes' might haffa come open up a can a' whoop-ass on you. Get out the vote! Man, sloganeering is fun, I should become a Democrat...

Here is my unsolicited poll analysis.

I'm using the poll averages of RealClearPolitics.com. Essentially they just maintain averages of all of the latest polls, so I'm not just picking and drawing from whatever poll I like.

Right now they maintain a listing of all states that are considered (by an average of state polls) as Solidly Bush, Leaning Bush, Solidly Kerry, or Leaning Kerry. There are eight other states that are currently considered tossups. Counting just the states that are considered solidly for or leaning to either candidate, Bush has 232 electoral votes and Kerry has 190 electoral votes. 270 votes are required to win.

Next, I looked at the state poll averages of the "tossup" states, and went ahead and counted them. They may yet be considered "too close to call" and they are indeed volatile, but I counted them regardless depending on who the polls have them favoring.

Bush gets an additional 34 electoral votes, and Kerry gets caught up with 62, putting them at Bush 266 and Kerry 252.

Ohio is averaged with a tie for its 20 electoral votes. Therefore, in the extremely unlikely event that the polls carry over accurately to the only poll that counts on Tuesday, it all hinges on who takes Ohio. In that scenario whoever won Ohio would take the presidency.

I'm sorry to be so silly in such proximity to the most momentous election of my lifetime, but I can't help it. All this morning I've had the Python sketch "Biggles Dictates A Letter" running through my brain and I can't keep from laughing. Graham Chapman is a bleeding genius. To tell the truth, they all were, but this was one of Chapman's best, in an insane, silly way. He always seemed to have a knack for poncy, uppity sorts. They all could do that well, but, for example, Cleese excelled in the very straightlaced, annoyed, and rigid types, Palin was EXCELLENT as both the dirty minded lowlife and the timid, spineless accountant sort, Idle was a great slimy nightclub host among other things, and Terry Jones was unparalleled as the nasty old woman. Although Chapman was also immensely good at loopy, brainless pepperpots. And Terry Gilliam, he was more of an animator than an actor-Python, but I've always liked his Viking character ("this is my only line!"). But without further ado...

