Did you know the word 'gullible' isn't in the dictionary?
One of the most beautiful things about the blogosphere is that when a blogger makes an error, they're normally quick to correct it. .... or everyone else will for them. The phrase 'fact-check your ass' comes to mind.

So maybe major media organizations should do themselves a favor and hire some bloggers to fact-check their reporters before they report, in all seriousness, that "the WHO says blondes are going extinct."

... no really, its by the same scientist who wrote the study proving that a guy really can die from blue-balls.

I don't give a damn how you feel... I care about what you do
The New York Times has an excellent article on self-esteem, and its effects that, while I enjoyed reading it, I spent a good deal of time saying to myself "someone had to do a study to find this out?"

In an extensive review of studies, for example, Dr. Nicholas Emler, a social psychologist at the London School of Economics, found no clear link between low self-esteem and delinquency, violence against others, teenage smoking, drug use or racism, though a poor self-image was one of several factors contributing to self-destructive behaviors like suicide, eating disorders and teenage pregnancy.

High self-esteem, on the other hand, was positively correlated with racist attitudes, drunken driving and other risky behaviors, Dr. Emler found in his 2001 review. Though academic success or failure had some effect on self-esteem, students with high self-esteem were likely to explain away their failures with excuses, while those with low self-esteem discounted their successes as flukes.

It always perplexed me that it never seemed to occur to academics and touchy-feel-good sorts that telling child that they're perfect and wonderful, no matter what a screw-up they are, might have bad results. With the loss of concepts like shame and personal responsibility, we have also lost useful tools in constraining bad behaviour in society.

Yet more old-fashioned strategies for making one's way in the world, like learning self-control, resisting temptation or persisting in the face of failure have received little study, in part because the attention to self-esteem has been so pervasive.

"My bottom line is that self-esteem isn't really worth the effort," Dr. Baumeister said. "Self-control is much more powerful.

There's the kicker, right there. We've been paying so much attention to how children FEEL, we've forgotten to pay any attention to how they're DOING.

Brains and Beauty
I saw Michelle Malkin in an interview on FoxNews last night. I've been reading her editorials in the Washington Times for awhile now, and always enjoyed her commentary. Last night, I got the chance to place a face to the name, and Michelle Malkin is both smart and HOT.

The Shabby Truth is...
Perhaps Josh Marshall hasn't had time to update his post yet, but I think his comments on the Torricelli race are off the mark.

With regards to whether the Democrats should be able to put a new name on the ballot, he says that "The rather shabby truth here is that Republicans understand that Forrester could only get elected in a state like New Jersey not simply if he were facing a bad candidate but essentially no candidate."

I'm of the opinion that the shabby truth was that the DNC had such a low opinion of New Jersey voters, they thought Torricelli would win the election despite his ethical handicaps. Since it has become obvious he won't, the democrats have embarked on a desperate struggle to put a democrat who isn't bound to lose the race into the election. Too bad they waited way past the deadline, because now they have to make themselves like bigger assholes by taking the whole issue to court, and litigating their way through yet another election, rather than facing defeat. If the democrats had any real concern for the voters, they would have demanded Torricelli step down from his post long ago (and before the ballot deadline had passed), and put a 'cleaner' candidate in Torricelli's place. But the democrats aren't concerned with voter choice, they're concerned with winning. And as this latest debacle has shown, they're interested in winning at any cost.

"Because It Is Hard" is only justification for Porn Stars...
Rand Simberg makes an excellent case for changing the mindset we have towards space exploration.

Hear! Hear!
I'm thinking I don't read the VodkaPundit nearly often enough. He quite nicely writes:

What, right now, prevents any nation, other than the US, from doing exactly what they please?

Serbia invaded Croatia and Bosnia. Palestinians blow up Jews. Libya thrusts into Chad (which could be a gay porn title). India and Pakistan wave nukes at each other, while encouraging one another's minorities to commit barbarous acts. Turkey invades Cypress. China and Vietnam have at it. North Korea lobs missiles over the South. Eritrea and Ethiopia go their separate ways, then go after each other's throats. Morocco annexes Western Sahara. Russia bombs Georgia. Iraq invades Kuwait. Iraq invades Iran. Damn near everybody invades Congo. And everybody kills the Jews, to paraphrase Tom Lehrer.

We must be the only nation in the world to ever bother first asking for permission before defending our interests.

Words fail me...
Clayton has posted a letter he wrote to California Governor Gray Davis regarding the plight of the mentally ill in California. All I can add are my sympathies, and my full agreement. This is a national problem that rarely gets any attention unless it ends in tragedy, like the case of Russell E. Weston.

Finally... Just Desserts
Mir Aimal Kasi, the islamic terrorist bastard that murdered two people in a cold-blooded shooting at the front light for the CIA is finally scheduled to be executed. Mark your calendars. On Nov. 7, the murders of Frank Darling and Lansing Bennett will finally be punished.

This does NOT however, detract from what I consider one of the CIA's more devastating security failures. The reason Kasi was able to stand outside the front gates of the CIA with an AK-47 and open fire on the helpless drivers trapped at that light was because the CIA did not install guards at this very vulnerable point. Rumor has it that the ritzy residents of McLean, VA (avg income: $183,381), did not like to be reminded that the nation's chief spy agency was sitting right in the midst of their million dollar homes - so no guards out front. If you drive down 123, past the main entrance now, you can see a cute little white gazebo at that light, a gazebo that was paid for with the lives of two Americans.

The CIA, and other intel agencies are rotten with this "it takes an incident" attitude. People have to die. Secrets have to be lost. Sources have to executed. Terrorists have to slam passenger planes into occupied office buildings... before government agencies will be moved to do anything about it. When government agencies move from a reactive to a proactive stance on security, then perhaps these sorts of failures will occur less often.

Someone at TSA got a Clue!
Bravo to James Loy, who appears to be taking a more logical approach to airport security.
He calls the random gate screenings "hassle checks."... Has Mr. Loy been listening to Israel's airline officials? Sounds like it.

Mixed Feelings...
Attorney General Ashcroft has taken Oregon's assisted suicide law to court. The federal government's position being that under the Controlled Substances Act, doctors are forbidden to prescribe drugs except for 'legitimate medical purposes', and prescribing drugs with the intention of ending someone's life does not fall under 'legitimate' in the eyes of Ashcroft.

I have mixed feelings on this. In general, I'm a states' rights fan, and from that viewpoint, would take Oregon's side. A majority of voters said 'Yes' to this measure, and I believe that it's aim was compassionate, especially when you consider that it has been only in the past few years that hospitals have taken a more proactive approach to pain management. However, and this is a big however, I believe that keeping suicide illegal has a legitimate basis, in this case to avoid nasty eugenics or euthanasia overtones (see Holland).

So I guess I object that Ashcroft is stepping in, and it seems to me that his interference in this case - and in medical marijuana initiatives - reflects his personal beliefs far more than it might be an attempt to address an national problem. But, since the thought of getting rid of our old and undesireables makes me feel queasy, I can't be too angry with Ashcroft in this instance.

News from the Dept of the Obvious
One of the front page articles in the Washington Times this morning carries the headline "Monsignor says gays shouldn't be priests. Now, I was never a catholic, but I was under the impression that homosexuality was considered sinful in the eyes of the church. It would follow, then, wouldn't it, that the church wouldn't want their appointed spiritual leaders to be sinners?

And how is this front page news?

When you put it that way...
If you characterize the marijuana debate as an issue of states' rights vs. the feds, then Clayton's analogy makes perfect sense. I didn't think to characterize it in terms of liberal hypocrisy, though, since I see that so often (see the percentage of congressman who consistently vote against school choice/vouchers, but send their own children to private school; the lefty support for the arabs in palestine, despite arabic attitudes towards womens' rights, homosexuality, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc... ).

"But you would agree that Paris is the capitol of France, right?"
"Well, I guess so."
"Good! Then we're back in agreement!"
- Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy

Someone who isn't related to me is actually reading this!
Wow. My heart skipped a beat when I saw that Clayton Cramer had actually responded to one of my posts on his weblog. I don't track traffic to this, so I had no idea anyone but my sisters were ever reading this. I'm honored.

And in response, I'd like to say that I agree with Clayton here. I'm all for abstinence in teens, and discouragement of promiscuity. I'm not so long out of my teens myself that I don't know the damage that sleeping around can do to your health, your sense of self-worth, or your reputation (and yes, reputation still is important). And yes, your chances of contracting an STD does increase with the number of people you sleep with... had I been lucky enough to find the guy I really wanted to stay with forever, I would have stopped right there. Unfortunately, relationships do end, or don't work out. Outside of celibacy until marriage (and even then, there's a risk, since you can't know for sure if the fella you're marrying is an untouched virgin), the best way to protect yourself from STDs is to be choosy, and careful.

