Okay, Let's Recount
Haven't posted in a long while since I've been really busy!

First off, congratulations to all of those who voted for Bush on November 2nd. I was giddy for at least a week or two after the election. Geeze, when I think of John Kerry being Commander-In-Chief, it makes me cringe. I'm grateful to all of you Bush supporters. To those who supported Kerry, I still don't understand why. I don't understand why it was so close! Bush isn't perfect, but he beats Kerry by leaps and bounds in so many different categories.

I saw this story today. It essentially talks about a very, very small number of delusional Kerry supporters who want the Ohio votes recounted. This isn't Florida in 2000, folks. It was a close election, with close results. 2.0%, around 100,000 votes, is substantial enough in Ohio for you Kerry fans to ACCEPT THAT BUSH WON. Go home.

However, let's let the votes be recounted. I also want the votes recounted in these states:

New Hampshire - ~0.1% for Kerry with ~3,400 more votes out of ~200,000 cast
Wisconsin - ~0.3% for Kerry with ~11,000 more votes out of ~3,000,000 cast
Minnesota - ~3.5% for Kerry with ~98,000 more votes out of ~3,000,000 cast
Michigan - ~3.5% for Kerry with ~165,000 more votes out of ~5,000,000 cast

Do you wonder if 2008 will be this close? I'm thinking that it will. Frist vs. Hillary? That's my early prediction. Anyway, here's to a wonderful holiday season. Bush being re-elected is the best holiday gift any red-stated American could want!

  posted by Stephen @ 1:29 AM

 
Keyes 2004!

Ambassador Alan Keyes has chosen to run for Senator in the great state of Illinois. He'll be going up against Barack Obama.

Dr. Keyes is my favorite politician and one of the few TRUE statesmen we have around. That is, he has a logical, well-thought out reason for all of his positions. He's who Illinois--and this country--needs in the Senate.

Donate to his campaign! Defeating Obama would be a wonderful victory.


  posted by Stephen @ 12:54 AM

 
Moore and Moore Propaganda

I was browsing through the IMDB comments on "Fahrenheit 9/11" by Michael Moore and I came upon a speciously eloquent review by a user who seems to think that Moore is God. While I haven't seen the movie, I know how Moore operates. That is, propaganda. Since the *glowing* review irritated me so greatly, I decided to refute it point by point.

Love him or hate him, Michael Moore presents facts and images in ways that we as Americans have never seen before.
I've seen propaganda before. Look to the pro-abortion crowd for semantical and propaganda gymnastics so deft that they convince some people to believe that ripping a baby limb from limb is hardly worse or immoral than getting a vaccination.

His latest endeavor, Fahrenheit 9/11, will go down in history as the film that helped to bring down a corrupt and dangerously inept administration.
I'm glad you're so confident that Kerry has it wrapped up. How is the administration supposedly "corrupt" and "dangerously inept," by the way? Corruption is having sex in the oval office and lying under oath about it. Dangerously inept is NOT dealing with terrorism until the very end of your administration when you essentially relay to the incoming President, "Since we didn't deal with Osama Bin Laden, I want you to know that he's a threat: Yes, I'm passing the buck to you! Gosh, I hope a massive terrorist attack doesn't occur early in your administration before you've had time to really take over the reigns of the CIA and FBI! By the way, I've neutered our intelligence capabilities. Have a good administration, sucker!"

The film's power lies not in it's statistics or it's director's obvious message but in it's ability to make one laugh, make one cry and make one think.
One obvious message: Even though I'm getting filthy rich off the little guy, I'm gonna pretend I'm a little guy and a champion FOR said little guy. Another one: a propangandistic non-documentary with cherry-picked scenes, phrases, and suppositions means that the President who is essentially saving us from terrorism is the devil incarnate. Emotion doesn't equal fact, by the way, and thinking is worthless if you're not thinking correctly, completely, and logically. And you aren't.

I did all three numerous times during the film and I will never be the same again.
Oh, it's so PROFOUND and LOGICAL for some to essentially put forth the thesis that George W. Bush's administration is worse than HITLER! I'LL never be the same after reading a bunch of reviews from liberal sheep being laudatory to propaganda films.

He managed to put a human face on our 'evil enemy', the men, women and children of Iraq who are suffering endlessly due to the prolonged occupation of a foreign power.
They're "suffering endlessly" now but not under Hussein? Seems to me they don't have to worry about being targeted by the government for their actions and beliefs. (Unless, of course, actions include killing others.) Is that not important? I suppose freedom isn't all that important to ultra-left-wingers unless it concerns bashing the current administration. You take it for granted, yet the irony is clear: if you were in Iraq you'd be power-dunked into acid for saying one ambiguously bad word about Hussein. "Prolonged occupation" = LESS than a year? Wow, irony and hyperbole all in the same sentence. Good job!

I, as an American, am shielded from images of Iraqi mothers crying and holding their dead babies.
Thought I'd throw out the fact that abortion isn't legal over there. We're accumulating a lot more dead babies over here. But you're oblivious to that, aren't you? You sanctimoniously talk of dead babies when we're killing more of them over here. Use your head.

Images of charred and battered bodies lying in groups on a roadside.
I don't honestly understand this view. Most, if not all, of these charred and battered bodies are of those fanatics who wanted (and tried--obviously unsuccessfully) to "kill the infidels." I'm not just talking those Coalition forces trying to stabilize their country. They'll kill their own people and not think twice about it: much like McVeigh did in Oklahoma City back in 1995. Many of those people, too, given half a chance, would come over to this country and detonate a dirty nuke in YOUR backyard. Even if you supported their cause, which you indirectly seem to, you'd be killed because you're 1)an American, and 2)you're not a Muslim. They'd have no qualms because 72 virgins are supposedly waiting for them in heaven, ready to pleasure them sexually because they committed cold-blooded murder. I realize you're a wishy-washy, unthinking person, but even you must have to intellect to see the reality of this.

Images of pre-Invasion Iraq that, while not perfect, had amusement parks and cafes and discos and shopping malls but now those things, along with their food, water, electricity and loved ones, is gone.
This is actually the sentence that got to me. "WHILE NOT PERFECT"?! Are you DAFT? The understatement of the YEAR. This was a country ruled by the iron fist of a lunatic who had no qualms about killing and torturing those who did something to gently annoy him, not to mention those slaughtered who believed or thought differently than he did! Ear amputations, acid baths, deaths by lions, gas attacks, etc. The list is endless. His now-thankfully-eradicated sons also committed innumerable acts of violence on essentially good Iraqi citizens. This all went unpunished, too, until the Coalition stepped in and put an end to the madness, literally. The UN didn't do it. Other Muslim countries didn't do it. The world didn't even really do it. Along with a select few countries, WE did it. And, good grief, of course there were parks, cafes, discos, and shopping malls disturbed. Wars aren't antiseptic! What's the alternative? Should we have not carpet-bombed parts of Germany or a-bombed Japan because we were worried about a damn disco and a mall? (Yes, I realize that's anachronistic.) Should we have allowed the Third Reich assisted by the Empire to take over all four hemispheres?

Mr. Moore highlighted the nefarious way George W. Bush came to power in this country, almost under the cover of night and how he has spent the most time on vacation than any American president in history despite presiding over one of the most tumultuous times ever.
Yeah, no one was paying attention to the election of 2000 and the subsequent recount fiasco in Florida. The media never touched it...absolutely no coverage. Unfortunately we don't have three 24-hour news channels and a media that covers every story in excruciating detail.

Nefarious? That's a nice big word, but how was it so nefarious? We had an election, and George W. Bush won the electoral vote. The Supreme Court essentially concurred with that result. HOW IS THAT NEFARIOUS?! Because it was close and your guy was (thankfully) the LOSER?

I don't know about you, but I want a president who works hard when he's working and takes frequent breaks. Our former President may have taken less official "vacations," but he had a much more relaxed attitude in office. He probably got less done. Also, consider this: would you rather be attended to by a physician who was at the end of an 80-hour shift or one that was at the beginning? I want a well-rested, well-vacationed President. Good grief, tumultuous times DEMAND frequent vacations. There's a lot of pressure on the President. Do you have the mental acuity to comprehend that?

The scope of the film touched on the poor, the elderly, the veterans who, when they come back to home, have their benefits cut off by the same president that claims to care so much about them.
This is another fine example of the "government-owes-me" mentality. I love this country and like George W. Bush as a President. I've been patriotic all my life and have paid taxes and obeyed the law. Where are my benefits? Why don't I get any benefits from the government? If care equals more money, it seems the President cares a lot by giving a tax cut. There's a lot of ways to look at the issue, and it's nothing but 2-dimensional thinking to portray it the way Moore (and you, one of his sheep) does.

I am neither democrat nor republican (both parties have their problems) but as an American I thank Michael Moore for opening my eyes and letting me see the truth for myself so that I may make up my own mind.
Blah, blah, blah...party labels mean nothing. I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative. I vote Republican because they're the party I agree with. The party that doesn't support killing-unborn-babies on demand (a PUKE [People for the Unborn Killing Exemption] party), as well as other things.

I firmly believe that every single American should see this film.

Conservative. Liberal. It doesn't matter. If you claim to love this nation, you should bear witness to one of the most important American films ever made.
Possibly the only thing I have some agree with. If you love this nation, you might want to go see a film made by someone who DOESN'T love this nation. You might want to go see a film with nothing but propaganda, lies, and half-truths. You might want to go see a film made by probably one of the best living propagandists. Then, when Michael Moore Hates America comes out, you can compare the two. Cheers!

  posted by Stephen @ 8:17 PM

 
One Hundred Billion Trillion Thousand Googolplex Millenia!
It actually wouldn't sound all that much different. I'm referring to an article containing a quote from the president of the Sierra Club, a well-meaning but (obviously) well-left-tilting organization. He's speaking, of course, about how very baaad President Bush is when it comes to the environment:

"Bush has done his best, in only three years, to break our national compact on environmental progress and turn the clock back -- not years or decades, but a full century," said Sierra Club President Carl Pope....

He shoots...he scores! Nothing but HYBERBOLE!