The sketch:
(Cut to stock film of First World War fighter planes in a dog-fight. Heroic war music.)
Voice Over: The Adventures of Biggles. Part one - Biggles dictates a letter.
(Mix through to Biggles and secretary in an office.)
Biggles: Miss Bladder, take a letter.
Secretary: Yes, Senor Biggles.
Biggles: Don't call me senor! I'm not a Spanish person. You must call me Mr Biggles, or Group Captain Biggles, or Mary Biggles if I'm dressed as my wife, but never senor.
Secretary: Sorry.
Biggles: I've never even been to Spain.
Secretary: You went to Ibiza last year.
Biggles: That's still not grounds for calling me senor, or Don Beeg-les for that matter. Right, Dear King Haakon...
Secretary: Of Norway, is that?
Biggles: Just put down what I say.
Secretary: Do I put that down?
Biggles: Of course you don't put that down.
Secretary: Well what about that?
Biggles: Look. (she types) Don't put that down. Just put down - wait a mo - wait a too. (puts on antlers) Now, when I've got these antlers on - when I've got these antlers on I am dictating and when I take them off (takes them off) I am not dictating.
Secretary: (types) I am not dictating.
Biggles: What? (she types; puts the antlers on) Read that back.
Secretary: Dear King Haakon, I am not dictating what?
Biggles: No, no, no, you loopy brothel inmate.
Secretary: I've had enough of this. I am not a courtesan. (moves round to front of the desk, sits on it and crosses her legs provocatively)
Biggles: Oh, oh, 'courtesan', oh aren't we grand. Harlot's not good enough for us eh? Paramour, concubine, fille de joie. That's what we are not. Well listen to me my fine fellow, you are a bit of tail, that's what you are.
Secretary: I am not, you demented fictional character.
Biggles: Algy says you are. He says you're no better than you should be.
Secretary: And how would he know?
Biggles: And just what do you mean by that? Are you calling my old fictional comrade-in-arms a fairy?
Secretary: Fairy! Poof's not good enough for Algy, is it. He's got to be a bleedin' fairy. Mincing old RAF queen. (sits at the desk)
Biggles: (into the intercom) Algy, I have to see you.
Algy: Right ho. (he enters) What ho everyone.
Biggles: Are you gay?
Algy: I should bally well say so, old fruit.
Biggles: Ugh! (he shoots him) Dear King Haakon ... oh ... (takes the antlers off) Dear King Haakon. (the secretary types) Just a line to thank you for the eels. Mary thought they were really scrummy, comma, so did I full stop. I've just heard that Algy was a poof, exclamation mark. What would Captain W. E. Johns have said, question mark. Sorry to mench, but if you've finished with the lawn-edger could you pop it in the post. Love Biggles, Algy deceased and Ginger. Ginger! (puts the antlers on)
Secretary: What?
Biggles: Rhyming slang - ginger beer.
Secretary: Oh.
Biggles: (into the intercom) Ginger.
Ginger: Hello, sweetie.
Biggles: I have to see you.
(The door opens, Ginger enters as a terrible poof in camp flying gear, sequins, eye make-up, silver stars on his cheeks.)
Ginger: Yes, Biggles?
Biggles: Are you a poof
Ginger: (camp outrage) I should say not.
Biggles: Thank God for that. Good lad. (Ginger exits) Stout fellow, salt of the earth, backbone of England. Funny, he looks like a poof. (takes off the antlers) Dear Princess Margaret.
(Pantomime Princess Margaret enters from cupboard.)
Margaret: Hello.
Biggles: Get back in the cupboard you pantomimetic royal person. (she goes)
(Quick cut to a loony.)
Loony: Lemon curry?
(Cut back to Biggles.)
Biggles: Dear real Princess Margaret, thank you for the eels, full stop. They were absolutely delicious and unmistakably regal, full stop. Sorry to mench but if you've finished with the hairdryer could you pop it in the post. Yours fictionally Biggles, Oh, PS see you at the Saxe-Coburgs' canasta evening. (puts the antlers on) That should puzzle her.
Secretary: (sexily) Si Sefior Biggles.
Biggles: Silence, naughty lady of the night!
(Bring up heroic music and mix through to stock film of fighter planes in dog-fight.)

Queen Edwards Promises Rioting If Bush Wins

Wow, if this isn't great. Elizabeth Edwards, responding to a Pennsylvania supporter voicing concerns about the occurence of post-election riots, said "not if we win." What a telling admission. So, if Kerry wins, no violence will ensue, but if Bush wins, look out for rioting! Liz Edwards will be leading the charge, setting fire to urban centers and hurling bricks! What a horrid thing for her to say...an implicit threat of violence on one hand (a vote for Bush is a vote for rioting), and an admission of the difference between Republicans and Democrats on the other. Do Republicans riot when we lose? No...that's a fundamental difference. We don't glorify angry hate speech of protestors. We don't view vitriolic slogan-shouting to be a worthwhile use of free speech. The Democrats have Al Sharpton, a bigoted hatemonger who has stirred up a few riots in his day, and we have mild-mannered George Will. I mean, look at the differences...I'd say we handle anger a little bit better than most of our liberal counterparts. Newsflash, nutjobs: the Sixties are over. The self-righteousness of the average modern protestor is quite a turn-off. There is an arrogance there, as if the protestor has something so much more worthwhile to say than anyone else, that they must go to Washington to preach their message on the steps of the Capitol. I write my political thoughts on this blog, which goes mostly unread admittedly, but I don't go out on the streets and chant at people. People are welcome to read my humble musings here, but I would never choose to force them onto people. That is the difference. It's the in-your-face, I-am-woman-hear-me-roar, sixties mentality. The self-assured arrogance of the protestors makes me want to vomit in a style reminiscent of "Team America". Actually it seems a perverse mingling of the sixties mindset with the punkrock mindset...flower power without the love. Very hateful people out there. I can respect passion and zeal, but channel it, and use it for good, not for hatred, violence, and bitter division. You want to talk about Bush not being a uniter? Lord knows he tried (all sorts of Democrat issues like education and health care), but the far left of this country has spat in his face every time.