How is a Machine Gun like a Joint?
I normally respect Clayton Cramer's arguments, but this time, he's really making a false comparison.

Clayton asks "Imagine the reaction if, say, Salmon, Idaho, started to buy machine guns using its police department exemption from machine gun rules, and selling them to their citizens with some rationalization equivalent Santa Cruz's compassionate help argument. Do you suppose that liberals would be upset about BATF prosecuting this violation of federal law?"

No, Clayton, of course they wouldn't. But there's a really big difference between giving someone with cancer a joint, in defiance of federal law, and giving someone a machine gun, in defiance of federal law. You cannot kill someone with marijuana, but a machine gun can be pretty damned effective. Marijuana is relatively harmless. It's certainly less dangerous to smoke pot than it is to drink alcohol. A machine gun is a useful tool that, in the wrong hands, can kill any number of people. Big difference. I expect better reasoning out of you, Clayton.

Yes, people should obey the law, but when the law is an ass, as it is in the case of the war on some drugs, they should follow the 11th commandment.

Got Brains?
PETA has revived its Got Beer? campaign, aimed at turning college age students off of drinking milk, by claiming that beer is actually healthier. Never mind that any dietician you talk to would laugh in your face at such a claim; facts were never meant to stand in the way of a lunatic fringe organization that hates humans.

There's a movement going around right now, to revoke PETA's tax-exempt status, using as justification is financial support for terrorist groups. I'm all for it. If you want some good reasons, check out PETA's page on ActivistCash.com...

According to a July 26, 2000, Associated Press story, out of the 2,103 animals that PETA “rescued” during 1999, a whopping 1,325 of them were euthanized (put to sleep) anyway. Considering the organization’s budget during that same year (over $17 million), its cash reserves at the time (over $4 million), and its history of rushing to the defense of even the scrawniest laboratory rat when TV cameras are rolling, it’s shocking that the group would sentence all of those cats and dogs to the needle.

While PETA and the other groups condemn scientific research involving animals (90 percent of which are rodents, according to Americans for Medical Progress, a pro-research foundation), they spend a pittance on animal shelters. Eleven million animals are destroyed annually for lack of facilities. Yet PETA spent less than $3,955 of its $12 million in fiscal year 1995 and $6,100 of its $10.9 million in fiscal 1996 for shelter programs, according to its nonprofit tax forms filed with the IRS.

In contrast, PETA sent $70,500 in 1995 to Rodney Coronado, a convicted arsonist and avowed member of the domestic-terrorist group called the Animal Liberation Front. Coronado served a five-year federal prison sentence for a 1992 animal-rights-related firebombing at Michigan State University.

Unapologetic about its ties to domestic terrorism, PETA also made a cash donation in 2001 to the North American Earth Liberation Front, a group that the FBI has called a domestic terrorist organization.

HPV and other STDs people tend to ignore
Clayton Cramer has a very good post on STDs and makes the point that HPV isn't perceived to be the problem that HIV is, in part, because the real victims of HPV are women. He makes good points. But...

there are other reasons why HPV and, say, herpes, don't get the same press attention that HIV does. For one, HPV and herpes are not generally fatal. For another, they're incurable. So is HIV, but incurable in that case means a death sentence. And finally.... the incidence of HPV among the general population is at something like 50% and there's isn't any reliable way to tell is someone has HPV or herpes or not, unless they are showing warts or open sores.

And finally, its not quantity that increases your risk of contracting an STD, despite what folks would like you to think. It's the quality of your lovers. The best way to avoid contracting an STD is to be very very picky about who you're willing to sleep with. Who's at more risk of contracting an STD, the teenage virgin who's going to give it up to the most popular jock in school? Or the twenty-something woman who's had a number of boyfriends, all in committed relationships?

It's Nice To See Someone Gets It
Rep. Tom Tancredo has been making waves lately, primarily for taking an anti-idiotarian stance on illegal immigration. I don't care if an illegal immigrant is an honor student. He shouldn't be here. Follow the rules when you try to come to this country, because Rep. Tancredo is right when he says "These people are telling everyone else who's doing it right that they're suckers." He is also quite right when he says "How can the Mexican consul be so brazen about telling people to take our laws and shove them? ... If my son showed up illegally at the University of Mexico and asked them for in-state tuition, not only would they refuse, they'd throw him in a detention center. They take illegal immigration seriously there."

And we should, too.

Stupid Teenagers...
Katie Sierra apparently doesn't see the humor in her attempts to start an 'anarchy club'. Especially when you consider the following statement: On the morning of Oct. 23, 2001, Katie asked Mann if she could start an anarchy club, so that like-minded or curious students could gather, have reading and discussion groups and do community service. She'd spent all weekend working on a Constitution and Manifesto for the club. "This anarchist club will not tolerate hate or violence," says her Manifesto. "It is our final goal to dispel myths about anarchism, especially the belief that anarchy is chaos and destruction." (Italic emphasis mine)

Katie, I'm sure someone has asked you to already, but could you please read the definition of an anarchist? You can say all you like that anarchy isn't about chaos and destruction, but if you do so, you are no longer talking about anarchy. It's hard enough to get concepts across in a language like English, its even harder when today's kids (and a lot of leftists... see the lefty definition of handgun control) refuse to actually pair the words they use with their accepted definitions.

I can say that I'm a pedophile, and that I support pedophilia, but that pedophilia isn't about the sexual exploitation of young children... but then I'd sound dumb. Think about it, Katie.

Stupid Women...
Ira Einhorn, an environmentalist activist who brutally murdered his girlfriend over 20 years ago, is finally set to stand trial for his evil deeds. This man beat nearly to death, and then locked in a steamer trunk and left for dead, his girlfriend, who was trying to end their five year relationship at the time.

This is all old news, obviously... but I saw an article in the Washington Post titled Judge: No Immunity for Einhorn Wife that gave me pause.

This monster has a wife? Some stupid woman, knowing that he was a violent, convicted murderer - whose victim was a woman he was in a love relationship with - married him?!? The article doesn't say, but I hope to god that they never bred. Such a combination of violent evil, with willfull stupidity would only pollute the gene pool further.

Stupid Parenting Ideas 101
Richard and Jennete Killpack are victims of the weird ideology that rejects anything traditional, instead substituting unproven, unconventional methods to achieve results. So, when their adopted daughter was apparently having trouble 'bonding' with them, they adopted a policy of forcing her to request everything, even food and water. As if that policy weren't loony enough, they also would force an excess of anything she 'snuck' from them without requesting it... like water. Key passage in the article:

"She had a very severe problem of sneaking and lying ... to the point of even damage to herself," he said Wednesday on CBS' "The Early Show." "They made the suggestion that whatever she sneaked or wanted, that you would do that in excess."
After she took water in June, he said they asked her to drink three 8 ounces glasses of water. After about 12 ounces, he said, she threw temper tantrums, and then followed their request to do exercises and take a time out.
"She started to complain her head was dizzy. I asked her to come over to me, and she basically passed out in our arms," he said on NBC's "Today" show.
"Her death was a tragic, tragic accident," Jennete Killpack said.
But prosecutors said evidence shows Cassandra was forced to drink so much water it lowered the concentration of sodium in her blood, causing fatal brain swelling. The Killpacks' lawyer, Philip Danielson, said unbeknownst to her parents, Cassandra's sodium level was depleted before she drank the water.

So they forced her to drink so much water that it killed her, because she didn't ask for a glass of water first. The real tragedy in this story is that Cassandra was four years old. That's right, they were doing this to a four year old girl. Who cares if a child at the age of four lies? They don't even make much sense, that young! Just as sad is that there are people out there who are ignorant enough to try a whackjob theory like this on their children. And because bad things work in threes... its truly sad that someone decided they were fit to adopt children in the first place, when they treat their children as less than humans, to be experimented on.

These people obviously aren't fit to be responsible for any living creatures. The other two children in their care (one adopted, one biological) are in foster care now, and even as messed up as the foster care system tends to be, I'm thinking they're better off than with these morons.

Welcome home, boys...
On Friday, we added the newest members to our family, Sweeney Todd and Bullseye, a pair of maine coon kittens. Sweeney has an orange and brown mustache and a white throat with a dark brown slash on it, and Bullseye is grey and white with a dark grey 'RCA Victor' ring around his left eye. Both are settling in nicely, but they're distracting me from other things... like being on time for work.

The clearinghouse of Bad Ideas...
Rep. Mark Foley, a republican from Florida, is incapable of distinguishing between making actions, vice thoughts, illegal. His latest offering from the clearinghouse of Bad Ideas is a bill that would make it a crime - punishable by up to 10 years in prison - to make available photos of fully dressed attractive children. Mr. Foley is apparently so concerned that a pedophile might be feeding his perverted interests by looking at pictures of these children...and he's right, they probably are, that he's willing to make it illegal to take pictures of your kids. That pedophiles find children attractive is not sufficient reason to make it illegal to take such photos... I, for one, would not like to face prison time for posting pictures of my children's day at the beach on my website for my friends to see.