We ALL want to protect the environment, Carl. I love public parks. I love fresh air. I love clean water. I love animals. What separates liberals from conservatives, though, is conservatives don't go overboard about it. Earth isn't GOD. Earth was put here for us to look after, yes, as well as USE. Resources are meant to be used. I, for one, like big engines and detergent-using washing machines. I also like the idea of recycling, developing hydrogen power, and keeping large public parks available (especially the Grand Canyon!) for the public. Ironically, I probably concur with a lot of what the Sierra Club stands for...except not quite as extreeeeme. Everything in moderation, fellas. Balance capitalism with environmentalism. Got it?

  posted by Stephen @ 8:11 PM

 
Extremism
Here's an article about potential terrorist attacks in London. How about this:

[Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad] added: "We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity."

Isn't that scary? In my last post I said I didn't hate those people who hate me. Let me modify that: if someone hates me and wants to kill me, I may not hate them but I do think that they're EVIL. I'm talking about the type of vermin who would kill me for essentially minding my own business. They need to be expunged from the planet.

  posted by Stephen @ 5:43 PM

 
Here's the Reason
Many of you who are pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli try to draw moral equivalency between the two warring factions, citing Israeli military action, occupation, etc. I don't doubt that Israel has done/is doing some nasty things to the Palestinians. The United States has done nasty things to its enemies in the past as well. But that's the exception, not the rule, unlike for the Palestinians. Case in point: just today the Israelis killed the new terrorist leader of Hamas, Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi (by the way, aren't physicians supposed to be compassionate, non-terrorist life-givers?), and here's what Israel said:

Israeli government sources said they had struck at the first available opportunity, but had to wait for weeks because Rantisi had surrounded himself with children.

Now, if the Palestinians were attacking a Jew, they would have killed as many children as possible and have been unapologetic. There's no moral equivalency, people. Martin Luther King didn't accomplish his goals by being a terrorist. Even though he was in the right, it would have been unacceptable to use terrorist tactics: the ends cannot justify the means. Same goes for the Palestinians.

Even though the Palestinians hate Israel and the United States, I do not hate the Palestinians. I despise their terrorist tactics, though...much like the "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing. I also firmly believe that Israel cannot and should not stop defending itself. As long as terrorists exist, Israel will continue to fight. I support them.

  posted by Stephen @ 7:46 PM

 
The Type of Leader We Need
There's an article about Powell and Cheney having quite different views about the Iraq War. But that's not even the point of this post. Here's a quote I found:

"I am prepared to risk my presidency to do what I think is right," the Post quotes Bush as saying.

Isn't that refreshing? A president who will do what he thinks is RIGHT, not what will get him re-elected. Ironically, the non-poll-driven leadership we need is exactly the type of leadership that we may not get because of said polls! What's right isn't always overwhelmingly popular with the nation. (Abortion is a prime example.)

Let's hope--and vote--for Bush this November. While he isn't perfect, he's the best candidate we've got!

  posted by Stephen @ 2:51 PM

 
Unbelievable
John Kerry had this to say about Iraq:

"one of the greatest failures of diplomacy and failures of judgment that I have seen in all the time that I've been in public life."

Just dandy. If that's not inflated rhetoric, I don't know what is. But, hey, I'll top that by saying this: John Kerry, you're the worstest, baddest, most terriblest presidential candidate of all time...even before the universe was started by God! All you liberals may now gasp. "Wow...Kerry must be pretty bad for him to have said that." Yeah, that or I'm using way over-inflated rhetoric. Just like good ol' Mr. Kerry enjoys doing.

Secondly, John Kerry participated in the judgment to go to Iraq, so if he feels it was a bad move, then he who is with sin shouldn't be casting lots of stones. Pretty nonsensical if you ask me. Honestly, though, what should we expect from a perennial flip-flopper?

  posted by Stephen @ 7:44 PM

 
Much Ado About Nothing
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is criticizing President Bush because he's not going to appear alone in front of the 9/11 commission. VP Dick Cheney will be there at his side.

"I think it speaks to the lack of confidence that the administration has in the president going forth alone, period," Pelosi, D-Calif., said Friday. "It's embarrassing to the president of the United States that they won't let him go in without holding the hand of the vice president of the United States."

Oh, really? Why is it embarrassing? Isn't the VP intimately involved with upper-level decision-making? Good grief. Honestly, this is much ado about absolutely jack squat.

Another thing: why should Bush have to be nailed with trick questions by all the holier-than-thou Democrats on the commission and not have someone to help answer? I don't get it. He probably doesn't have intimate knowledge of everything they'll ask him about, anyway. He makes general policy, like, "Let's root out the Al Qaeda terrorists." In fact, Condoleezza Rice & Colin Powell should be there as well. Let the whole group consult each other and then give an answer.

Pelosi, do you have any press secretaries? It's quite EMBARRASSING that you can't answer the press all by yourself.

  posted by Stephen @ 6:52 PM

 
Gosh, Now It's Harder To Kill
Some PUKE (People for the Unborn Killing Exemption) physicians are complaining because killing babies will be harder because of the new laws banning partial-birth abortions. Darn those laws that stand in the way of convenience killings! For those who don't recall, partial-birth abortion is the all-too-gruesome procedure wherein the innocent baby is partially delivered and killed with scissor trauma to the head halfway out of the birth canal. Anyway, here's what the article said about a loving, caring PUKE physician:

He said the process of pulling the fetus partially out of the woman's body and then puncturing the skull to collapse the soft tissue and squeeze the head out is often the safest method available.

Safe? For whom? I doubt the baby would give his or her imprimatur concerning the "safe" aspects of abortion.

Crap. You know what the law reminds me of, though? You know when you're trying to kill a guy in a cave? It's SOO much easier to kill him when he's halfway out of the cave. Those politicians need to stop trying to legislate their wacky, right-wing ideas that young human life has intrinsic value & dignity that should be protected...geeze Louise. Why can't we just let everyone decide his or her own morality based on a personal moral compass? I mean, if I have a young toddler who's ticking me off, I should be able to choose to send him to the next world. It's my CHOICE and morality about that CHOICE should not be legislated! Tell the government to stay out of my body and my nursery!

EUREKA! I've just had a stroke of genius based on my last thought! Listen to this idea: take said toddler who is ticking you off. All you have to do is go to your friendly local abortion doctor--or, if you prefer, call him a compassionate PUKE physician--and have the child stuffed halfway into its mother's birth canal and then stabbed in the head. Or, for a more memorable, dramatic, and lasting effect, the child can be shot in the head with a gun. Or, no, perhaps a guillotine. The possibilities are endless! What a wonderful thing CHOICE is!

  posted by Stephen @ 10:09 PM

 
Let's Start The Insanity
I'll be optimistic and say some "well-meaning but unthinking" people have filed a $1 BILLION lawsuit because of mistreatment of their slave ancestors. I could say "money-grubbing and mindless" people, but I won't. And, apparently they're going global (Lloyd's of London in addition to their targets in America) to see how much money they can round up. While this nonsensical lawsuit can be logically challenged and/or refuted in a plethora of ways, I'll take the easiest route.

We ALL have had ancestors who were mistreated by big ol' corporations. Shoot, before labor laws, our ancestors were almost assuredly overworked and exposed to innumerable hazardous conditions. Perhaps we ALL deserve lots of cold, hard cash for our ancestors' suffering! You think? I think not.

In an age of litigious excess, this lawsuit demonstrates that very excess quite well. The only other thing I've gotta say is...where do I go to get MY free lunch money?

  posted by Stephen @ 8:26 PM

 
Consider the Source
Here's an interesting story. It's entitled "Fears Impacted U.S. Reporting in Iraq." While the title itself indicated to me that the content was probably a crock of crap, the main thing that stood out in the body of the article was the fact that these indubitably-fair-minded-and-not-at-all liberals-who-are-anti-war-peaceniks met at UC-Berkeley! Uhh, you're stacking the ideological deck a weee bit on the liberal side when you convene at Berkeley. Don't you think? Meet in Montana next time.

"Massing...found The New York Times and The Washington Post particularly at fault."

Hmmm. It's not hard to guess the tendentiousness of the dude claiming the media was being tendentious. My biased friend, perhaps it's because YOU'RE biased and the papers decided NOT to be because they'd be rightfully slammed for being pro-peace or "pro-anti-war." If they were more fair (and I'm sure they were since this Berkeley Journalist Panel talked about FEAR to try to instill more FEAR in us because we should be AFRAID for the future of journalistic integrity [which is a SCARY thought] because the news reporting wasn't properly tailored to their left-wing "every-war-must-be-intrinsically-wrong" liberal standards), I applaud them.

  posted by Stephen @ 12:48 AM

 
I'm...back...I think!
It's been a LONG time since I've blogged, and I'm thinking about doing it again. Especially because of election season. Entries probably won't be as often: perhaps twice a week. Either way, stay tuned!

  posted by Stephen @ 3:00 PM

 
Hop On The Money Train!
In the past three months, President George W. Bush has raised more money than all nine of the Democrat candidates combined! I suppose this type of story is supposed to raise our collective ire. "Gasp! Money in politics = corruption! Ohmygosh!"

Number one: why is this an issue SO early in the cycle? Naturally an incumbent is gonna raise a ton more than the other party because a candidate hasn't been chosen for the challenging party. I would bet money that Slick Willy raised a heckuva lot more than the Republican candidates in mid-1995. I'm actually surprised, though, that the Democrats have raised as much as they have. The PUKE Party of Death is also the Party of Boredom. Ho-hum.

Number two: who cares if he raises money? Doesn't it reflect upon the popularity of the guy as President? Money equals voting with the wallet. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. For those of you who followed the brilliant (and my Presidential choice) Alan Keyes in the 2000 Election, his plan was only to allow VOTERS to donate money. As much as they want, but whoever donates must have a vote. I think it's a fantastic idea. It stops corporations from donating to either party. If you're rich, you get more say. That's life. Life isn't perfectly fair.

"...Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time." Winston Churchill

Go Dubya!


  posted by Stephen @ 8:40 PM

 
Free Speech Gone Wild
It's been a while since I've posted! There's been a lot of wacko stuff going on, especially at the Supreme Court. Plus, Blogger has revamped their layout...and I like it! But I'll save all that for another post.