But back to Bets Edwards...wow, what a quote! No riots, I promise, if we win. But if we lose, there will be hell to pay! WE'LL RAZE THIS CITY TO THE GROUND!!!

The Democrats have long claimed to be the loving compassionate party. Today they are a far cry from that! I've never seen such vitriol and spite fueling an election. I'm no Kerry fan, but I'm not about to start firebombing the metropolis if he wins.

"Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage." -Winston Churchill

Guten Morgen, Damen und Herren.

My mood jumps a bit back and forth watching the election news over the past few months...I was riding quite high after the post-convention Bushie-Bounce, and then after the first debate when Our Fearless Leader was acting a bit pissy and impatient (and polls subsequently evened out) I was a bit morose with the thought of a possible defeat. And now, as Bush widens his lead (visit http://www.realclearpolitics.com for an up-to-date average of the major polls and an electoral college map) I'm feeling reassured. It all boils down to the immense unpredictability of elections, though...the only poll that matters is on November 2nd. But we will see.

I find it enormously amusing that my friend and fellow patriot Andrew Talbert has achieved one of his goals over the past week...making the first contact with his future wife, Barbara Bush. While he confessed to me that email addresses and phone numbers were not exchanged as yet, he insists that this is only the first stage, and I must give him time. I saw the pictures of them together yesterday they had taken...they do make a fine couple. Good luck Andres, you have your work cut out for you. Have a care not to get your legs broken by the Secret Service. Well, in all seriousness, I laugh, but I have also long learned not to underestimate future President Talbert. A genuine good luck, Sir, as you will need every ounce of the training you recieved from me in all manners of suaveness and charm.

Vlad Putin has essentially endorsed Bushie for reelection. Tony Blair I would wonder about, but I bet he would too, but for his decidedly liberal base that no doubt yearns for The Nuanced One. Now, I can see Kofi Annan, Jacque Chirac, the Iranian mullahs, and Kim Jong Il aching for a Kerry victory, but as far as our real allies go, they don't want someone who intends to leave them high and dry. Bush is doggedly loyal and resolute, and that sort of consistency is probably much valued by our true allies. With Kerry, there couldn't be a sense of trust, because you never quite know for sure what he means or intends to do. For example, consider his statement as follows, just after the capture of Saddam:

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."

Kerry has gone and contradicted himself on this time and time again, over these past few months. He is an opportunist, not an idealist, and that means what he says is calculated, not founded on a core belief. Howard Dean, psychopathic nutjob though he may be, was at least this sort of idealist who said what he believed. Likewise, Nader. But Kerry? Give me a break...he's a gigolo for rich widows, and that personality has carried over to the political spectrum.

Hats off to Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

I saw a sneak preview of their Team America movie, to be released this coming weekend. What can I say, I've not laughed at a movie so much in quite some time. Wonderful, absolutely immature, and a rare crack at the sacred cows of the celebrity world. Sure to piss off some people in high places in Hollywood, undoubtedly. I would say this movie cracks its way into my top ten comedy films of all time, definately. And as another caveat...those with tender sensibilities or an aversion to the traditional violence, profanity, and sex of standard issue action movies, you'll want to avoid this one too. It does a good job of being offensive in every way possible. And antiwar liberals might come away a bit offended too by the general message of the film. Sean Penn already dashed off a bitter memo to the creators, who no doubt savoured getting that reaction. Anyway, it is nothing short of brilliant as a parody of cheesy action films, and pays a good deal of homage to its Thunderbirds roots...unfortunately few people in my age bracket ever saw much of the original Thunderbirds, which no doubt makes it funnier for me. The music is hilarious and well done, and the cinematography...wow...it should win something for that alone. And Kim Jong Il, he was absolutely divine. "How you rike that, HANS BRIX!!!" And of course, "I'm So Ronery".