They just don't get it
For once, I have to take exception to Best of the Web's editorial content. For Friday, the 13th of September, the top piece on the page is titled "Spies Like Us -- II" and uses this incident as an example of why we were all being silly hysterics for objecting to Operation TIPS. They say that "Presumably these same folks are now outraged at the actions of Eunice Stone." Well, no, actually, we aren't at all. In fact, the actions of Eunice Stone are exactly why we don't want TIPS in place. Any citizen who witnesses suspicious activity is free to call the Police, the FBI, the CIA or whomever they please to report it. It is not necessary for us to employ a citizen corp of spies. That sort of expansion of the federal government... to where we'd employ citizens as paid informants on other citizens is what we object to.

Lileks is always worth reading...
... but today's piece is particularly good.

My favorite quote:

I've been reading reactions to the President's UN speech, and I'm amused at how people don't seem to get it. Oh, now he's being a multilateralist? Now he believes in the UN? No. That speech was the equivalent of that fabled kung-fu move that removes your opponent's heart and shows it to you, just before you crumple. It's of a piece with the administration's behavior since 9/11: Let all the carpers and obstructionists gather on the tip of the thinnest branch, then show up with a saw and announce they have five minutes to come hug the trunk, which incidentally is covered with sap and stinging ants. It was sheer malicious brilliance to cast the entire case in terms of UN resolutions, because now the UN has to chose: either those resolutions mean something, or the UN means nothing. Why, it's almost as if the UN painted itself into a corner - and woke up to find this rude simple cowboy holding the brush. How the hell did he do that?

One less tourist...
Humph. Remind me never to go to Virginia Beach again. No, I'm not a criminal, and I resent having the police essentially put me in a criminal lineup every time I walk down the street.

Conspiracy, anyone?
Instapundit, and Jane Galt linked to this story about apparent foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks that I haven't seen before. I know I'm paranoid, but I'd also like to see the media give this a thorough investigation/debunking.

The article has all the elements of an urban legend, but then again, there were all those liars claiming that pictures of so-called 'Palestinians' (really squatting Arabs) celebrating the 9/11 attacks were really old clips of them celebrating the invasion of Iraq... could it be another whitewash to try and keep the enraged American public from getting pissed off enough to burn down the local mosque? (Yes, friends, that's right. The splodeydopes really were celebrating when we got attacked. They only started lying about it when they realized that wasn't good for their 'victim' image.)

Don't we still have terrorists to catch?
Further resistance to the US government's silly stance on marijuana.

The state says it's okay, the town says it's okay, the measure passed by an overwhelming margin. So the residents of Santa Cruz obviously don't care if someone in their town is growing or using pot. Shouldn't the government concentrate its drug enforcement efforts in a town that wants it then?

I'd forgotten how powerful it is...
Clayton Cramer was kind enough to link to the lyrics for the Battle Hymn of the Republic. I used to know every verse (it was a favorite of mine in Sunday school), but had long since forgotten more than the first and last verses. Thanks to Clayton for linking to it; I'd forgotten how truly a powerful song it is.

In your heart, you know its flat.
Kudos to Rand Simberg for exposing a shocking hoax attempting to tarnish the image of one of our nations heroes.

It all makes so much sense. Rand is absolutely correct. How could I be expected to believe that a 72 year old man would attack a 37 year old? Especially when the alternative... that a 37 year old film producer with an insatiable desire for attention doctored up a video to make it look like Buzz was punching him is so much more logical. To turn things back on that twit Sibrel, it was all obviously as doctored as the film of the lunar landing. Nice try though.

Anniversary
Tonight, I'll light one candle for the innocents who were murdered on September 11th, and a second candle for the rough men who are visiting violence on those who have so greviously harmed us, and on those who would do us harm. No TV. No News (unless the unspeakable happens). Just my family, and reverence, on a day I will never be able to forget.

Yowsa!
Clayton Cramer has a weblog.

For those unfamiliar with his work, Mr. Cramer is probably best known for his remarkably thorough debunking of Michael Bellesilles' made up sources, figures, and facts in his best-selling 'history' Arming America. Cramer is definitely worth reading.

Way to go, Buzz!
Buzz Aldrin was simply giving the only answer a snoopy or rude question deserves. Note also, that the twit, Sibrel, is 37. Buzz Aldrin is 72 years old.

One less customer...
I live and work in Loudoun county. I have approximately a 30 mile drive from my rural home to my office, and using the Dulles Greenway, it normally takes me about 30 minutes each way, and costs me 858 dollars a year (at a rate of 1.65 each way, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year) for the convenience. I used to think it was worth it, since any of the 'free' routes I use to drive to work, normally add up to 15 minutes to my commute time.

But they just raised the rates from 1.65 to 1.90 on my toll. That means instead of the gagging 858 dollars I have deducted from my pay check each year for transportation has increased to a confiscatory 988 dollars each year, just to save 15 minutes travel time. To hell with that. I'll take the 15 extra minutes, quit using the toll road, and save myself nearly 1000 dollars a year.

Someone didn't get spanked enough as a child...
The ELF, a terrorist organization with a pyromaniacal bent, has taken responsibility for a firebombing attack against a forest service laboratory that was researching ways to maintain a healthy ecosystem on the Allegheny plateau.

Because, you know, growing trees is like, bad man, and against nature's way.

I have to agree with JR when he said "I'm trying to understand these folks point of view, but I just can't seem to fit my head up my ass."

Liberal Nimby Hypocrisy
Best of the Web also links to this letter to the editor in the Washington Post where some liberal tried to explain - without sounding like a total hypocrite - why she was sending her daughter to private school.

The choice quote, of course, is this: For a card-carrying liberal, I was surprisingly unapologetic about our decision. Why should I sacrifice our daughter's future to an abstract principle? I wasn't up to battling the school system about class size, curriculum and extracurricular activities. And by the time any changes could be made, our daughter would have already missed out on a vibrant education.

She continues on to whine about how she feels uncomfortable about her decision, since she can't talk about her daughter's exclusive private schooling with her neighbors, because she feels they'd resent her since they can't afford it. No where in the letter does she mention if, as a result of her inner battle, she has come out in favor of public schooling alternatives such as vouchers. My bet is that Opinion Journal gets it right though, when they say: Here in a nutshell is the definition of an American liberal: one who is willing to sacrifice the future of other people's children to an abstract principle.

Yeah, That'll Show Her
Both LGF and Best Of The Web have taken the time to comment on this man, who beheaded his seven year old daughter, because he thought she had been raped by her uncle. Yeah, that'll learn her never to do that again.

To turn the story from evil to blackest comedy, the autopsy determined she hadn't been raped in the first place.

Things like this are why we need regime change in islamic ruled countries like Iraq and Iran, and why I get so damned mad when lefty loonies spout nonsense about us being the bad guys. Try telling that little girl that islam is a religion of peace.

Further Proof that the Only Good Marxist was Groucho
Noel Ignatiev, a marxist professor from Harvard, is arguing for the abolishment of the white race. Cute. However, he, like just about every other self-hating loony on the market seems to have forgotten that there is no such thing as a white race. There are Homo Sapiens, the only race of humans on the planet. Its not like we have homo euroweenius, homo priviledged whitius and homo oppressed darkius... we all fit under the same umbrella, and the only people who are interested in making distinctions between the groups based on the color of our skin are closeted bigots who insist on pointing out our surface differences at every opportunity. They 'feel' for the poor and oppressed, using a basic underlying assumption that just because someone is black, they're automatically unable to compete in the real world, or succeed without special help. If only everyone else in the priviledged 'white' world (never mind that there are plenty of poor white folks out there too) could simply understand blacks' basic inferiority, and adjust to it, instead of holding equal expectations for them, then racisim would end.

Mr. Ignatiev publishes a journal called "Race Traitor". He's incorrect in his title. It should be "Race Baiter" instead.

A Ray Of Light In the Office Of National Drug Control Policy
New guidelines issued by the Office of National Drug Control Policy for schools are strongly recommending against suspending or expelling student caught using drugs. (from the Washington Post)

Issued Thursday by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the guide says the aim of drug testing "is not to trap and punish students who use drugs. It is, in fact, counterproductive simply to punish them without trying to alter their behavior."
John P. Walters, who directs the office, said such testing should be done to get help for students, not to punish them.
"The goal is to say we believe we can do a better job of making kids healthy," he said.
It strongly cautions against suspending or expelling students without treating them, noting that expulsion can create "drug-using dropouts," an even bigger problem.