Some zealous "free-speech-at-all-costs" judge in Louisiana blocked the sale of all specialty license plates because some PUKEs (People for the Unborn Killing Exemption) essentially wanted a "Choose Death" license plate to combat the positive, life-affirming "Choose Life" license plate.

This is idiotic. People who think that terminating unborn babies with extreme prejudice is okay have the PERFECT right to cover their vehicle with stickers that say, "I think killing babies is absolutely grand! Choose death!" There's no restriction of free speech going on here. If cops pulled over people with pro-baby killing stickers and told them to remove them or hassled them, I would agree. In this case, though, Louisiana should have some leeway to decide what kind of specialty plates to issue.

This whole thing is actually a non-issue that unfortunately became an issue because of leftist idiots who are desperately struggling to make sure abortion stays in the mainstream of society. Newsflash: it's becoming less and less mainstream. With new technology like 4-d ultrasound imaging, we're seeing now more than ever that inside of a pregnant woman's womb resides a BABY--from the moment of conception to birth. Why can't people recognize that?

  posted by Stephen @ 4:36 PM

 
Being The President = Being The President
Rachel Lucas slammed a wacko article that actually claims the country was BETTER off when we had a sex fiend in office. The writer of the article is partially jesting, of course, but gimme a break! I'd rather have a President with no sex life: it means he'd have more time to worry about the many needs of our great nation. Sheesh.

Good job, Rachel.

  posted by Stephen @ 1:34 AM

 
Racial Profiling Is EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN! (Er, Kinda.)
The federal government, always inefficient and ambivalent about what it wants to do, banned racial profiling on Tuesday. You'd think if racial profiling was so evil there'd be a complete ban on it. Not so:

The U.S. Justice Department (news - web sites) on Tuesday issued guidelines that ban federal law enforcement officers from racial profiling in routine police work but allow the use of race and ethnicity to identify terrorist suspects.

 
You Can't Win
President Bush--as stated in his State of the Union--wants to replace fossil fuels with hydrogen fuels. Do you think that would quiet environmentalists? No. Here's a quote vis-a-vis using hydrogen fuel cells:

"This would result in cooling of the lower stratosphere and the disturbance of ozone chemistry," the researchers wrote. It would mean bigger and longer-lasting ozone holes in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions, where drops in ozone levels have been recorded over the past 20 years. They estimated that ozone depletion could be as much as 8 percent.

 
Where's The Consistency, Dubya?
Bush, we love you. You're a nice guy and a much better President than our last one. You've done so much for this country in a time of war and ambiguity. But, come on, what's this?

Bush said he was "troubled" by the Israeli helicopter attack on Abdel Aziz Rantisi in Gaza. Such incidents don't promote Israel's security, he said, and may "make it more difficult for the Palestinian leadership to fight off terrorist attacks."

 
Hand-Wringers, CEASE!
Lookie what we found! Even more of the supposed "stolen" treasures from the Baghdad Museum. This article says less than 50 artifacts are still missing. FIFTY. Considering how many bombs we dropped on Baghdad, that's not all that bad. Of course, we all wish that nothing was missing, but bad stuff happens during war. C'est la vie!

(Pardon my French.)

  posted by Stephen @ 9:53 PM

 
Partial-Birth Murder
Well, it looks like the House has passed a law against the unbelievably inhuman hatchet job euphemistically called partial-birth abortion. Or, as PUKEs label it, a "medical procedure." "Dilation & Extraction." Wasn't the Holocaust called "The Final Solution"? These things don't necessarily sound all that bad until you view and/or understand what type of hyper-inhumanity they entail. Anyway, I applaud the lawmakers. Great job. The extremists on the left have vowed to take it to court the minute Bush signs it, though, but we all expect that. Here's a sentiment by ostensibly one of the YAY voters:

"It's violent, it's barbaric, it's gruesome, it's horrific, it's infanticide," said Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio).

Au contraire, mon ami! It may be violent, gruesome dismemberment, but we gotta be careful about infringing upon a woman's "license to kill"! Steve, just think of pregnant women as a bunch of female James Bonds, okay? (Men can't kill, though. Seems unfair, doesn't it? But, you know, since men don't have to physically bear the burden of pregnancy, that "logically" must mean that women should have the unfettered right to slice-and-dice their babies!) Anyway, let's hear how an average extremist feels:

"We should be promoting a woman's health. We shouldn't be endangering it," said Rep. Lynn C. Woolsey (D-Calif.).

What the hell?! How does this bill affect a woman's health?! That's a TOTAL non-sequitur as well as being a straw man. Abortion is about endangering the HEALTH OF THE UNBORN BABY, you dolt. Partial-birth abortions include PERMANENTLY endangering the health of the baby by sucking out the baby's brains and collapsing the skull. Since you have no brains, Ms. PUKE, you should feel some empathy here.

Another average extremist, this time a Republican:

"Congress cannot suddenly claim to have medical degrees," said Rep. Mark S. Kirk (R-Ill.).

Since when does a medical degree have ANYTHING to do with outlawing murder? Are you too stupid to realize that partial-birth abortion KILLS babies? I wonder...did those lawmakers who finally gave us the 13th Amendment have degrees in economics? Surely they must have since they knew outlawing slavery would affect the South's economy. What utter IDIOCY.

Our extremists-on-parade isn't yet done. Here's Planned Parenthood's (wacko) take:

"Congress is passing legislation that prevents women and families and doctors from making decisions about the best way to protect the life and health of the woman," said Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood.

The irony here is unbelievable. "Life and health"? We're completely removing BOTH from a human being every time an abortion is performed! ESPECIALLY partial-birth abortions. Anyone with one molecule of humanity and scruples would realize that. Seriously, what kind of a depraved person would condone (or even promote) the horrible murder of a near-term baby JUST because the baby hasn't fully exited the birth canal?

Remember, folks, if you wanna experience the very peaks of intellectual dishonesty, irony, depravity, and stupidity, look no further than those who support abortion.

  posted by Stephen @ 11:37 PM

 
Oui, Oui!
While I'm not necessarily keen on the French after they disrespected us before, during, and (now) after Gulf War II, I AM fond of some of the quotes of a famous French playwright. He's Moliere, and he lived from 1622-1673. A lot of these relate to our political climate nowadays!

"The trees that are slow to grow bear the best fruit."
A great description of George W. Bush.

"The greater the obstacle, the more glory in overcoming it."
It's more glorious to have freed the Iraqi people than to have just allowed bumbling Blix back in.

"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation."
Sounds like the way Bush is handling Chirac, oui?

"It is not only for what we do that we are held responsible, but also for what we do not do."
Jacques? Gerhard?

"It infuriates me to be wrong when I know I'm right."
Anyone who loves to bat around ideas and argue politics knows how this feels.

"Things only have the value that we give them."
Like unborn children.

"I assure you that a learned fool is more foolish than an ignorant fool."
Think of college campuses around the country (and world).

Maybe in the future I'll list more of his great sayings. Here's one for the road:

"One dies only once, and then for such a long time!"

Rimshot, please.

  posted by Stephen @ 11:04 PM

 
Missing The Point
Eric Rudolph was captured because he's a dangerous, evil terrorist. Nothing more. PUKE feminists LOVE to subtly associate nuts like Rudolph, who have killed people because they hate, with those of us who hate when the most innocent among us are killed. See the difference? I expect nothing less than for NOW to spout their normal, tired rhetoric, though:

"Doctors and staffs at reproductive health clinics around the U.S. face fear of violence every day," Grady [sic] claimed. "With one less anti-abortion terrorist on the loose, we're all safer."

 
Three Gorges Dam
It's one heck of a dam, it's in China, and they just closed the gates. Here are some facts about the dam. Fascinating (and HUGE)!

  posted by Stephen @ 5:46 PM

 
Treason Is Treason Is Treason
Sean Penn took out a new full-page ad in the NY Times to further demagogue about the war and try to justify why he was over there giving aid to our enemies. Here's the PDF file from his site. "Kilroy"? How quaint.

If I had the time or fortitude I'd go through it line by line and point out every single iota of stupidity. Let's just look at one snippet of stupidity, emphasis added:

"...Its most accessible information sources were the corporately sponsored and largely conservative media outlets...."

 
Apologies
Kelley from Suburban Blight sent me a nice, honest e-mail about this post I made. She also slammed me on her blog, but the slam stops there. It was in bad taste for me to pick on her to begin with.

While I firmly believe the pro-choice stance in any form is the epitome of idiotarianism, I shouldn't have slammed a fellow conservative, who, as she eloquently puts it, "essentially shares your core values."

We all make mistakes. Sorry, Kelley...I apologize.

  posted by Stephen @ 10:46 PM

 
Time Theft, Phase II
Okay, okay, Will is stealing even MORE of my time. He got a rise out of me, and I'm biting yet again...and why not? It gives me some press. Anyway, thanks, Will. You're indeed a good-willed chap. Just because you're wrong doesn't mean you're not a nice guy. (Ha.)

Let's approach this issue from a different angle: is the Internet public or private? The Internet as a whole could be considered public, maybe, but it's just a connection of private networks. End-users are on private networks. Most networks have strict policies against unsolicited bulk e-mail. SPAMMERS don't have a right to send massive amounts of e-sleaze through networks that expressly forbid it. How in blazes can that be considered free speech? And, if private networks cannot enforce all the rules because of the scale of the problem, should not the government do something about it? One of the main purposes of government is to "provide for the common defense," isn't it? Defend our inboxes!

Will, in my humble opinion, also seems to miss the essence of my argument. It's on a HUGE scale, Will. Like the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Indirect theft, direct theft, externalities: whatever you wanna call it! Littering, shouting, and rock-throwing may cause problems, but they don't affect millions of people, use up millions of hours of time, eat up millions of bucks in bandwidth, violate multiple networks' terms of service, and ultimately threaten to collapse one of the pillars of cyberspace communication: e-mail. And the problem is growing.

His proposition, if used by a great percentage of Net users, would most certainly ruin the spirit of the open architecture of the Internet. Not the Internet itself, just the spirit. It's actually ironic because SPAMMERS can e-mail millions and millions for virtually no cost, but Will wants to charge non-SPAMMERS to e-mail him. I like Will, but why should I pay a dime to e-mail him because someone else is pummeling him with SPAM? Isn't that bizarre?