I'm not usually one for propoganda, but everytime I see the following slogan I mildly chortle inside:

"Ten Out of Ten Terrorists Agree: Anybody But Bush!"

That's it. That's all I have to say. Except, perhaps, that Goldberg's column today was bleeding brilliant, me lads.

Hands up, all you who watched the Veep-Debate...

I thought so.

Of course the liberal networks did their darndest to propogate the idea that it was a draw (I daresay we conservatives value honesty a bit higher, in light of our response to Thursday's debate), but for anyone actually paying attention, Edwards got paddled. He got taken out to the woodshed, my friends, and was sent home squalling. Probably won't be sitting down for a while.

Coulter said it best:

"Here's what the vigilant viewer of Tuesday night's debate would have learned: You should vote for the Kerry-Edwards ticket because John Edwards' old man used to learn math off of the TV. Dear Diary: Went to a vice presidential debate Tuesday night and an 'Oprah' show broke out."

Cheney was in fine form. I felt an enormous sense of respect for his approach to the gay marriage amendment. He had little to say...out of loyalty. I admit I believe this is a states' rights issue...but Great Gravy I don't want to get into that right now, I'm far too whimsical. Or am I far too burdened with the weight of the world? Oh well, either way, I'm not going to needlessly wax on about federalism today.

Hmmm...after reading a shocked reviewer's musings on "Team America"...well, let me just say it may be a lot worse than the mild but humorous trailers make it out to be! Being a fan of the hilarious yet outlandishly profane South Park movie, I'll probably still enjoy it (curse my jaded ears!) but I don't think I'm going to go and recommend it to one and all! These are the same guys who brought us Terrance and Phillip's spirited chorus of "Shut Your ******* Face, Uncle ******", the love triangle between Satan, Saddam Hussein, and that Chris guy, and the episode where Cartman dons a speedo for a NAMBLA conference. I mean, this is sick stuff...so caveat emptor.

But Kim Jong Il singing "I'm So Ronery"? I can't miss that.

Anyway, on with political tidings...the depressed Left finally did get a shot in the arm. Kerry and his minions are crowing with joyful fervor because, basically, Kerry didn't say "umm" as much. Here is Bush's problem. Most still side with Bush on the substance of the debate...nobody wants for us to have to submit to the UN's "global test" in order to defend ourselves, except the fringe lefties. However, in "style" Kerry won. Bush was unacceptably irritable, and probably tired from a long day of travel and duties. He spent the day with hurricane survivors...you and I would be worn out too, emotionally if not physically. The problem is people who care about substance have already made up their mind. The people who are still out there calling themselves "undecided" are the morons and ignoramuses who don't deserve the right to cast a vote, in my wild and ranty opinion. And they don't care about the substance, they care about who looks better, who speaks with more articulation, and who has the best "impression" on them. Not what they say, but how they say it. That is why debates are all about style and not about substance, because the only people who could be swayed by them are the imbeciles who fancy themselves to be great independent thinkers, when all they are is daft "useful idiots" floating along bereft of any core philosophy of government, susceptible to any pandering tossed their way in exchange for a vote.

But tonight, things might go differently. Certainly no undecideds really care about the veep debate, but political buffs definately are geared up for this one. Edwards is the trial lawyer, the Lionel Hutz of the Left. Prepare for the "George Bush runs over innocent puppies with a wheat harvester for fun" argument. Cheney on the other hand is entirely capable and coherent, a very bright man. As I have oft said, Edwards is the yapping shih'tzu to Cheney's bull mastiff. Edwards thinks he can run circles around Cheney, but Cheney has that slow, patient power and command of the situation. A great matchup to be sure.