Considering this goes against the policies of a large number of 'zero-tolerance' school districts across the nation, this is a refreshingly clearheaded look at drug use coming from the federal government. Three cheers for the Bush administration!

Eugene Breaks It Down
In another in a long line of beautifully written posts, Eugene breaks down the anti-Iraq-war argument to its root form. It has the ring of truth to me.

I Like Lileks
Everyone seems to be linking to James Lileks' latest screed. And with good reason. All of Lileks' screeds are worth reading, but this one deserves extra attention. In particular, my favorite passage reads:

"Wealth also appears to reduce our capacity to act. Our reliance upon technology supplants our reliance upon ourselves and other people."

"You have to say this for the chap: once he gets the old Fatuity Extruder up and running, it produces a bumper crop. Yes, my reliance on my car supplants my need for a coolie to run me to work. My reliance upon my computer supplants my need to amble down to the foolscap store for paper, ink and quail feathers, during which I would have many Meaningful Interactions with my fellow man. My reliance on modern medicine means that I do not have to summon the entire village to form an anti-hex circle around my cardboard box to keep the devils out. My reliance upon the grocery store, with its angry chuffing refrigeration units and Gaia-soiling trucks idling at the loading dock means I do not have to rely on the bonny prince to permit me to farm my meager plot and keep enough to feed my scrawny shite-footed children. My reliance on electrical power means I do not have to trundle to the bog and gather peat."

Follow the link, read the whole thing, and when you're done with this one, read the others too. They're all worth the time.

K K K Brownies in the Wal Mart
Or should I call them whities? In any case, some sneaky little elf-like folks in their pointy little white hoodies have been hiding their supremacist literature in Wal Mart products. Those mischevious little white supremacist brownies!

Too Dumb To Live
God looks after fools and small children, right?
Why bother with the fools?

Ain't Nobody's Business But Your Own
I've never been one to change my opinion just because everyone else thinks differently, nor have I been one to keep an opinion soley because 'everyone else thinks so'. It is, however, nice when people agree with me. This piece by Walter Williams, titled "Whose Business Is It?" does exactly that. I particularly liked this McNugget of truth:

Should the fact that if I become injured by not wearing a seatbelt or sick from eating and smoking too much, and become a burden on taxpayers, determine whether I'm free to not wear a seatbelt or puff cigarettes and gorge myself? Is there a problem with freedom? I say no, it's a problem of socialism. There is absolutely no moral case for government's taking another American's earnings, through taxes, to care for me for any reason whatsoever. Doing so is simply a slightly less offensive form of slavery. Keep in mind that the essence of slavery is the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes or benefit of another.

Yep, that's right. Only in a socialist society does this sort of problem arise. The Supreme Court has long held that it is perfectly okay for Congress to regulate that which it funds. Well if Congress (through their ridiculous taxes) decides to fund our health, guess what? They get to regulate our life. And it sounds like there are people out there who want Congress to do exactly that.

This is why I said it was a bad idea...
Shortly after the Sept 11th attacks, when folks were debating compensation (and the level of compensation) for victims and relatives of victims of the attacks, I argued against it. I can't prove that, since I wasn't blogging back then, but one of the main points I made was:

We never did this for anyone else, why should we do it now? And if we do it now, does this mean that from now on, any victims of a major disaster have hit the jackpot? Do we really want to claim fiscal responsibility for someone else's terrorist attack? Doing so will only lead to like requests being made in the future, and it will only make past victims mad.

Well I was right. Nyah nyah nyah.

I'm sure any victim of the Murrah building bombing is just as worthy of financial compensation as any of the victims of the September 11th attacks. I just don't think that either really deserve government compensation, any more than someone who gets cancer, or gets in a car accident, or gets mugged. The government doesn't owe you a happy life, free from pain or terror. The government owes it to us to stomp our enemies, and keep them from doing this again.

Sloppy Reporting: More Dangerous To Your Health Than Soda
The Nanny's are at it again in the land of the loonies. Los Angeles is currently contemplating banning the sale of soft drinks at middle and high schools, in addition to the ban they already passed on the sale of soft drinks in elementary schools, which will take effect in 2004.

This is old news, in the sense that people have been demonizing soft drinks for a while now, and the movement to ban the sale of soda to children has been gaining steam. See the Center for Consumer Freedom's section on Soda: Hop On Pop.

So why bother posting on it? Because sloppy reporters only further this sort of Nanny mindset, by not bothering to report the facts, and not bothering to back up their more outlandish claims by producing any facts. Read the CCF's comments on the Soda wars, and then read the below paragraph from this article in the Washington Post:

"Childhood obesity is causing increasing concern among health professionals, and soft drinks share the blame. Fourteen percent of children ages 6 through 19 are classified as obese or overweight, almost three times as many as in the 1960s."

This statement is made without qualification, without pointing to any studies that back it up, and without prefacing it as any sort of opinion. In other words, this reporter Erica Werner, from the AP, is stating fantasy as fact. I could be kind and suggest that she's just too intellectually lazy to bother researching the CSPI press releases she uncritically regurgitates, but lazy reporting sucks, and so I don't think she deserves kindness.

Jackbooted Thugs revisited...
Okay, yeah, I know it was the BATF that got called a bunch of jack-booted thugs, and they rightfully deserved it. The FBI should have it tattooed on their foreheads though, as this piece in TalkLeft about the wrongful conviction of Salvati makes clear.

We no longer can trust our government or law enforcement agencies to protect us. We can no longer depend on the presumption of innocence. Nor does actual innocence protect you from the ravages of the law.

Joseph Salvati, Steven Hatfill, Wen Ho Lee, Richard Jewell, David Koresh, Randy Weaver, and every other person who has been targeted by our justice (with a small J) department for the wrong reasons, especially to protect beaureaucratic posteriers, my heart goes out to you.

If everyone gets what they deserve in Hell, Hoover and the rest of the FBI will be spending all eternity trying to tread water in a 12 foot deep sea of shit. With sharks in it. And swarms of mosquitoes and big black flies. And its hot. Good luck boys.

Swift Poetic Justice
Charles Johnson was kind enough to post this lovely piece by Claire Berlinski. It's worth reading by anyone...fans of Swift or not.

You mean I can't trust the government?
Instapundit links to an excellent article in TechCentralStation that makes the rather obvious point that, while obesity levels may be rising, a lot of the blame can be laid at the feet of the government and their food pyramid. They have, after all, been telling us to eat lots of starchy high-carb foods for years... despite evidence that that's an excellent way to make you fat.

Garbagemen in defense of Good Taste
California will never cease to amaze me. My sister used to try to talk me into moving out there with her, (thankfully she's switched coasts, and now wants me to move to Florida) but I always declined. There must be something in the water. Or maybe living on a huge fault line does something to your psyche. But when garbage men have to explain to the state that putting a sticker saying "don't throw your baby away" is in poor taste, you know the state has truly lost its sanity.

Letting women know that there is a way for them to surrender their unwanted children with no legal consequences may be a decent and noble goal; hopefully it will reduce the number of infanticides. However, there are much better ways to get the word out than to paste such tacky stickers all over the city's dumpsters. If we're going to do that, maybe as a public service announcement we could also force all girls under the age of 18 to wear signs saying "please don't knock me up and leave me to face the consequences on my own, or rape me, or otherwise abuse me." We'd be getting closer to the source of the problem, after all.

Win some, you lose some...
The students at UNC Chapel Hill who objected to being assigned a study of islam have lost their suit. The summer reading class will be allowed to stand.

Well, you win some, you lose some... and I'd be more upset, but the above article states something that previously wasn't pointed out in any of the news accounts I've seen before: this isn't actually a graded assignment. You can ignore it completely if you wish, it won't hurt you. Therefore, even if the college is saying its required, since it doesn't hurt you to ignore it, and there's already an alternative assignment for you, I no longer care. Students' religious freedom seems to be adequately protected in this instance.

I just hope there are a couple of folks in those study discussions who will actually speak straight, and start a good debate.

Kick Ass!
Judo Club Members Beat Up Carjacker

Crazy women with knives...
I pulled this article titled Apology For Death of Schizophrenic off of the Washington Post this morning, and it just really ticks me off. A certified lunatic is allowed by her family to wander the streets, unmedicated. She steals a shopping cart, and the police are called in, because she's threatening the grocery store employees with an eight inch knife. The police attempt non-lethal force, so the crazy bitch moves to throw the knife at one of the cops. So they shoot her. Gee wiz, sorry she's dead, but its your own damn fault.

If someone is crazy, and wielding a knife, they're more dangerous than someone who is sane, and wielding a knife. You can't reason too well with a nutjob, after all. If you know one of your relatives in your care is crazy, and refuses to take medication, then watch her, goddamn it. Allowing a dangerous crazy woman to roam the streets unsupervised is gross negligence on your part, and shows a distinct lack of concern for both the safety of said crazy woman, and innocent bystanders.