I guess deluge is a relative term. Will apparently doesn't think what he's receiving constitutes a deluge. Fair enough. I'm not sure if U-Chicago has filters, but they likely do. If there were no filters, he'd probably get 5 times what he gets now. Perhaps more. Is that a deluge? I still challenge him to get the filters turned off. It's "free speech," Will. Don't abridge their right to flood you with porn! Let the unadulterated mass quantities of impersonal, fraudulent sleaze-mail reach you!

I'm glad Will is acquainted with his DELETE button, though. SPAM may not get much better soon. I forget where, but someone predicted the e-mail system will essentially become impotent (pardon the pun) because of the SPAM problem. Then tough laws will be subsequently imposed. That doesn't seem to be an implausible scenario. Anyway, I get tons of SPAM and I deal with it. That's just life; at least, for now. SpamCop, by the way, does a great job of filtering out most of the SPAM. (I probably have an easier time than Will, from what he says.)

E-mail has traditionally been more of a person-to-person protocol. Illegalities aside, I don't think anyone has an inherent "right" to e-mail you. E-mail is free. Inboxes are (generally) privately owned. It's not like postal mail where the post office owns the box. The rules are different, Will. Junk snail mail is paid for at the post office. Junk e-mail is paid for mainly by YOU, the user. You have a right to not want massive amounts of pornography and sleaze in your inbox.

Let's put tough laws into place. Enforce them. Allow people to sue. Let's nip this problem in the bud before it gets any worse.

  posted by Stephen @ 3:59 PM

 
Pro-Choice: An Idiotarian Position
I was surfing through blogs just to see what I could find, and I came upon this. Now, I'm sure the gal who pens this blog is a nice enough person, but her position makes no sense. She explicitly states her abortion position:

1) I am very, very pro-choice.
2) I believe that life begins sometime during pregnancy.
3) I would not have an abortion.
4) I believe every woman has the right to make decisions regarding her body.

 
It's There For A Good Reason, Willy
Lisa at the great Boycott Hollywood blog recently posted about our good ol' deponent President, Bill Clinton.

Seems as though Slick Willy questions the 22nd Amendment's validity. Good grief. That's the one that thankfully saved us from another term of him.

You know, Mr. President, you're a smart guy. You oughta know we have amendments like that for a purpose. In this case, it's serving its purpose quite well. It's to ensure politically-savvy but somewhat corrupt (if just morally) Presidents only get 8 years.

It's also to ensure that the political scene is shaken up from time to time even with non-corrupt Presidents like Dubya. I love Dubya, but I wouldn't want more than 8 from him, either.

Wasn't that the name of a show? Eight is ENOUGH!

  posted by Stephen @ 11:37 PM

 
Let's Be Careful Of Humanizing A Mere Fetus
According to new research, an unborn baby's heart races when the baby's mother reads poetry. Also, the research said that unborn babies hear by the third trimester. That is, they could possibly hear as early as the second trimester.

Dr. Barbara Kisilevsky, one of the researchers, should be ashamed. Especially as a woman! Doesn't she realize she's giving ammo to the "extreme right-wing"? Doesn't she realize it's a woman's RIGHT to go to an abortion clinic and participate in the slice-and-dice bloody, brutal murder of her innocent unborn baby who can hear and recognize her voice?

I mean, come on, Dr. Kisilevsky. Get with the program. You're so pre-1973. You're so anti-choice. You're so unenlightened. You're an extremist.

  posted by Stephen @ 8:39 PM

 
Quit Stealing My Time! I Could Be Deleting SPAM!
Will at Crescat Sententia has recently commented here and here on some of my posts about SPAM. Thanks go to him for posting about me so often recently. Although, by allowing myself to reply to his posts, I've decided he's stealing my time! I'd send him an e-bill, but that might be considered SPAM.

Whether he views me as a complete nutcase or a preeminent scholar, at least he finds me marginally interesting enough to comment on. Though he's wrong on the SPAM issue, he seems to be an intelligent, good-willed chap. (I'd suspect he feels the same way about me.)

Anyway, let's touch on some things he claims:

1. SPAM is not theft.

I posit that SPAM is theft, directly or indirectly, on at least four levels: 1) Time, 2) Bandwidth, 3) Services, and 4) Countermeasures.

Without filters, in a few years you'd open up your e-mail each day to find 500 e-mails. You'd have to fish out 2 real e-mails that aren't advertisements for pornography or organ enlargement. Is that not theft of your time? ISPs have to work day and night to make sure all the SPAM is diverted away from people's inboxes. Networks have to constantly worry about impending SPAM floods. All in all, it takes millions of man hours a year to deal with this not-so-small problem. At some point, unwanted communication gets to a point where it's not communication anymore. It's theft of time!

There's absolutely no denying SPAM steals bandwidth. ISPs and networks bear the brunt of these continual SPAM attacks. This is on a pretty massive scale, here--and growing. Will is naive if he thinks millions and millions of SPAM on a daily basis doesn't eat up mass quantities of bandwidth. SPAMMERS don't pay for it. It's passed on to the consumer. Why should we as consumers pay for someone else to send loads of sleazy porno ads?

I have no hard facts to support this, but I'd guess at least 75% of SPAM sent violates an ISP's terms of service. Probably a lot more. Violation doesn't always equal theft, but in this case I'd say it does. They pay for a month of service ostensibly to have internet access or be a downstream ISP but instead they send out tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of Internet-clogging SPAM.

Finally, SPAM requires networks and ISPs to set up filters and countermeasures to try to deflect the SPAM. If that weren't the case, SPAM would be even more of a problem than it is today. Why should an ISP even have to spend millions of dollars to block this crap? SPAMMERS are indirectly stealing the time, money, and technology of ISPs who must implement defenses against the onslaught of SPAM.

2. SPAM is a restriction of free speech.

On free speech, Will seems to claim if you block massive amounts of SPAM, you're restricting free speech. Now, I don't know if Will is a liberal--or even political--but concomitant with liberalism is usually the idea that "free speech" means nearly anything. If a stranger even benevolently stalked you constantly, you'd probably get a restraining order. That's not a restriction on free speech: free speech has limits, and a constant deluge of non-personal e-mail goes beyond those limits. Sleazy content or not, SPAM is free speech just as much as shouting "fire!" in a theater is free speech.

3. Solve SPAM by instituting a pay-per-email protocol. Private solutions only.

One of his overall suggestions is private SPAM-control methods work best. Being a conservative, any private method that could help solve the SPAM problem seems fine to me. Will's pay-per-email schema sounds like a good idea. I wouldn't be against it if it were instituted on some level. However, it ruins the spirit of the open nature of the Internet. Perhaps someone wants to comment on something Will has said but Will charges a dime per e-mail. That person may not feel like paying a dime to contact him, ergo Will doesn't get an e-mail. It limits the free exchange of ideas. It limits free speech more than directly stopping SPAM does!

California is too litigious, and usually I'd side with less regulation (therefore less bureaucracy) of anything. This, though, is a different type of problem. The only reason Will isn't getting deluged with SPAM is because U-Chicago probably has filters to block a lot of SPAM with his name on it. Those filters ain't free! If Will believes SPAM is not a problem, I ask him to tell U-Chicago to turn off the SPAM filters to his inbox. He can delete all the SPAM manually. Every day.

4. You're just bothered by the content!

Perhaps, but that's not why I crusade against it. Porn is detestable and, unfortunately, all over the Internet. However, that's freedom. Freedom does NOT include using up MY time, MY bandwidth, and MY money to give me stuff I didn't ask for. Postal junk mail costs me virtually nothing. SPAM mail costs me a lot. It's simple.

Let's talk further about content. Will conveniently doesn't discuss fraudulent SPAM, which should be discussed: it's a HUGE part of the problem. That'd be like discussing the overall legitimacy of the porn industry and leave out all the illegal, unethical, immoral stuff they do. Fraudulence is part and parcel of the SPAM problem. Anyway, the FTC says SPAM has some degree of deception 66% of the time. This could include false headers, etc. Of all business SPAM, 90% had signs of fraudulence.


Now, one thing we both agree on is the fact that SPAM works. If people didn't respond, SPAM would essentially cease to exist. That's a straw man argument, though, because the response to SPAM doesn't speak to its legitimacy or legality. Some people think looking at child pornography is okay. Looking at pictures doesn't hurt anyone. Should society give its imprimatur to that?

You know, maybe we just need a federal Secretary of SPAM. (Perhaps Alan Ralsky? Take a good look at The House That SPAM Built.)

  posted by Stephen @ 7:18 PM

 
No More Sleaze, Please
It's no coincidence that at the very moment SPAM is becoming an Internet pandemic, companies and governments are starting to take notice. They're starting to realize that if this problem is not alleviated soon, all e-mail boxes will be nothing but SPAMboxes. Nothing but "Need Debt Relief?" and "Earn $2000 a week stuffing envelopes at home!" and "Increase the size of your YOU KNOW WHAT!" (These sleazebuckets actually took out the male-organ-word and put "YOU KNOW WHAT" in its place to try to bypass as many filters as possible.)

Earthlink is instituting a challenge-response e-mail system. Though it creates some difficulties, it essentially authenticates a user 100% of the time. How is this done? Anyone who isn't on a recipient's whitelist is sent an e-mail to confirm humanness. The kicker: there's a fuzzy image that shows a code the sender has to input to prove himself as being a real person and not a SPAM machine. SPAMMER scum don't yet possess the AI technology (or time) to authenticate tons of e-mails in this fashion. Thank goodness.

Say what you will about California being ultra-liberal and/or progressive, but at least they've banned SPAM. The new law allows recipients to sue SPAMMERS for $500 per sleaze-mail. What's really good about stuff like this is all the SPAMMERS who have become rich on past SPAM will be quickly brought down to size. That is, if they don't quit pretty soon. Imagine a class action suit for 100,000 unsolicited e-mails! Can we say "LIQUIDATION"?

  posted by Stephen @ 10:50 PM

 
Does Equality Mean Special Minority Privilege?
I don't fault Annika Sorenstam for accepting the invitation to play in a PGA tourney. In my view, it's unfair to criticize her for accepting such an invitation. She's a great golfer, and she wants to play at the highest level of golf she can. The real question is only indirectly related to her: should a woman be allowed to play in the PGA?