Who is this Edwards guy anyway? What a used car salesman, his phoney plastic smile annoys the hell out of me. You want this guy, a junior Senator with no other experience outside of trumped-up lawsuits, to be vice-president? A single bullet or aneurism away from leading the most powerful country in the world? What industrial solvents have you been inhaling???!!!

During the early months of World War II, when many felt the nation's war machine was running on empty and anxiety hovered over the land of the free, Life magazine published a cover photograph of a Japanese officer with a scimitar raised to behead a kneeling American flier with a cut that was no less gruesome for its swiftness. The photograph haunted the nation for weeks. There was sadness and anger, but no rebukes of FDR, no cries of despair, no mocking of American soldiers that they were fighting "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." The cruelty of the savagery enraged the grown-ups and fortified the fury that redoubled determination to win the war. We must determine again to show our enemies just who we can be, and passing a "global test" of approval be damned. -Wes Pruden

As a deeply devoted "South Parkateer" and a longtime fan of the original "Thunderbirds" series, I must say I wait with bated breath for the launch of "Team America: World Police":

http://www.teamamericamovie.com/

Who better than Matt Stone and Trey Parker to simultaneously humanize and immortalize brutal despots? First Saddam Hussein...who made his most notable performance in "South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut". Now, the eminently lovable and idiosyncratic Kim Jong Il, better known as "that little pot-bellied dictator from North Korea", will be forever sealed in our minds as a small wooden puppet. From the snippets I've seen...I'm going to love this movie. Hopefully they stay within the bounds of at least some semblance of taste, but what can I even hope for from these guys? Probably not that.

For all the popularity of emo crap and 80's rehash poprock on the local scene, I feel sometimes like heading back to my roots. Listening to Chicago Transit Authority and Led Zeppelin II seem to confirm it. That's the kind of music I was born to play. I am, after all, my father's son.

Oh man, I am going to need a bigger amp.

"I am now and have been for years a firm advocate of developing a system to limit the people who can vote in this country. We need to find a way to restrict the number of people who can vote. If we don't weed out the chaff soon it may well be too late. Don't give me that 'democracy' nonsense. In spite of what you hear from your government school teacher, your leftist college professor, or that smiling talking head on television, we are not a democracy. Never were. Weren't supposed to be. You won't find the word 'democracy' in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States or in any constitution of any of the 50 States. There's a reason for that. Our Founding Fathers hated the idea of democracy. They knew that a government of majority rule would dissolve into a tyranny of plunder and chaos. In anticipation of yet another knee-jerk response to my proposal that we limit voting, let me remind you that there is absolutely no constitutional guarantee of your right to vote in any federal election. Do some reading. It isn't there. A latte to the person who can find anything in our Constitution that sounds remotely like 'each citizen shall have the right to vote in a federal election.' Happy hunting." -Neal Boortz

Hats Off To Jocelyn Elders

The loopy dingbat Surgeon General of the early Clinton years, I had all but forgotten Ms. Elders. This morning I stumbled across a portion of tape I had made probably some ten years ago of some of her more batty remarks. This woman was a true comedienne, she was talented...along the lines of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf (individuals who claim to be serious, but are so insanely funny it is hard to believe that they are). Imagine a cross between a zestful inner-city preacher and Nurse Diesel from Mel Brooks' High Anxiety, and that's the ever beloved Jocelyn Elders. I can't even describe the things she said...it would not do her justice. It was the way she spoke, her diction. You were fantabulous, Jocelyn, we remain your devoted fans whereever you are.

Oh, how the Mighty have fallen, my friends. CBS sends in its bomb-defusing squad a good long week after Rathergate detonated. It's too late, guys, sorry. You've nixed your credibility...so long, you self-important dinosaurs of the previous journalism age. Long live the dynamic, populist power of the blogosphere.

I'm thinking tentatvely of actually getting involved locally...I've been to many local GOP leadership meetings at the behest of future President Talbert, but I'm pondering attending a UMKC College Republicans meeting. Not that I'm ever on campus anymore, but hey, why not, I am a student after all.