So this family has filed a 25 million dollar lawsuit against the police department for this woman's death, even though the shooting was ruled justified, and the officers will not face any charges. I say the police department should counter-sue for gross negligence, elder-abuse, abuse of the insane, and keeping a public safety hazard. I have zero sympathy with this womans family whatsoever, having had to deal with a paranoid psychotic in my own. You take care of your own.

What a Nice Man

To Hell with Dieting.... How do I GAIN weight?
Whenever I get stressed out, I lose my appetite. This isn't good, because I typically register as 'underweight' by government standards to begin with. When I'm happy and healthy, I generally weigh in around 115 (which is thin for 5'4" but not obscenely so). This past week has been such hell though, that I've dropped 10 pounds and now clock in at a measly 105. I feel like the incredible shrinking woman. I want to eat, but when I'm upset, I can't. I have to try and cram calories into myself however I can manage, just so I won't pass out from lack of food. I switched from water to coke classic this morning, just for those extra 250 calories.

So thank goodness CSPI hasn't succeeded in their boneheaded campaign yet to tax high fat/high sugar foods. Without these foods, when I'm stressed out, I'd end up in the hospital. Without access to high-fat, no carb food like meat, there would be more diabetics on insulin, since they'd have trouble affording an atkins based diet.

Let people make their own food decisions. The lefty health-food diet isn't necesarily the best one for everyone. If I ate nothing but the crap they promoted, I'd be in the hospital for anorexia.

... regarding public schools, and the concept that anyone can do anything if they put their mind to it...
Never try to teach a pig to sing.
It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.
(loosely quoted) Heinlein

"Sometimes, when friends and family tell you something, it doesn't really register, so it helps to hear it from a complete stranger. You're fat." - Oliver Platt, "Lake Placid"

Don't forget they're the demographic with the highest amount of disposable income in our nation...
Okay... so maybe Isntapundit is a mite bit vicious in this post regarding our beloved senior citizens voting bloc, but I love it.

Good to know you're listening guys...
Back in July, I got myself all worked up over a nasty little measure in the Corporate Accountability and Fraud Act that would have made the attempt of any federal crime, a federal crime, punishable by the same sentence as actually committing the offense.

I was concerned enough about it, that I wrote both my congressmen and my representative. A day later the measure was yanked.

Yesterday, I opened my mailbox, and lo and behold, Warner and Wolfe had actually deigned to reply to me! I got a lovely form letter back from each of them, assurring me that they share my concerns over corporate fraud, and that they're doing everything in their power to get the Corporate Accountability and Fraud act passed, to protect everyday americans like me.

Gee its reassurring to know that:
1. Wolfe and Warner share the same form letters for responses to their constituents.
2. Neither they or their staff actually read letters from their constituents. It's apparent to me that whoever sent out the response scanned for keywords and found Corporate Accountability in my note, so mailed back the appropriate form letter.
3. Our government will waste the time and money necessary to mail a four page form letter back to me to assure me that they're listening to my concerns, when the letter screams that they most definitely are not. I'd rather they cut costs by just sending out post cards saying "Got your letter. Won't do anything about it. Thanks for writing."

Dr. Death Has Entered the Building
Today's Washington Times commentary page, carried a piece by Michelle Malkin titled "The life and death of Patrick Chavis"

A stunningly sad example of why affirmative action programs aren't in the national best interest.

With Friends Like These...
... why does the U.S. need Afghanistan as an enemy when we have Saudi Arabia as our 'ally'?

Setting aside the lack of moral clarity involved in supporting a brutally repressive religious dictatorship that treats women as worse than possessions, the Saudis are not our friends. Osama bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia. 15 of the 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is currently keeping U.S. citizens who are legally adults in their country against their will, because they are women and have to have a male's permission to leave. Saudi Arabia funds homicide bombers and the families of deceased homicide bombers (and if you think that the only people who have to worry bout that are the jews, think again.) Saudi Arabia publishes loonies like David Duke. They have no civil or religious rights to speak of. Saudi Arabia is ruled by a relgion that preaches that christians and jews are worse than pigs or dogs and that the only way they can achieve paradise is for muslims to kill or convert all non-muslims. Religion of (Rest In) Peace is about the best you can say for it.

Even the Police 'Get It'. Why doesn't Congress?
What a headline. In today's Washington Post, found the following article off the AP News Feed Nevada Police Back Legalizing Pot Turns out the Nevada conference of Police and Sheriffs (the largest organization for police in the state) voted 9-0 to support Nevada's ballot initiative to legalize possession of marijuana. This initiative is unique in that there isn't any attempt to hang a justification like 'medical use' on it. People just understand that marijuana really isn't a harmful drug compared to heroin, cocaine, pcp, and alcohol.

Wrestling as Opera
Since I am just sitting around, twiddling my thumbs... allow me to explain why I love the WWE.

World Wrestling Entertainment is widely derided as violent, mindless drivel, that is obviously faked. People associate wrestling fans with white-trash trailer park denizens. But I was raised in an upper-middle class home, did very well in school, and now have a very well-paid job. I eat sushi, rent foreign films, and every Monday and Thursday night, I plop my ass down in front of the TV and I turn on Raw or Smackdown!

Wrestling is modern American opera. Try watching an espisode with that analogy in mind, and you'll see exactly what I mean. Melodramatic plot-lines involving betrayal of friendships and loyalties. Glitter and sequined costumes. Fireworks! Instead of singing (although they do that sometimes, as well) they dance. You can't really call wrestling fighting since there's a predetermined outcome, only the most gullible will argue otherwise, and the moves themselves are choreographed and rehearsed. But what moves! These wrestlers performs stunts that would make a gymnast jealous. Watch Rey Mysterio fly through the air during a match, and you'll see what I mean.

Yes, its escapist entertainment, and its pretty juvenile. But its so much fun to watch!

Welcome to the Department of Redundancy Department of Redundancy
It's 9pm at night and I'm at work. I don't have any real objection to working extra hours (although I can always find something better to do) but I'm a software tester, and I'm not testing software right now, I'm watching them install it.

This bugs me. I just spent nearly two months busting my ass and losing weekends to make sure that this stupid code is perfect. Then, we performed dry runs of the installation - TWICE - to make sure that the database and server folks can do their job correctly. I'm fine with watching those. But what's the point of doing all that testing in the first place if, here I am, on a Wednesday night, sitting around on my hands waiting for the chance to tell my database administrator "yep, that script you wrote two months ago, that I thoroughly tested out, and that we've installed twice already, well, yep, its worked for the zillionth time. Can I go home now?"

Lies, damned Lies and Statistics, and Journalists!
*sigh* The school voucher issue has always been one I pay attention to, namely because, in the absence of freedom from government interference in my child's education, I want an escape route at the least.

The Supremes declared school vouchers that allow children to attend religious as well as non-sectarian private schools was constitutional. Go them! Unfortunately, there a lot of folks, namely democrats and their journalists that still don't get it. And they report the news in such a way as to try and make sure no one else gets it, either.

Take Exhibit A: This AP News article I pulled from the Washington Post this morning titled "AP Poll Tracks Support For Vouchers." The opening paragraph is disengenious enough to really tick me off:

Americans tend to favor the idea of school vouchers that help send low income children to private or parochial schools, says an Associated Press poll, at least until they hear that could decrease the money available for public schools.

Then support dwindles rapidly.

Well... the AP newsfeed was kind enough to also publish an article explaining how they arrived at their poll results. The actual question people responded to was:

Would you support or oppose that [school vouchers for lower income kids] if it meant there would be less money for the public schools?

Little bit different spin there, folks. The poll asked about IF, the article cites it as if the issue was WHEN. The fact is, since money is allotted to public schools based on the number of children attending, and the amount of school vouchers is roughly half of what each school receives in funding per child, public schools DO NOT RECEIVE LESS MONEY IF A STUDENT TAKES A VOUCHER. In point of fact, when a student takes a voucher, the school is essentially getting an extra two thousand dollars, without having to take on an extra student.

The reason public schools are so opposed to vouchers is that they have a quite justifiable fear that parents would herd their children out of those crappy public schools in droves if they could. And the teachers are right, parents would. And oh no! That would mean that public school teachers might actually have to teach and get results in order to stem the tide of students escaping their greedy brainwashing clutches.

I Die! Die! Die! Die! Die!
Rand Simberg links to this gruesome story of a lion attacking a pair of lovers in the woods.

The first thing that popped into my head when reading it? "Was her name Thisbe?"

I know that's not exactly how the story goes, but its still pretty messed up. Two young lovers meet in the woods, a lion attacks, man runs away, comes back to find his girlfriend dead. So that doesn't follow Pyramus and Thisbe exactly... but its still pretty freaky.

Life imitates Shakespeare.