Actually, this subject has already been covered ad infinitum. When you deal with any sort of minority, should they get special privilege? Women should be considered a "minority" in this instance because we live in a patriarchal society, so to speak. Men are unquestionably physically stronger than women, and have in the past tended to run the show. That has changed somewhat, of course, but women are generally still viewed as the "minority" sex.

Blacks get their own political organization, the NAACP. Women get their own golf organization, the LPGA. Is it fair for these groups to segregate themselves in this manner? I would claim that it's okay for certain minority groups to have their own organizations. Why is that okay? Because of human nature. The majority tends to hold down the minority. The Constitution itself was originally written to be antimajoritarian. It sounds like a liberal idea--and it may very well be--but minority groups deserve the right to have organizations that are segregated and also represent their interests. Majority groups can't really have that privilege. Is there an NAAWP? Is it fair that the majority cannot create such organizations without being labelled racists or sexists? Perhaps, but life isn't fair. The majority traditionally has less prejudicial obstacles to overcome, so the minority deserves some special privileges. (This does not include affirmative action...but I'll touch on that some other time.)

The only reason women haven't traditionally played in men's sports is because they cannot compete. When more superb women golfers crop up like Annika Sorenstam, what's to be done? The heart of the matter could be resolved when this question is adaquately answered: Is the PGA a men's league or an open league? Until now, it was a moot point. It's not anymore.

Vijay Singh's initial gut reaction was that it's a men's league. Does that make him an evil, sexist person? Of course not. Are those that believe it's an open league liberal wacko extremists? Not necessarily. It's certainly a tough issue, and since this is a sport, the PGA should have the final say: not a court. If women are allowed to go club-to-club with the guys from now on, it may change the sport slightly, but the women won't be getting any special privileges. And they shouldn't.

  posted by Stephen @ 5:36 PM

 
Commentary: Spam

If you've had an e-mail address for any length of time, you've gotten SPAM. Nope, it's not the Hormel Foods canned meat, it's Unsolicited Bulk E-mail (UBE), also known as Unsolicited Commercial E-mail (UCE). It's that junk e-mail you didn't ask for: "body part" enlargement adverts, Viagra deals, and pornographic solicitations. Not a pretty picture. People who SPAM don't monitor who they're sending messages to, by the way. Your young child could open his e-mail and see naked women.

Why "SPAM"?

Hormel kindly suggests that the uppercase SPAM should refer to the junk e-mail while the lowercase Spam refers to the canned meat. Fair enough. It truly might seem strange that a canned meat's name would come to refer to junk e-mail, though. How did that happen? Look it up on M-W.com and you'll get this etymology:

"from a skit on the British television series Monty Python's Flying Circus in which chanting of the word Spam (trademark for a canned meat product) overrides the other dialogue"

 
Liberal Student Intolerance
A handful of numbskull students walked out during a graduation speech by Senator Rick Santorum. He recently made headlines and stirred up "controversy" over his non-offensive comments on homosexuality.

My last blog entry was about a failed-cable-tv-show liberal who made some political comments at graduation. Santorum didn't. See the INTOLERANCE of the left? If a liberal hack spoke at my graduation, I wouldn't care. Even if he made political comments, I probably would just sit through them. With liberals, though, agree with their often wacko beliefs or they'll be completely intolerant of you.

No one walked out of Donahue's speech until he started spouting liberal gibberish. I'm gonna coin a term and call it liberalish. Anyway, the numbskulls at Santorum's graduation speech were so deeply and completely offended by the very presence of Santorum that they just had to escape. Here's a nice comment from a mush-headed student:

``Senator Santorum and I are at completely opposite ends of the spectrum,'' said graduate Sara Foglesong, among those who walked out. ``I am not incestuous. I am not a bigamist. I just happen to be bisexual. It offended me.''

 
Phil Who?
Found this story on Drudge. Mr. Phil Donahue, liberal extraordinaire, made some politically-charged comments at a graduation on Saturday. Naturally, he slammed Gulf War II and the President. Some students walked out when he began to turn the speech into a liberal commentary.

Who in the heck invited this guy? He's an okay speaker and probably an okay guy, but do people really want to hear this liberal crapola at graduation? Let's go over some of the stuff he said. First:

What liberals believe, he said, "is that no one in authority should tell you to `shush,' that executing retarded teenagers is wrong, and that unions give workers a deserved place at the bargaining table."

 
JFK Affair
Gosh, is anyone really surprised at the affair between this "Mimi" woman and (nope, not Drew Carey) JFK? Certainly not me. I think all it does is solidify the fact that JFK wasn't as great as some like to think. I'm sure the Democrat American Idol Bill Clinton would think differently, but Camelot wasn't so peachy keen. There were some good things done during Kennedy's Presidency, of course, but that goes for every Presidency.

I wanna know why "Camelot" is used to describe a Presidency during which the President is having sex with bunches of interns (a good assumption) and Marilyn Monroe. Is the word simply describing a facade of perfection? Is it honestly better to LOOK good than to BE good?

Doesn't a lack of marital fidelity destroy a leader's legacy? At least partially? If a guy lies to his marriage vows, how can he as a public leader ever be completely revered? I claim that breaking marriage vows is a significant breach on a person's overall moral character and judgment. If a leader couldn't lead a marriage properly, how could he ever have led a people properly?

  posted by Stephen @ 12:34 AM

 
Hate Mail!
Here's an interesting e-mail I got from a tactless idiot who enjoys using the f-word. Of course, I'll censor all the bad parts. I don't usually resort to namecalling, but when in Rome...you know the rest. Here we go:




Mr. Stephens,

Read the name below each post, you moron. It says STEPHEN. It's my given name: not my surname, you idiot.

Way to go! Really enjoy reading your web site....

You need to visit another great conservative web site!

http://www.[liberal website].com

F*** it. I hate your f******* NAZI web site, Bush is a joke! Brainwashed talk radio junkies like you really need to wake the f*** up and see that fascists and elitists are controlling your mind...

Okay, it's perfectly fine for you to hate my website, but how is it NAZI? What specific ideas have I expressed that make it Nazi, you putrid piece of trash? You call me brainwashed, yet you offer nothing to back up your vapid claims. How are fascists and elitists "controlling my mind"? I could easily posit the idea that liberals control your mind. Actually, though, I think you're just a mindless fool with no ideas and lots of nebulous, empty talk. Saying the f-word multiple times doesn't validate any of your arguments, stupid.

I was a conservative until, I found out that the Republican Party died 30 years ago and was replaced by neo-fascist elitists, who are in control of are media and are [sic] lives!

First of all, it's "our lives," not "are lives," you low-IQ dolt. I'm surprised you can even compose a sentence. You weren't ever a conservative, by the way. It takes at least half a brain to be a conservative, and you certainly don't qualify. HOW did the Republican Party "die" and what PROOF do you have that it is neo-fascist?

Patriot Act 2 takes the 5th and 6th amendment rights away from all of us!

FINALLY, your empty mind gives me something specific to talk about. There are a lot of people opposed to Patriot Act 2. It gives the government a lot of leeway in combatting terrorists. Perhaps too much...I haven't really studied it. Either way, so what? How does that relate to anything I've said on this website, you no-good retard?

Soon your beloved Republican Party will be going after the second amendment, that's right! After the computer voting machines give Bush a win in 2004. They are coming for our guns! But thank "God" there's [sic] idiot, moron, jerk-offs like you on the internet to defend them after they do it!

Such a simple mind. I'm a conservative. Republicans generally hold conservative views. Are you on crack? You make absolutely no sense. Why would computer voting machines "give Bush a win" in 2004? How are they "coming for our guns" when Republicans advocates gun rights? Dumb freak.

You really need a talk show, any radio station would love to have you!

Hell, Foxhole News, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, any of them would take you!

You need to call you talk show... Stephens [sic] Blind Obedience Show!

Or...Conservativism [sic] same thing both will work!

Liberal Media Myth, F*** you...There's no such thing... GE made billions during Iraqi oil war and it had nothing to do with NBC's coverage of the war.....

Huh? How does making money covering a war have anything to do with liberal bias? Coverage is coverage. Obviously, you're an idiot. You can't compose sentences, spell things correctly, or use apostrophes, either. Conservatism is the name of this blog, not Conservativism. Are you in middle school?

Wake up you.... stupid f***! - Don't.... We need people like you to hate to keep us going.......

You ignorant son-of-a-bitch. Give me examples of who I'm hating. I hate terrorists who want to kill me. I hate the killing of babies by ripping them limb-from-limb. Other than that, I don't hate things, not even arrogant, low-IQ losers like you.

Man... Wish we had people like you during the Revolutionary War! We still would be British and wouldn't have all these problems!

Huh? You're a complete fool...that doesn't make ANY sense. Are you high on acid or something?

MH

Ah, great sign off! Can't even put your name, you mental midget? Go read Michael Moore's propaganda-filled website and leave me alone. I'd also advise you to take some English classes to improve your spelling, grammar, and writing style. On the whole, it's horrendous. You're a dumbass.




This e-mail is an illustration of how some people on the extreme left think. They've got few arguments and lots of hatred. Whew...thankfully, not all of them are filled with this much unneeded vitriol! If I haven't said it before, I'll say it now: anyone who disagrees with ANY of my posts is free to e-mail me about them! I enjoy debating. Even if I strongly disagree with you, I'll be nice to you if you're nice to me. But don't give me e-mails like this one. This one is a husk. It's empty--and from an empty mind.

  posted by Stephen @ 12:32 AM

 
I believe it is our fate to be here. It is our destiny.
I stole that line from The Matrix Reloaded! Cool line, though, isn't it? With all the hype, I had to post a LITTLE something about it.

It actually opened late night tonight (10PM) in some locations. I decided not to see it tonight, but I will soon enough!