And yes...though I've not mentioned it before, I finally purchased my car. It is a beauty, a stunning emerald green 2001 Mazda Miata LS, leather interior, tan ragtop, 6-speed transmission, Bose sound system, optional rear spoiler...it is my baby. I love it more than I thought I could love a car. Which isn't all that much admittedly (no, I'm not auto-obsessed), but still, I do think it is about as awesome as a car in my price range could be. Ohhh that suspension, crisp, rigid, and responsive...the car fits like a glove, and responds with an almost telepathic sensitivity as we carve through the serpentine roads, the crisp September air rushing past and the lusty growl of the engine...music to my ears. Did I mention it is beautiful? Anyway, for all who have not experienced the luxury that is a roadster, Miatas are highly recommended. Zoom-zoom.

I should be in marketing, really. I want a car that is "powerful like a gorilla, yet soft and yielding like a Nerf ball". Oh, Homer, what have I become?

And yes...this makes the idea of a baby grand seem distant and unreachable. Ehh, VSTi's are ridiculously cheaper, more flexible, and generally better-sounding too. They just lack the romance...no strings vibrating, none of that subtle interplay and sympathetic resonation. But who cares. Rather, who cares enough to warrant the price. Not me, at least, not at this point.

Almost finished with Coulter's book...it is a masterpiece, gents, and don't you forget it. Buy it or procure a copy from your local library, I must insist. As a young man (if only in a literal sense) I am amazed to think of what we have been taught about Joe McCarthy. It's the ultimate payback of the comsymp liberals he exposed...a true revisionist hitjob. I daresay, not even comsymps...actual Soviet agents paid by the Kremlin.

Ladies and Gents,

Here is my reasoning why we should be even more optimistic than the polls suggest. The key issue is not what the American people think in general, it is who is going to actually vote, and what they think. The Republicans of this country are riding high after a fiery convention, and are extremely optimistic, and they love their guy. The Democrats are demoralised, and are united much less in support of Kerry, whom they generally dislike, than in hatred for Bush. Few Democrats want to go to the polls this year because they love John Kerry, because he's their guy. They view this election as a bitter contest between Bush and Anybody-But-Bush. Hate for Bush will prove to be much less motivating for people to head to the polls than support for a candidate. Look at it this way...Demos are kind of depressed about this election, because they don't particularly like either choice. Would you rather go to the polls to choose between a candidate you really liked and one you didn't, or two candidates you disliked, albeit one more than the other? Republicans are excited to cast a vote for George Bush. There's excitement there. Democrats...at least those Democrats who have been paying attention...see their candidate and are quietly remorseful of their choice. Everyone knows Kerry is a schmuck...we expect that of politicians anyway, so its no big surprise, but you KNOW they are longing for the days of the charming, engaging schmuck...but soft, what light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Bill Clinton is the sun! Dream on, Demos.

Reading Coulter's book "Treason". Excellent book I must say, three cheers for Whittaker Chambers and Joe McCarthy. The book is a resounding success of truth in the face of liberal revisionism.

Ohh, I am giddy as a schoolboy today, mis amigos, at the unfolding absurdity going on at CBS News. Death knells for the Kerry campaign if the spaghetti hits the fan. And it just might.

I hope you all have been watching this unfurl, because it is mesmerizing, a tooth-and-nail fight between the Old Media and the New Media. The Old Media, vanguarded by Dan "Stinkypants" Rather (his college nickname) and CBS, has been caught by the throat, yet refuses to yield. Cheers for the bloggers who blew the whistle, brilliant analysis. My favorite part of all this, though, is the conjecture of the source. Many believe the source of the forgeries is the Kerry campaign. If this is confirmed, goodbye John-John, you will join the ranks of Mondale and Dukakis. The crazier conjecture, put forth by reporters undoubtedly clinging to hope, is that KARL ROVE (!!!) created these and fed them to the DNC. Its just crazy enough to be brilliant, and I would be almost pleased to know we have such clever if absolutely insane people on our team, but give me a break! The idea was good for a laugh in any case. Rove must also be behind Sept 11th!!! And AIDS!!!