... you mean they AREN'T our friends??
Eugene Volokh comments on the Washington Post article that says the Saudis are not our friends.

Well. What a shock. Right? Ha!

In any case, I only take exception to the following comment: I don't insist, by the way, that all foreign countries adopt U.S. rules regarding free speech -- and given that Saudi Arabia is surely no haven for free inquiry, not that much freedom would be lost if the Saudi government added yet another category to the speech that they suppress. But there are limits, both moral and, much more importantly, practical to the Saudi government's power here, and to our power to make demands on the Saudis. And "stop[ping] all anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli statements in the country" is well beyond those limits.

Well that may be the case, but the newsmedia in Saudi Arabia is owned and controlled by the Saudi government. And right now, its full of blood-libels against jews and anti-US hatred. They publish David Duke as a guest columnist. Let me repeat myself: the Saudis control their media. The Saudis actively publish anti-semitic and anti-american propoganda. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for our country to ask their country to pay more than lipservice to the idea that they're our friends. If they want to come across as our friends, they'd do a better job of it if they didn't publish articles (not even opinion pieces) claiming that jews drink palestinian baby blood and the jews control the US government and we're all just apes and pigs under infidel control.

not to mention the fact that 15 of the hijackers were saudis....

Who says we're the weaker sex?
A judge up in Philly overturned a previous judge's temporary injunction to prevent a woman from having an abortion that was brought at her boyfriend's request.

I'm fine with the decision wether or not to have a baby resting soley with the mother. Everyone is always screaming 'my body my choice.' Fine. Your body, your choice. I'm not arguing it. However, don't you think its just a little bit unfair that if your boyfriend knocks you up, you get to decide how he's going to live for the next 18 years of his life? If its a hassle for you, no problem, you can just get an abortion. You can get an abortion even if your boyfriend very badly wants to keep the baby and is offering to take full custody of the child.

But if your boyfriend doesn't want to be a daddy yet? Tough luck. Men have all the responsibilities of parenthood, but none of the rights. Its grossly unfair.

If women want the sole responsibility for wether or not they carry a child to term, then they should have sole responsibility for the child, period. Don't come after the father after the fact and insist that he pony up the dough to support your sentimental mistake. You wanted it, you keep it. Keep on telling yourself its your choice, but remember that you have to live with it.

yes. Yes! YES!!
Today, the Washington Times published an editorial I've been wishing to see ever since I first got my drivers license. It's titled: Move Over, Slowpoke and truer words were ne'er spoken.

... especially if you live in the DC area. I don't know what it is about the drivers around here, but there are positively hordes of self-appointed speeding regulators who will not only drive 55 in the ultra-fast lane, but will actually pull into said lane when they see me come zooming down the road in excess of the speed limit. Why they care if I speed escapes me. That they do it, though, is the sole reason I don't keep my gun in my car. The sheer rudeness, lack of grace, coordination or logical direction of Virginia and Maryland drivers would end up landing me behind bars were I to keep a gun in my car.

Really, though, I'm not even asking you to move over. I can deal with passing you. Just maintain a steady speed if you're going to be an ass like that, and don't stomp on the gas when you realize traffic is passing you by. Is that too much to ask?

"What if I don't believe in the GDP?"

When Dumb Laws Collide
I've always been of the opinion that both existing sexual harrassment law, and the Americans with Disabilities Act were well intentioned but exceedingly dumb ideas. In a perfect example of what happens when dumb laws like this come together, a New York city teacher has won a harrassment settlement from his school district because his student's taunted him about his ethnicity, and the school did not prevent it. The school has paid the settlement, but contends that it couldn't have disciplined the students, because they have special ed (disabled) status, and the school cannot discipline them as a result.

This sort of stuff is so draconian. Sexual harrassment and discrimination laws have created a de facto speech and code of conduct, and conflicts between the two, plus the new habit of holding third parties responsible for damages, is making a joke of our legal system.

For instance, say you own a textile company, and you have a male employee who is verbally and sometimes even physically abusive to your other employees and clients. He's a liability to your business, and puts you at risk for damages in a sexual harrassment lawsuit, due to growing anger from your female employees over this guy's behavior. So you fire him, right?

Wrong! This guy has a mental disorder, which causes him to have trouble relating to people at a normal, non-violent, civil level, and so is a disabled man. As a result, you can't fire him, you are required by the ADA to accomodate his dangerous and violent behavior.

This is what we call being stuck between a rock and a hard place, and its what we've done to businesses across the country.

The dumbest man in the world:
is this man, who is suing fast food chains claiming his obesity and health problems are their fault, and that he believed that fast food was good for him.

The sheer lack of mental power embodied in such a statement flabbergasts me.

I sincerely hope that this lawsuit is tossed out of court, as it so deservedly should be. If this fella was dumb enough to subsist entirely on the lowest quality available food outside of vending machine cheese snacks, then he deserves to live as he currently does.

Consumer Freedom.com has been predicting that lawsuits like this would occur aftr the big tobacco settlements for a long time. There's interesting news available on their website.

What's the point of a Directorate of Intelligence, when there's so little of the stuff in our Government?
In today's Washington Times Letters to the Editor, Sen. Lieberman outlines his alternate proposal to Bush's plan for a Department of Homeland Security. Personally, I think both are bad. Sen. Lieberman, however, appears to have very little understanding of how our intelligence and law enforcement agencies are organized. In his letter, he proposed a "new" Directorate of Intelligence to reside within the Department of Homeland Security.

The problem here is this. We already have a Central Intelligence Agency. This agency ostensibly has oversight of all our other intelligence agencies, and acts as a central clearinghouse for information. Within the CIA are three major directorates. They are: the Directorate of Operations, the Directorate of Administration, and the Directorate of Intelligence. Yep, that's right. We've already got a DI. I'm of the opinion that creating a new, second DI within a brand new baby agency will do us no good and just be a waste of funds. What we should be doing, in my opinion, is working to reduce the barriers to information sharing that we currently face within the intel community. There is too much protectionism when it comes to useful intelligence, and there is also a lengthy, and rather obstructive beaurocratic process that analysts must follow in order to disseminate intelligence. We have the communications technology to make this possible, we should be concentrating on that, not on creating a brand new agency.

... but I'll even take help from a democrat.
Yesterday, I read an article in the Post talking about a provision in the new Corporate Accountability and Fraud act of 2002 that would have made attempting any crime, a crime punishable in the same manner as comitting the actual crime.

I was concerned enough about it, I actually wrote my congressmen.

Today's Washington Post heralds much better news. Apparently, senate democrats have removed that provision from the bill.

So it wasn't Dick Armey that stepped up to the plate. If the reports are true, I actually have to give my thanks for the existence of Patrick Leahy, the man behind holding up all of Bush's judicial nominees.

So... (and yes, this hurts to say it) Thank you very much, Sen. Leahy for protecting the people of America from this incredibly bad change to federal law.

Dick Armey, Save Us!!
Wow. Haven't checked any of the blogs I normally read yet today, so dunno if anyone else has seen this, but I pulled the following article off of the Washington Post's AP newsfeed.

Apparently, the GOP is trying to slip one over on us. Inserted in the legislation to address corporate fraud this week was a quiet little attempt by the GOP to make even attempting to commit a federal crime, a federal crime, punishable by the same sentence as the actual commission of the crime.

Yep, that's right. So now there will be:
- attempted sexual harrassment charges... no longer will it be neccessary to prove that the behaviour was unwanted, all you have to do is show that the man addressed you in some form of sexual manner, and he's guilty
- attempted use of unneccessary force charges... so now if a cop even threatens you with force if you don't comply in an arrest, you could get him booked on civil rights violations
- attempted child abuse charges... now they'll be able to throw you in jail for even threatening a spanking to your child
- attempted... you get the picture.

So my question is, where the hell is Dick Armey, and why hasn't he tried to stop this insanity??? It's not like the federal register of crimes isn't already too large for any reasonable person to be familiar with the whole of the law. In one fell swoop, though, the House of Representatives is proposing to double it.

First Russia passed a flat tax. Then Russia announced that they were privatising social security. In every respect, Russia is an emerging democracy struggling to shake off a past of totalitarian rule. My country's ancient enemy is starting to look freer than the U.S.