Here are some other good movies that are coming out this year that look to be interesting:
Dumb and Dumberer
Bruce Almighty
Terminator 3
Matrix Revolutions
Lord of the Rings: Return of the King


  posted by Stephen @ 11:29 PM

 
Another Blow To Evolutionary Theory
Considering the "slime to man" theory has more holes in it than a gunned-down block of swiss cheese, it's not really a surprise. Nonetheless, this new chink in the ever-dynamic and never-can-be-questioned-because-it-must-be-true theory involves DNA from Neanderthals (or, "NeanderTals," to you science pedants) and Cro-Magnons.

An Italian study essentially said that modern-day humans could not have arisen from Neanderthals. In other words, we don't possess a lick of Neanderthal DNA in our cells. That's awfully strange, considering they were contemporaries with the Cro-Mags and all. Seems like over the "vast" time spans through which they coexisted they would have mixed just a wee bit.

Also, it looks to be evident that Neanderthals were pretty advanced human beings. They weren't ape men by any stretch of the imagination. They were almost like us homo sapiens sapiens. In fact, it's almost like they were a tribe of regular human beings whose bones have been misrepresented in order to try to establish a non-existent missing link between monkeys and humans! Ya think?

For the record, I don't have all the answers about exactly how the Earth and mankind arose (apart from God creating it all). But I do know one thing: Darwinian evolution is a pretty poor way of explaining it. It doesn't add up on all too many levels. I don't know about you, but faith should be reserved for God, not scientific theories.

  posted by Stephen @ 10:23 PM

 
Mass Graves & Evil Nuts
The latest mass grave of Saddam Hussein's evil, despotic--and thankfully toppled--regime contains 3,000 bodies. At least, so far. And the bodies aren't really bodies anymore. They're bones. Many of the poor Shi'ites who tried to rebel back after Gulf War I were punished with their lives; many of their family members couldn't fully grieve until now. It's sad.

The United States is partially to blame for encouraging an uprising and not giving help. But not as much as you might think. As an astute pundit pointed out on a talk show this evening, the UN wouldn't have wanted Bush 41 to go into Baghdad. They would have made an unbelievable ruckus about the whole thing, and Bush didn't want to deal with it. So, good or bad, he cowtowed. If foresight was 20/20, he would have removed Saddam at the time. (It's also worth noting that we didn't have such pinpoint accuracy back then. There would have been MANY more civilian casualties.)

Here's a quote from the article that will lead to Stephen's Immutable Law of Evil Nut Talk (SILENT):

Many of the onlookers were weeping, and some chanted: "There is no God but Allah, and the Baath (Party) is the enemy of Allah"

No matter how often one talks about, alludes to, or prays to God, if one is evil, one is STILL evil.

 
Burn In Hell
It's disgusting that these idiots have NOTHING better to do than try to cause terror and misery.

The more I think about it, the more it angers me. Toppling the Afghani and Iraqi terrorist regimes was just the beginning. This war isn't close to being over. Actually, this battle isn't even over until Al Qaeda ceases to exist. These terrorists must be wiped away from the face of the planet. It's irrespective of their political cause, national origin, or race: they're evil. These are people that, when they encounter trouble, blow themselves up. Did Gandhi blow himself up? Did Martin Luther King blow himself up? The bottom line is they've gotta die before more of US die...perhaps on a bigger scale.

At least they're blowing up stuff in their own country, though. Yes, Saudi Arabia. It's where the majority of the 9/11 hijackers hailed from. Strangely, we don't view them as a terrorist state. This will sound liberal, but we need to slowly wean ourselves away from oil and towards hydrogen so we don't have to depend on these terrorist-sympathizing regimes for petroleum.

And, by the way, to those Israelis (and Jews) out there, a lot of us here in America stand with you.



  posted by Stephen @ 4:56 PM

 
Liberal Media Red Herring
Perhaps it's just a slow news week. (That's being optimistic.) There's a story that's been circulating concerning President Bush's upcoming speech to plastic workers in Omaha that, well, doesn't make any sense to me. It's completely biased as well as being a total nonstarter.

CNN's (et al.) couldn't-possibly-be-tendentious title to the story is "Workers to pay for Bush speech." In the title bar of the browser, it also reads, "Bush speech lightens workers wallets." What they want you to read from that is, "Bush cares nothing about working families. He's a rich, white Republican." You know, those titles seem pretty biased to me before even knowing what the story is actually about.

Ready for this? There's ZERO truth to it. ZERO! Bush is giving a speech in a plastic manufacturing plant in Omaha, Nebraska, today to talk about the tax cut that just passed. Part of the plant will be shut down in order for the President to speak. The workers were given FOUR--yes, FOUR--options to make up for part of the plant being shut down:

1. Use a vacation day.
2. Take the day off and work on Saturday.
3. Work their regular shift in a part of plant that will stay open.
4. Take an unpaid day off.

This story could possibly be THE quintessential liberal-media-biased story. It's much ado about absolutely JACK SQUAT. To the workers, it's a minor inconvenience at the very worst, and it's to accommodate the President of the United States! Shoot, the company will get some good press for this. It'll probably help the workers in the long run!

And, besides, maybe some of them were looking for a good excuse to take a day off.

  posted by Stephen @ 11:38 AM

 
Doesn't This Piss You Off?
Supposedly, Saddam Hussein is still in Iraq! He's also said to be "organizing resistance." How?! He's got nothing. Without a government, money really won't create all that much short-term, effective resistance.

Either way, it's aggravating. We don't have Bin Laden, and we don't have Saddam. Though our military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq were both unquestionably successful, we really need these idiots to make examples of to all would-be terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and/or terrorist sympathizing nations (i.e. DPRK, Syria, Iran). I'd love to see them both on trial in the United States.

Saddam and Bin Laden on the witness stand! Wouldn't that be sweet?!

  posted by Stephen @ 11:01 AM

 
The Church Of Evolution
There was a great and funny post a few days ago at Scrappleface entitled "Church of Evolution Still Clings To Faith." It's probably not all that funny to those who hold fast to the specious set of pseudo-scientific beliefs, but to the rest of us, it's humorously illustrative.

What precipitated this news post was the revelation by a scientist that, after studying DNA, he's determined that army ants haven't really changed in 100 million years! You know, that seems a tad bit strange. Why wouldn't the super-powerful, species-creating natural selection forces that created humans from amoebas not alter ants in 100 MILLION YEARS?! Are environmental niches that shielded from natural selection? Evolutionists would quickly claim this ant DNA analysis proves that. Of course, that's petitio principii to suit their purposes. To them, all the evidence points to evolution because evolution is absolute, immutable truth.

  posted by Stephen @ 9:54 AM

 
Nascent Human Life
The writer of an article in the Washington Post talks about the 400,000 frozen human embryos in the United States (emphasis added):

"...many people are wondering what should be done with the nation's prodigious stores of nascent human life."

"Some people just can't cope with the decision," said Pamela Madsen, executive director of the American Infertility Association, a New York-based patient education and advocacy organization. "Even though their religious or moral perspectives about when life begins are all very individual and different, still most of them will agree that their embryos are very special."

 
Body Parts Can Be BORN!
More semantical gymnastics to try to assure that baby killing will always be legal, this time from the Connecticut Supreme Court. Essentially, the Court said that babies are body parts. Yes, you heard that right! BODY PARTS. It's actually a miracle, though, if you think about it: these living, breathing, sovereign body parts instantly gain humanity once they exit the birth canal. (Mind you, that's completely exit. In a D&X abortion the baby is partially out of the birth canal when it's slaughtered. Oh, also, during botched abortions, the baby is sometimes killed after it's out of the mother.) Surprise! You're actually just a sentient sloughed-off body part of your mother.

And, of course, an obligatory PUKE quote:

"Any time I hear about giving rights to fetuses, I get concerned," said Elaine Werner, executive director of the Connecticut chapter of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. "That's the slippery slope to eroding Roe vs. Wade."

 
100th Fatality
Sadly, the death toll in the February 20 Rhode Island nightclub fire is now at 100. At least the number's easy to remember. This latest death was a poor gal who died after two and a half months of struggling with horrible burns. I hate to say it, but she's probably better off dead. Her quality of life probably would have been less than poor.

Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks this, but isn't it stupid to be packed in a nightclub--or anywhere--like sardines? I realize the pyrotechnics were the direct cause, but if it were a bigger club, or if it had less people, they all might have escaped death. It happens all too often at soccer matches around the world when people get crushed up against fences and/or trampled. Big crowds just make me nervous because I realize the potential for bad accidents like this. Big crowds + small area = potential for HUGE fatalities.

Whenever I see the oft-aired video of the nightclub and watch the flames begin to lick the extremely flammable walls and ceiling of the club, I feel so badly. It's difficult to watch a video of people that you know (many of whom) were dead ten minutes later. Such a needless tragedy.

  posted by Stephen @ 10:11 AM

 
Africa Isn't Completely Backwards
Wow...it seems SO unfair that backwards African countries aren't morally enlightened enough to allow women to kill their own children! Take Uganda, for instance. A woman was sentenced to five years for taking herbs to kill her almost-born child. Then she dumped the baby's body into an outhouse toilet pit.

Five years?! She should actually be awarded for her courageous act of killing! It's her CHOICE to plan (i.e. kill) her family however she so chooses, and it's also her CHOICE to dump her freshly-killed baby's innocent, lifeless body into a pit of feces. That's not any worse than ripping a baby limb-from-limb in a good ol' American abortion, so what's the big deal? (It's not like babies deserve much humanity, anyway.)

  posted by Stephen @ 11:33 AM

 
Moron!
Saddam, you're an idiot. You're an evil killer for 25 years and expect most of Iraq to even care that you're alive, much less care that you're making broadcasts?

One thing he said:

"The duration of invasion or occupation ... will be the exception, a brief period, compared with the period in which people live free in their homeland."

 
The Death Party
Through the gross negligence of continually filibustering appellate court nominees, the Democratic Party has proven once again that it's a party with but one (disgusting) issue: abortion. It's a shame, too, because these nominees are eminently qualified. These nominees are among the brightest, most experienced judges around. Unfortunately, these nominees also might hold a personal belief that is antithetical to the Democrats' position that slicing-and-dicing a baby in the womb is a privacy right. And these "morally superior" Democrats are trying to make them pay for holding such a belief.