Anyway, if we wrestle the source of these forgeries out of CBS, which is a tough job, and it is a Kerry or DNC affiliate...then I can drink my celebratory Hine Triomphe now instead of election night, because its officially over. I really wouldn't mind seeing the polls jump up another 10 points for Bush. We're really quite close to Nov 2! Less than two months, folks. Kerry's modern day PCF 94 is shot full of holes and he looks to be going down with the ship.

In other news, I played my Fender Jazz Bass the other day, I've had it loaned out and I've missed it. Ooooweee baby you set my soul on FIRE...that's why I know you are my only desire... Sorry, it was just so groove-tastic, my friends, that I had to interject some Stevie Wonder. Something about a Jazz Bass, the grooves just pour out. Smooth, sophisticated, rich. Oh yes, I can dig it. Man, Eustace is filtering over here or something. But seriously, playing bass is an enriching experience. Even when playing the most soulless, linguine-spined, whiteboy music...you can commandeer the groove, put some motion into it. Yes, I love the bass...

The Great Bear Awakens

I'm somewhat surprised at myself for leaving this topic untouched...the Beslan hostage crisis. I find it stunning that our media will refer to these cowardly dogs unfit for staining the blades of our bayonets with their rancid, pale, venemous blood as "Chechan rebels", just as the murderous, hate-filled terrorists in Iraq are now known as "militants". Wow, that first bit was good, Michael Savage would be proud. These vermin who would shoot a young, innocent child in the back like an animal... Well, suffice to say that I am excited and grateful to hear that the Russian government has not lapsed into the fearful and ineffective tactic of concessions. These are people who don't care about political correctness or how nice people in the world think their country is...they care about killing the bastards who did this and those that would do it again. Thank goodness we now have an ally, perhaps an ally we've not always been too chummy with (that's for sure), but at least another country united in our resolve to fight this doctrine of Islamic facism and terrorism, and vanquish it and its murderous adherents from the face of the Earth. I must confess, I am thrilled to see a resolved Russia now ready to fight terrorism, infinitely moreso than had France or Germany done such an about-face. Those two countries are irrelevant, and they haven't had a serious military in almost 60 years, unless you count our boys stationed over there to protect them from the now-defunct Red Army. So piss on France and Germany (you didn't think I could get any more elegant in my word selection, did you?). Besides with the current demographic trends, France may be a hardline Islamist state in 20 years!

The Russians bitterly remember the tooth-and-nail fighting in Afghanistan...perhaps they will put their experience to good use. There are certainly a lot of ex-Soviet "-stans" over there that could use a little policing and watching over. The Russians certainly aren't as averse to harshness and sacrifice as the average soft-bellied American is. Seeing Russian troops fighting alongside American troops would be quite a sight, admittedly! Last time that happened they had Berlin between them.

Simple, plain Clarence...I do love thee so, that I shall shortly send thy soul to heaven...if heaven will take the present at our hands...

Pardon me, the Bard has these rantings (or in the words of a certain Dane, "Words, words, words!") bouncing around me head.

No longwinded rants today, nor any great insights...just a simple note of gratitude for the President's recent political comeback. I'd like to also mention that my "schadenfreude" as previously mentioned is not something I experience concerning all Democrats...only the extremely hostile and hateful variety who have been hurling screed after venemous screed at Bush since the 2000 elections. To those more moderate and reasonable Democrats (Zell Miller?) I offer this consolation, though it may seem no consolation indeed at this time. Perhaps as time waxes onward and the eye of history looks back unclouded by the heady times we are all caught up in, we will see perhaps that we were better off with Bush at the helm...beyond political reasonings and party doctrine, but simply just for the sake of our country. Perhaps not, though. Time will judge more wisely than any editorialist or commentator could. Above the political fray and the power struggles there is a fundamental question: how do we protect Americans from Islamic radicals around the world, bent on killing every one of us whatever it takes? I hope pick the right choice, because seriously folks...God forbid that it would take a mushroom cloud over Kansas City (or any other city) to get us to take this war seriously. Just taking that as an example...my wife and I would be vaporized, along with the majority of our friends and family. Millions, possibly billions dead. You have to accept this as a possible threat...they have the will to do it and are working damn hard to achieve the means to do it. If you live in denial of the threat of nuclear terrorism you will never be able to fight it and prevent it. And then there is Kerry's stumping mantra of "jobs, jobs, jobs"? Could you pick a more irrelevant campaign issue???