...In fields of eternal catnip
My four year old maine coon, Mr. Bigglesworth had to be euthanized on Friday. He was dying from a combination of cardiomyapathy and acute kidney failure. He was only four years old. Apparently this is a condition that is common in larger male cats, especially if they tend to be a little overweight, and Biggie, bless all 18 pounds of him, was. When I first took Biggie home, he was so small, he could sit in the palm of my hand. He had trouble adjusting to his new house, and I had to hand feed him for the first week that he lived with me. As a result, we bonded very strongly, and Biggie thought that I was his mamma. He followed me everywhere; slept where I slept, stood sentry over me in the shower, sat on my lap while I read, and did his best to trip me up while I was cooking. But last Tuesday, he was acting a little listless. On Wednesday, he hadn't gotten any better, so I decided to call the vet on Thursday morning. The vet diagnosed the heart problems, and took some blood to do tests. Friday morning, Biggie had crawled down to the deepest, most secret part of the house, and was just lying there, trying to breathe. The vet called me that morning to break the news of his bloodwork to me. Given his heart condition, and the fact that his blood pressure was so low, treatments we would have tried on Biggie just weren't feasible. By the time I got him to the vet's office that Friday, Biggie was choking for breath, and fading in and out. The vet explained Biggie's chances for survival (nil) and I made the decision to have him euthanized. I held my cat in my arms while the vet gave him the shot to put him to sleep, so I know that he didn't feel any pain, just faded out quickly and peacefully. I can only pray that there is a kitty heaven filled with fields of ever-blooming catnip as far as the eye can see. I hope Biggie is there, and that he is happy, and that he knows that any time he wants to, I'll be there to scratch behind his ears and rub his tummy for him.

bye bye biggie baby. be good while i'm gone.

Hysteria Anyone?
You know, I used to snicker at the Washington Post's coverage, since some of it was so blatantly biased. I'd check out the front page each day, and compare it with the front page of the Washington Times, just to see what the liberals thought was important that day compared to the conservatives.

But what with Enron, Global Crossing, WorldCom etc. all going bust, the Washington Post is just slavering for an exclusive angle they can exploit. And they found the company I work for. First, it was this smear article on the front page of the Post accusing AOL of engaging in shady advertising business deals. I've just spent the past year and a half of my career here testing out the software for recording these deals. We account for our advertising very carefully. Buried in the article is the fact that these deals represented less than 2 percent of our revenue.

Then came Part II, which was just a further rehashing of the same smears they detailed in Part I.

But that's not enough for WaPo. One of WaPo's front page articles today carries the sensational headline: 'IM' Is Not So Private After All. Which, if they were talking about security holes in AOL's system, I'd understand. But they aren't. The article itself isn't nearly that interesting. All it was is a rehash of the fact that any text you have on a computer can be copied, and it can (and will if its nasty enough) come back to haunt you. Big deal. If you don't understand that concept, raise your hand, and I'll come over and hit you on the head with a tach hammer because you are a retard.

The timing of that last article, added to the fact that it contains no new information, can only be interpreted by me as an attack by the Post on my company. Leave us alone! You've caused us enough stress, now give us a chance to get our business fixed and calm down before you attack us again.

Evil... as in the fruits of the Devil
My father sent me a link to this article he found on ccn.com regarding animal cruelty. He included with the link the following words:

"There are more people in the world than any other creature save insects. Perhaps we should try reciprocal punishment for people like this."

Now I'm no PETA member. I'll kill it, skin it, grill it and wear it, and enjoy every minute of it. I have no problem whatsoever in using animals for food, work, clothing materials, or even entertainment.

However... moral people take steps to ensure that their use of animals is free of unnecessary cruelty. Yes, killing a cow may hurt the cow, but that's what the cow was raised for, and we do that because we need to eat. This guy wasn't planning on eating the kitten. This wasn't even a case of someone taking an unwanted litter and drowning them in a sack. This guy put a baby kitten on a charcoal grill and poked and prodded at it and tortured it while it burned. The sort of person who does this sort of thing for amusement is missing that little spark inside that indicates humanity.

I'd like to agree with my dad, but I don't know that reciprocal punishment is even enough.

A Victory for the Right to Work
A federal appeals court ruled today that Bush was perfectly within his rights to issue an executive order barring PLAs on federally funded projects.

What this means for Virginia now is that Maryland can no longer force their union protectionist over-priced slow-assed work policies on Virginia. The very concept of PLAs is offensive to me as it is. PLAs are, pure and simple, protection money. You pay a union an inflated price over the actual negotiated cost, and in exchange, the union promises to actually finish the job on the agreed upon price, rather than strike in the middle of construction.

How this is better than going through a competitive bid process, and then hiring a contractor who will actually do the work on the agreed upon price is beyond me.

Moral Bankruptcy Watch
The Volokh brothers led me to this piece on OpinionJournal that shows the stark difference in treatment the Department of State gives to U.S. citizens vs. Saudi nationals.

The fact that this woman and her children have not been able to return to the U.S., have been forcibly kept in Saudi Arabia, against their wishes, with the active cooperation of the Department of State against one of our own citizens makes depressingly obvious the fact that the Department of State is not on our side, but on the side of our enemies.

Everything Right is Wrong Again...
Paul Craig Roberts has a piece in the Washington times that I was reading this morning, titled "Losing The Ties That Bind."

You should read it, really. It'll raise your blood pressure. He starts out, making a reasonable enough point:

The fickleness of women, men argue, is no longer constrained by concerns with reputation and by laws that require real grounds for breaking up a marriage and a family.

There is some real truth to this, although Roberts neglects to mention that it goes both ways. It used to be, if you got a girl in a 'family way', you sucked it up and married her and the two of you tried to make the best of it. No longer. You can get by with sending her a couple hundred each month and never seeing your child, who will be raised as a bastard or by another man. Men still leave women just as often as women leave men. I think Roberts is right to say that until society actually looks down on people who won't bear their responsibility to their families, marriages will keep breaking up for the slightest reason.

But I really got steamed when he said this:

Conservatives are right — but for the wrong reason — that the sexual revolution has undermined marriage. Men see women as damaged goods and feel funny about marrying a woman who might have shared a bed with a number of the wedding guests.

Well congratulations, Paul. You finally know what it feels like to be a woman, and wonder if every female 'friend' your man has is, in fact, a former lover. Now its your turn to deal with knowing that - god forbid - you can't own someone. I'll value purity prior to the marriage bed when guys stop trying to put me there without the benefits of marriage.

So marriage no longer means that you've bought yourself a house-slave for life. You can't neglect her, beat her, sleep around on her and be assured she'll just suck it up any more. Now both men and women are free to join or leave a marriage. Know what? Much as I believe that children should be raised in two-parent households, and also believe in traditional monogamous marriages, I think this is a good thing. Now, when people get married, its because they want to make that committment to you, something that I value far more than a committment forced upon me due to societal views.

... to tell the truth about someone
Eugene Volokh writes regarding Megan's Law "So the government really is just telling the truth to the public, and it's perfectly entitled to do so. It may be good or bad policy, but it's entirely constitutionally permissible." While my vindictiveness normally extends to child molesters sufficiently that I really could care less that they're exosed to embarrassment or humiliation because the Govt told the truth about them, I have to take exception to such a comment.

- If the government publishes a list of my checking and credit account numbers, its only telling the truth about me.
- If the government chooses to publish my medical records, including what prescription medication I may be taking, its telling the truth about me.
- If the government publishes my answers to their security interview on a website, its telling the truth about me too.

Does anyone else see the problem here? There are plenty of 'truths' that as a matter of habit, Americans prefer to keep hidden. We jealously guard our privacy, and having our personal history disclosed to anyone, not just potentially affected parties, its distasteful to us.

This also ignores the fact that our current legal system makes sex offenders out of the most unlikely folks. You can be convicted of rape if you're 17 and your girlfriend is 15. But when Megan's law hits you, will it say on the website, "was convicted of having sex with his girlfriend, two years his junior"... nope, it will say "convicted of child rape" which makes you a target for bored teenagers who figure the police are going to less vigorously investigate a bit of ultra-violence against some dirty rapist. Since a lot of this stuff is freely available on the web, including your home address, you become a target, not just for outraged citizens in your community who would rightly be upset if they caught you serving tea and cakes to their 12 year old daughter... its makes you a national target.

Freedom of Religion, but from Christianity
So some parent's group is suing a California school district for making their kids pretend to be muslims.

Of course, the teacher, in the article, states quite clearly that this program was voluntary. She claims to have sent out information explaining what would go on in the class, and that nothing that would qualify as "playing islam" was required for the grade.

That's all fine and dandy. I'm all for voluntary investigation of other religious practices. What strikes me as odd about this, is that its from the same state that ruled that the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional because even voluntarily uttering the word God counts as coercing non-christian students. Funny, that the school district defends their practice of indoctrinating 12 year olds into a terrorist religion, but considers reciting the pledge coercive.

Getting back to basics....
Well I just spent the past week in rural Oklahoma. I live in a qausi-rural area in Virginia. The house I rent is in farmland, but I'm 20 minutes from a decent sized city and only an hour from DC itself. I was so far out in the sticks in OK that there were people riding their horses up to the local Sonic. Yes... Horses. and Sonic. I loved it.