In my short life, I have not seen a more repulsive and obvious example of Democrat obstructionism. Judge Miguel Estrada, Judge Priscilla Owen, and whoever else is to be put up for confirmation aren't required to hold a particular belief on abortion to be qualified. There shouldn't be a litmus test on ONE issue to determine qualification. But, reality is reality. These obstructionists couch their witch hunts in rhetorical gymnastics about "women's rights," but at the heart of the hunt is keeping legal the ability to kill babies in utero. You know, I wish I could respect the Democrats for their zealousness. Baby killing, however, is so putrid that I can't have any respect for those who crusade so heavily for it.

It's too bad the Democratic Party is, at best, an amoral party. Before 1973 they were one that deserved respect; perhaps just as much as the Republican Party. They were for the people. They were a moral party. They're not anymore. They're for the radical left-wingers who, at any and all costs, support baby-killing-on-demand. I remember Bill O'Reilly saying something to the effect that the radical leftists would support abortion even if the Almighty Himself came down and said, "Abortion is killing: abortion is wrong." I find that very easy to believe. The Democratic Party, unfortunately, is the Death Party.

  posted by Stephen @ 4:22 PM

 
Three Cheers For Virginia
If you're like me, the daily deluge of spam is VERY bothersome. Thankfully, Virginia has just become a bellwether in enacting tough spam laws: the state passed a law that make sending gobs and gobs of spam a felony. I say, "Hip-hip-hooray!"

(The law actually applies to fraudulently sent OR high-volume spam mail. In most cases, it'll be high volume whether it's fraudulent or not. That's the problem: volume.)

I think making spam a true-blue crime is a huge step in the correct direction. What was to stop people from continually theiving services and time without the imposition of harsh penalties? Nothing...until now, of course.

Virginia's law applies to any spam sent through Virginia. That's pretty significant since the state provides a huge amount of Internet connectivity. My guess is they'd be second only to California. (But that's just a guess.) Hopefully this law will start the ball rolling against spamming and spammers. Let's hope this is the beginning of the slow road to V-S Day: Victory from Spam Day!

  posted by Stephen @ 12:04 AM

 
Saddam? So what?
I don't honestly even want to link to the pertinent news stories about Saddam Hussein. It's crap. It doesn't matter if this evil despotic ruler is alive or dead. It doesn't matter what he says or how he says it. It's meaningless and worthless. Extremely evil people shouldn't have an ounce of credibility and therefore shouldn't be given a platform!

Supposedly, he signed a letter telling Iraqis to resist occupation. Supposedly, he's gonna be broadcasting a message within the next couple of days. What the hell can he say and why the hell does ANYONE care? He's deposed and maybe even dead. The Iraqi people and the world are free from him.

  posted by Stephen @ 3:11 PM

 
Oh, Ashleigh-Ashleigh! I DON'T love you.
Now, for those of you who don't know who Ashleigh Banfield is, I don't blame you. She's a little-known correspondent for MSNBC who recently made some stupid comments lambasting much of the war coverage for not adaquately depicting the horrors of Gulf War II.

Such a pretty face and such an empty mind. Thankfully, she was taken aside by the president of NBC News and, well, I'm sure she got a tongue-lashing for making dumb remarks. I found an interesting comment that a guy with the user name "Pharlap" made on Lucianne.com:

Memo to Ashle[igh]:
For years the pro-choice people have told us that abortion is "wonderful and glorious". Does that bother you, Ashle[igh]? For years the main stream media have not shown the "bloody reality" of abortion because it might traumatize the children. Does that bother you, Ashle[igh]? Or, is it alright to traumatize children with the horrors of war but not the horrors of abortion. Please, tell us, Ashle[igh].

 
I Wouldn't Be TOO Lenient
A 20-year-old idiot wrote "threating notes" on a cruise ship to allegedly try to turn the boat around so she could get back home to see her boyfriend. Also, she was declared poor at her trial, so the taxpayers of the US have to foot the bill for her defense.

What a moronic troublemaker. She faces up to 10 years in prison. The maximum seems a bit much, but, considering the times we live in, I feel very little sympathy for her. They oughta give her a couple years to clear her head. That seems fair enough.

  posted by Stephen @ 1:24 AM

 
60 Years Ago?!
I realize delay is a fact of life, but should it REALLY take 60 years for German insurance companies to release more than 300,000 names of Holocaust victims covered by life insurance policies? Germany told the US not to go to war with Iraq when they hadn't even completely remunerated the people's families who their erstwhile evil regime massacred?!

The files were "sealed" up until now, which doesn't make any sense. You'd think that all that would be straight before 60 years had elapsed. Too many delays! Pay up!

  posted by Stephen @ 12:26 AM

 
Hypocrisy At The Highest Level
Generally speaking, I like the Supreme Court. They're the people who stopped the idiotic goings on in Florida (AND in the Florida Supreme Court) that could have caused George Bush to be wrongfully not declared the winner of the 2000 Election.

Today, though, there's some hypocrisy going on. At least, implied hypocrisy. They refused to look at a case in which an appeals court ruled that Kentucky couldn't put the Ten Commandments on the grounds of its state Capitol. (As an aside, it seems to me that a state should be able to do much of what it wants unless it grossly violates the Constitution or federal law.)

Hello? United States Supreme Court? Are you listening? You've got a representation of the Ten Commandments CHISELED INTO THE WALLS OF YOUR OWN COURT. Are you guys violating law by having that? Of course not. That's ludicrous.

For one, the Ten Commandments are one of the bases of modern law. They're historical, like the Code of Hammurabi or the Magna Carta.

More important, the Constitution says NOTHING about requiring states or the country to be anti-God or atheistic. It says "Congress shall make no law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT of religion...." (Emphasis added.) Does that mean "Congress shall make no law or practice that has anything to do with God or theism"? No, it means that there shouldn't be any laws that infringe on others' rights to be religious or spiritual in whatever way they so choose. In other words, the Founders thought that praying or reading the Bible IN GOVERNMENT was okay. They just didn't want the Government to become "Methodist" or "Anglican" or "Baptist" and follow in the footsteps of the England's church government. If we became a theocracy early on, we might have been doomed to follow in the footsteps of failed middle eastern theocracies. However, we're unfortunately becoming an atheocracy. I have no problems with atheists, but the Declaration of Independence itself talks about a monotheistic Deity. It's in our tradition and in our culture. We're a culturally Christian nation. Why, as a society, must we try to change that?

  posted by Stephen @ 3:35 PM

 
Baseball News
For those of you who appreciate baseball, a couple of unique things happened today on the diamond.

Former Braves pitcher Kevin Millwood, now on the Phillies, pitched a no-hitter today versus the Giants. Congrats to him on his elite achievement!

Perhaps more "fun" news was the 7-6 Marlins victory over the Cardinals. Why is that, you ask? It's because it was the first 20 inning baseball game since 1993. It took 6 hours and 7 minutes. Talk about free baseball! Did a little research and found the longest game ever played in both innings and time in modern baseball was when the White Sox played the Brewers on May 9, 1984. That went 25 innings and took 8 hours and 6 minutes! (Chicago won 7-6.) Whoa.

  posted by Stephen @ 10:13 PM

 
That's TOO MUCH Moore!
A Scrappleface prediction has been posted at Moorewatch.com. It is, of course, based upon the Dixie Chicks' recent semi-nude pose on the front of Entertainment Weekly. And it's quite funny.

(By the way, the Dixie Chicks may be nimrod singers, but at least you don't have to avert your eyes in utter disgust!)

  posted by Stephen @ 9:03 PM

 
Ketchup Or No Ketchup On Your Crow?
A link has been found between Saddam and Al Qaeda! While it certainly wasn't necessary to need such a link to topple Saddam's despotic regime, maybe it'll shut a lot of people up. At the very least, it'll make their anti-war arguments seem that much more asinine.

  posted by Stephen @ 8:57 PM

 
I Spell "Inhumanity" N-O-W
The gifted and insightful Shonda of Diotima has more fortitude than I. She has the stomach to actually browse NOW's and Planned Parenthood's websites. I've taken snippets of the quoted nonsense from their respective sites. (Respective, not respected. Far be it from me to have any respect for such iniquitous organizations.)

Here's a bit of what Shonda quoted from Planned Parenthood's comments relating to Senator Santorum's recent comments:

"[Senator Rick Santorum] also declared that Americans have no constitutional right to privacy....In Sen. Santorum's ideal world, women and men would once again face state bans and restrictions on contraception."

"...if we can't cope or don't want a pregnancy we're made to feel guilty about abortion..."

 
Mr. Fleischer, Remember Who You're Dealing With
In 2001, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would make killing or injuring an unborn baby a crime. (This, of course, excludes the mother of the unborn baby. She has a "right" to kill the baby. If she's a PUKE, she also BELIEVES she has that illegal, patently immoral "right" to kill another human being just because the human being grows inside her.) The Senate has yet to pass such a bill. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer had this to say about the potential Senate law:

''...when an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of a crime of violence, the law should recognize what most people immediately recognize, and that is that such a crime has two victims.''

 
Why Didn't You Listen To Yourself, Ted?
Ted Turner opened his big mouth on Thursday and called Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corporation and Fox News, a "warmonger." You know, CNN was the ONLY news channel that covered Gulf War I. Perhaps that could be viewed as glorifying the war.

Turner also claimed that Fox News promoted the war. No, actually, Fox was just upbeat about everything. If I want to hear doom and gloom I'll turn to CNN, though.

Turner also said this:

"The media is too concentrated, too few people own too much."

 
Crazy Times, Crazy Children
Unfortunately, there was another school shooting yesterday morning in Pennsylvania. A 14 year old--an 8th grader--with a gun shot his principal and then shot himself. To me, this is especially sad because there seems to be no real motive. With all the violence in our society, impressionable minds pick up on it and act on it. What else could be the cause?

I'm sure he was an unpopular kid who was sick of school. So, he felt that it was okay to pay the school back for his trouble. What the poor kid didn't realize is that school isn't life. It gets better after junior high and high school (at least in my opinion). Now, though, two people are dead. That includes a great principal who they say loved children. And it's all for absolutely NOTHING.