There are those who would accuse me, and others who raise topics such as these, of "fear-mongering." Just as they would have accused a pre-9/11 whistleblower of the same thing. You bet your sorry ass it's fear-mongering...it wouldn't hurt to foster a little concern among a sedate and comfortable people, who are fast lapsing into denial concerning terrorism, as the painful reality of 9/11 fades into a more distant memory. How much better that they would wake up a little and that fear would motivate them to take precautions concerning our security, than to have an unprecedented slaughter of our people (via a suitcase nuke, a virus strain, whatever) be required to jar us into action.

Ahhh...the late night, tired, emotional, and flaccidly verbose post. The staple of the Blogworld.

I'm listening to some absolutely wonderful music right now. The music from Yes's late 70s albums, in particular, "Relayer" and "Going For The One". While I have traditionally favoured their early and mid 70s material, this is rich and delightful stuff. It offers so much to the refined musical palate...one could listen to this a thousand times and still "get something" from it. I've been on a Yes sabbatical you might say for some time, having been enraptured by the funky-fine groovistifications of Steely Dan, but tonight I sit and rediscover the rapturous beauty and stunning virtues of their music.

What I wouldn't give to create this sort of music. This has been a distant dream of mine for years, and played a big role in the breakup of my high school/early college rock band. The other chaps had a desire to strike commercial success of some kind (so out come the horn sections and ska music...just kidding, wasn't that long ago), while I had a vision to create something much bigger and worthy, the fans be damned! Well, not quite that bad, but you get the idea.

I realise that a vast minority of people would ever agree with me on this music. I also grant that music is an entirely subjective subject, and I've shed some of my elitist mentalities. However, I do recognise a pattern I've noticed. There are some things in life that require more effort to get into, to start to enjoy. Most people are turned off by that and go for the instantly accessible. However in my experience many of these things reward the patient person much more deeply. In the case of Yes music, yes, your pop/metal/emo stuff is easy to follow and keeps songs in bite-size lengths...but they aren't the sort of music that you are going to listen to carefully, almost breathlessly, with earphones, and enjoy intensely while focusing entirely on the music. Likewise, Tolkien's literature isn't exactly an easy read. The Hobbit goes down easily, admittedly, but when you get to The Silmarillion, you have to put effort into it...literally study it. I can say from experience it is entirely worth it. Another quite unrelated example is in distilled spirits...most Americans do not have interest past those cloying candied alcoholic sodas that are mislabelled as "wine coolers", piss-yellow and thin American swill beer, and basic California table wines. It takes a bit of effort to move from these easy-to-drink yet frightfully boring beverages to something like cognac, calvados, or a fine Scotch dram. I suppose I have moved a great distance into pretentious sod territory when I have reached the point where my enjoyment in merely enjoying the nose, or aromas, of such fine spirits equals that of drinking them, but that's my own issue, I suppose!

Yes, I grant you, in retrospect, I sound like a pretentious snob, and perhaps the world wouldn't be better off with more folks sharing my tastes. But as I listen to the softly echoing refrains of "Soon" from The Gates of Delirium (also off of Relayer) I think, it is a shame no one else I know could enjoy this the way I do. True, it is just music, but it reaches quite deep, and I'd love to see others experience this...and love it as I do. Alas, not a likely fate...I should be content to enjoy this undiscovered (by my generation) gem of the music world by myself.