Supreme Court Rules that High School Students Who Do Anything Have No Constitutional Protections
While I'm understandably thrilled that the Supreme Court ruled that school voucher programs are constitutional, I am understandably disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to students involved in any extracurricular activities.

While this ruling is consistent with the court's other opinions involving the lack of rights or protection that anyone receiving government aid is accorded, it does bolster my argument that the government should NOT be involved in these areas. Government involvement, since their attitude is "we're paying for it, so you have to do it our way," is a recipe for defining down constitutional rights.

It scares me to think of how many intrusions this decision makes legal. Now that schools don't even have to show that they have a drug problem before performing warantless searches of their students, what's next? They don't have to show that they have a reasonable suspicion a girl is carrying a weapon before they bend her over the principal's desk and give her an anal probe? (Okay, perhaps tha'ts a bit of exaggeration there, but you get the point.) The court's snotty opinion that student's who don't like the policy can always go to private school simply makes my case painfully clear: we shouldn't want the government to get involved with our daily lives, because when they fund even part of it, they decide how to control it. So the government has created an abysmal public school system, mandates that all school age children attend school, and once they have you trapped (and you pretty much are, unless you have the money to send your kids to a private school) they announce that they can search your children, and take samples of their bodily fluids, whenever they want to, without even thinking that your child has misbehaved.

Make no mistake - the US government believes that it owns us.

What's Wrong With this Country...
In a development that could only come from a loony place like San Francisco, the pledge of allegiance was declared unconstitutional.

Excuse me while I shake my head and proceed to convulse for a few minutes, and when I raise my head, I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine if the tears in my eyes are from mirth or from frustration.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
All my bitching today about rudeness reminded me of this excellent editorial by Linda Chavez I found in the Washington Times.
In it, she makes the obvious point that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

People seem to have forgotten this. It's called polite behaviour. It means that: because you know that millions of people died during WWII, and the symbol of the Nazi's homicidal cause was the swastika, you don't display it on your street, because this offends people.

This means that just because you have the time to redo your nails on an airplane, you don't, because the place is small and recycles the air, and you know the smell of nail polish remover in tight quarters can be nauseating.

This means that even though you might find putting your shoes up on the seat in front of you at the movies more comfortable than leaving them on the floor, you don't, because the person in front of you doesn't want your dirty soda-soaked, scum-laden shoe sticking to bits of the nice, clean hair on their head.

This means that even though its legal to fart in public, you don't, because it smells bad and offends other people.

I do not want any of these things to be made illegal. That's not the point. The point is that you shouldn't need to make laws that require you to take other people's or comfort into account. I sincerely wish courtesy would come back in style.

Slant Watch
Nowadays, I find I read the Washington Post, more to get myself riled up than to get the news. The completely unbalanced reporting, and the obvious bias they show never fails to get my hackles raised.

So, in an article about polygamist, Tom Green, they insisted in putting the word "wives" in quotes, because, after all, plural marriage is wrong... but in an article where they joyfully trumpet the good news that gay life partners can now receive health benefits there wasn't a single quotation mark around the term to be found.

After all, the sorts of folk that engage in plural marriage are typically religious, and therefore unfit to be a lefty cause celebre (or however the fuck you spell it).

I don't get the anti-polygamy stance most folks have. How is marrying more than one woman somehow worse, or less deserving of political protection from prosecution, than giving a blowjob to an anoymous stranger in a park? Or having sex with a 10 year old boy? How is a man or woman who wants to share their lives with more than one person less deserving of their shot at happiness than someone who likes to have anal sex? I've thought and thought about this, and the only thing I can see that makes polygamists different from gays, transgenders, bisexuals, etc... is that polygamists tend to be religious, and therefore undeserving of protection.

... and that reminds me
To whoever it was on the flight from Dallas/Ft. Worth to Dulles that decided "to hell with decorum, public decency, or respect for the fact that we are, in fact, in a small enclosed space... I'm going to take off my shoes and socks and stuff my sweaty toes up through the seat in front of me, directly into the armpit of the girl sitting in front of me, who is not riding for free"...

I hate you. I wish I'd yelled at you more when you did it, so hopefully you would have been embarrassed enough not to be so completely inconsiderate and tacky again. May you get corns, athlete's foot, and some nice painful bunions. And may you end up on a flight from Kansas to Beijing with a 450lb man with a perspiration problem sitting right next to you.

Why can't we just charge by the pound?
Was sitting in the local pool hall cum diner at lunch today, watching a pair of amazingly, enormously fat women waddle their way to a table, and it reminded me of the recent flak over Southwest charging for an extra seat for the super-fat.

Honestly, as a thin person who has had to have those too-soft gelatinous folds of some other person's sweaty flesh pressed against my arm and hip for an entire 9 hour flight because they're too goddamned big to fit into a single chair and are now oozing through the cracks in the side... this doesn't bother me one bit. In fact, I'd be perfectly happy if we charged for airline tickets in the same manner we do for freight shipping: by the pound.

Yeah, I mean it. It costs more to fly your bloated ass cross-country than it does mine, and I see no reason whatsoever why I should be forced to pay the same amount of money for a plane ticket when I'm taking up a third of the space. We charge by the weight on all sorts of things, I don't see that charging by the pound to fly people would be that much of an imposition either.

Talk about S L A N T
Just about anyone with an interest in 1st Amendment cases is aware of the current travesty of justice occurring in Seattle, where Paul Trummel was jailed for posting perfectly legal information on his website. The judge uses the excuse that Trummel is not a paid journalist, and is therefore not protected by the 1st Amendment. This assertion makes me think that perhaps the judge is edging over into senile dementia and is no longer fit to decide matters of law.

But this horribly slanted article I found in the Washington Post doesn't even mention on what legal grounds the judge jailed Trummel, and instead concentrates on the fact that Trummel is a mean old man. Mean he may be, but it does not mean that his speech isn't protected, and trying to whitewash the judge's irrational behaviour in this fashion is, as Daffy is so fond of pointing out, "despicable."

You're not the boss of me...
For those of you who haven't heard of it yet, Consumer Freedom is a great site for news regarding the latest attempt to take away our natural right to be fat and unhealthy.

Seriously though... you read their updates, and its downright depressing that there are that many people out there who want to tell everyone else what to do. Everyone whines about the increased costs to society that smokers and obese folks represent, but no one seems to have bothered asking the most obvious question I have: Who says society has to pay for smokers and fatties?

There are all sorts of knowitalls out there scrambling to be the next to present their loony proposals based on bogus scientific research to the government. Proposals ranging from the obnoxious (levy a 9 cent tax on every 2 liter bottle of soda sold, because soda is, like, evil) to the truly horrifying (create a marginal tax scale for foods that will have higher tax rates the higher the fat or sugar content the food has.) Aside from the fact that this just makes food less affordable for the poor, and the fact that it ignores those who have special dietary needs (I know a number of diabetics on the Atkins diet), the burning question that remains on my lips is: Who cares if we're a nation of fatties?

The issue is not wether or not we have an obesity epidemic on our hands (we could argue that, too, since the government's scale does not take muscle mass or percentage body fat into account), but wether or not the government has any obligation to do anything about it. I vote No. If someone wants to get fat, more power to them. I don't care.

What's The Big Deal about Monopolies Again?
Microsoft just announced that they were removing support for Sun Microsystem's Java as revenge for Sun's support of the government's anti-trust case against Microsoft. I am not making this up.

"The decision to remove Microsoft's Java implementation was made because of Sun's strategy of using the legal system to compete with Microsoft," Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan said in a statement.


So Microsoft is just a poor little company that's being set upon by jealous competitors, right? That's what all the pro-business anti-MS lawsuit folks have been telling me. See as how I work for one of those jealous competitors, I can say that Microsoft is a royal pain in the ass that will do anything in its power, legal or extra-legal, to gain and maintain dominance in the marketplace. I, for one, am completely for a modular version of Windows. I hope the States win their case.

Mixed Feelings...
Well a judge out in San Francisco tossed out Marjorie Knoller's murder conviction.

The couple, as the judge rightly says, is despicable. In addition to their ties to a white supremacist group in prison (who it is rumored they were raising the dogs for) there was also apparently evidence that the Knollers were engaging in bestial acts with these dogs as well. They suck. They're evil. I'd like neither of them to set foot out in public again.

But then again... how do you convict someone of both involuntary manslaughter and second degree murder??

Today's Washington Times piece by Nat Hentoff is titled J. Edgar Hoover is back...

I said "Welcome Back, J Edgar Hoover..." right here on 30 May, with regards to the exact same subject. Nat's column is completely different from my post, but the title advantage goes PermagrinGirl.

MPD = Ministry of Poor Detectives
I know other people are just as disgusted by this as I am. But is anyone who has ever been around the DC area really surprised?

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt
Get a load of the comments made by INS officials regarding a breakin at their Seattle office... from the Washington Post