What's interesting to me is that crazy shooters often kill themselves after they kill their victims. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Reverse the scenario. I'm not advocating suicide, but if you absolutely must kill, kill yourself and spare everyone else from needless death. Most of us want to live. If you don't, don't take everyone down with you. You won't be around to see the aftermath, so why does it matter to you?

  posted by Stephen @ 1:28 PM

 
Debate! Evolution: Round 1, Part 2

Here's another evolution-related post by Will at Baudes Blog. He, too, didn't insult me personally, which I appreciate. He can give me a rebuttal, too, if he wishes.

--

Me: The theory of evolution has more than just "reasonable doubt" associated with it. It is only a mere educated guess at how humans and animals came to exist upon this planet. Nothing more. It is neither fact nor very reliable, and it continues to be a capricious theory. Every time another fossil is discovered, it seems, a huge part of the theory radically changes.

Will: And it gets worse, much worse. Now I should let somebody more expert in these things than myself take this simplistic argument to task, but in a nutshell:

My understanding is that punctuated equilibrium isn't a particularly necessary part of the main theory of evolution.

Reply: It's a simplistic argument because it's a simplistic problem. Evolution just doesn't make a whole lot of sense on many levels.

It's not "a particularly necessary part," but it's one of many specious small theories that try desperately to credibly explain the bigger theory. To no avail, of course. Punctuated equilibrium is just a particularly funny one because it's "FAST" evolution! Try not to laugh!

--

Will: Calling a doubt of the "theory" of evolution "reasonable" is a lot like calling a doubt of the "theory" of relativity "reasonable".

Reply: Relativity was proven by Einstein beyond a reasonable doubt. Demonstrable evidence. Evolution hasn't come close to that. It's science versus pseudo-science.

--

Will: Now maybe you can marshall some evidence for some other scientific theory of creation, though it won't do much to explain away the bulk of evolutionary evidence. But since when is evolution a religious theory?

Reply: Where's the bulk? I mean, honestly, show me the bulk! I need examples! There is limited, ambiguous evidence. That's about it.

--

Will: Really, there's just too much wrong with this post to go on. I'm just going to stick to Diotima.

Reply: There's too much wrong? Perhaps there's too much RIGHT with it and you just can't handle the truth! (Did I just quote a movie?)

Anyway, I disagree with PUKE (pro-unborn-killing-exemption) people, so you'd be advised to keep reading my blog for great commentary concerning the preservation of life instead of the slaughter of it!

  posted by Stephen @ 3:49 AM

 
Debate! Evolution: Round 1

At least I know that a FEW people are reading my blog. I'm excited! I get a chance to debate somebody! The topic is evolution.

Lovely Amy at The Crooked Heart decided to "fisk my blog" and so I'll "fisk" back! (I'm a new blogger, so I'm not even sure what "fisking" is.) She said fisking me would be as easy as clubbing a baby seal, though, so I might need to contact PETA about that. I worry about Amy and her seal-clubbing practices.

Seriously, though, I thank Amy for not being mean or insulting me personally (at least, I don't think she did) and I tried to do the same in my response. I gladly welcome her rebuttal if she so chooses.

--

Me: The theory of evolution has more than just "reasonable doubt" associated with it. It is only a mere educated guess at how humans and animals came to exist upon this planet. Nothing more.

Amy: The theory that the New Testament was written in the first centuries AD to record the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth is only a mere educated guess at how this text came to exist upon this planet. Nothing more. After all, we weren't there to see it for ourselves. We have to rely on evidence, and the evidence could all have been concocted by a gaggle of medieval pranksters. Is this a reasonable doubt? But can you prove it isn't true?

Reply: I mentioned nothing about the New Testament, the Old Testament, or the Bible! We're talking evolution! Let's stay on topic. Evolution cannot be reproduced. It's a theory. An educated guess at how we came to exist on this planet.

--

Me: It is neither fact nor very reliable, and it continues to be a capricious theory. Every time another fossil is discovered, it seems, a huge part of the theory radically changes.

Amy: A huge part? Like the huge part that explains why fossils don't look like animals that are around today? While is is true that the proper placement of fossils on the evolutionary tree is a hotly contested subject, it remains fairly obvious that such a tree should exist.

Reply: A huge part...such as finding some bones and saying, "Well, new evidence (i.e. one skeleton) suggests that humans didn't come from Africa anymore." It's hotly contested because there's a lot of unknowns and educated guessing going on...as I stated. Lots of conjecture. It doesn't remain "fairly obvious" that such a tree should exist. Now, if you PRESUPPOSE that divine creation isn't possible, then it's "fairly obvious." That's what one of my points was in the whole blog entry: evolution is humanistic dogma.

--

Me: I personally got a kick when I heard about "punctuated equilibrium." This is a counterintuitive sub-theory that was dreamed up when the fossil record couldn't be explained.

Amy: Ever seen a gyroscope? If so, do you still want to claim that the workings of nature are intuitively understandable?

Reply: I've seen gyroscopes. You know why? They're observable! Punctuated equilibrium is a theory that is not explicitly observable. To me, it seems like circular logic: "Punctuated equilibrium is true because the fossil record proves evolution."

--

Me: (Obviously, evolution is true, so the fact that evolution never took place is not an option to consider). Punctuated equilibrium essentially postulates that evolution is slow for a while, and then it speeds up for a very short time: the environment FORCES a crocodile to turn into a bird in a few thousand years. If you believe in magic, evolution is for you.

Amy: When you think of it, punctuated equilibrium is actually a fairly intuitive theory. The basic idea is that when the environment is stable, species are also reasonably stable. They've found their niche, they fill it effectively, and most changes to the formula are maladaptive. However, when the environment changes, species are no longer well adapted to current conditions. Most of the population will die off, but what is left will change rapidly, not because the environment forces it to change, but because mutations are much more likely to be adaptive. For instance, polars bears with a mutation leading to thin coats would be very maladapted for life in the Arctic, and one would not expect to see these animals reach maturity. However, if a catastophe (like a meteor) were to warm the globe enough to make the arctic regions temparate, one would expect to see such a mutation become highly favored, and for the appearance of polar bears to change drastically within a few generations.

Reply: If it's so intuitive, why'd it take so long to develop? The answer: it's a recent theory based upon the fact that the fossil record is completely unexplainable by traditional Darwinistic evolution. Mutations are another huge weak point in evolution: they're almost completely deleterious to an organism. People tend to think of mutations as a good thing like from "X-Men" or something like that, whereas in nature they're almost entirely detrimental. I agree that selective pressures can cause microevolution and local speciation. But on a gross scale, there's not enough evidence to support, say, humans coming through the same common ancestor as fish. It's circumstantial at best.

--

Me: Sadly, evolution is "gospel" in scientific circles.

Amy: Actually, this is a fairly apt description. As my high school biology teacher explained to me, science is based on the premise that material events have material causes. If a scientists observes a material event that seems to have no cause, he should conclude not that it had a supernatural origin, but that we have not yet observed the material causes responsible. This is what it means to be a scientist, and this is why we no longer believe in spontaneous generation, action-at-a-distance, or the miasma theory of diseases. So just as it's rather difficult to call yourself a Christian if you don't believe the Gospels are true, it's rather difficult to call yourself a scientist if you're not willing to accept evolution.

Reply: Yes, but science is by nature ill-equipped to handle certain things. Evolution is an attempt to go against that. It tries, but there are too many unknowns. Evolutionists fill in all the gaps and ASSUME. "We're here...it's obvious!"

--

Me: If you don't believe in it, you're condescendingly viewed as a non-thinking moron who obviously knows nothing about science.

Amy: Right. Because if you did know something about science, you'd understand that creationism is not a scientific explanation.

Reply: Neither is evolution. Both creationism and evolution are dogmas that cannot either be supported adequately with science. I was a Chemistry major in undergrad with a minor in biology. I'm attending grad school this fall. I love science. Science is great. But it reaches a limit of applicability. Science is a tool used by humans to explain aspects of the world we live in. Observable aspects. It's simply inadequate to explain certain things like our origins.

--

Me: It is scientific dogma, and it's not a surprise that many are dogmatic when it comes to evolution. It's a scientific religion with many, many adherents. Question it, and you're generally laughed at, patronized, and ostracized.

Amy: Oh. I'm sorry. Am I patronizing you?

Reply: No, but I'm sure you're laughing at me because you think I know so little. I'm the wacko when you're the one who believes that, given enough time, an amoeba can turn into a human? I mean, that's completely counterintuitive and ludicrous! Just in the human body, there are too many complexities that could not have evolved. It's that simple.

--

Me: Those two paragraphs were an intro to a story I saw today. A "smarter-than-everyone-else" type professor at Texas Tech University was using it as a litmus test in order to write students recommendations in order to get into medical school, and the Bush administration began to probe the McCarthy-style Darwinist. Well, the Bush administration has chickened out and dropped the probe.

Amy: So supporting evolution makes you smarter than everyone else? Wow. Finally something we can agree on.

Reply: Are you patronizing me? This guy has the nerve to ask students wanting to get into MEDICAL SCHOOL about their personal beliefs. It's irrelevant and shows his arrogance and intolerance. If I was a professor, I wouldn't try to shunt atheists away from medical school. I'd judge them on academia alone. And, I certainly don't believe people just because they're smart and in positions of power. Example: I never believed much of what "Slick Willy" Clinton said!

--

Me: Here's what the professor, Michael Dini, still says:

"If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: 'How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?'" Dini states on his updated Web site. "If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation."

I don't get it. Why is this even a question? It's completely irrelevant to becoming a physician. Maybe he should ask, "Do you believe in the latent heat of fusion?" Why evolution?

Amy: Why not evolution? Why shouldn't Dini be able to ask whatever questions he wants before he writes his recommendation? When you ask for a recommendation from a professor, you're asking for a favor that he should be able to grant or refuse as he sees fit.

Reply: Okay, I will grant you that Mikey, in theory, has the right to ask whatever he wants. However, it comes awfully close to religious discrimination. If a student believes that God created him and evolution is not true, that's a religious belief protected under law. That's the reason the Bush administration was looking into it.

--

Me: I'll tell you though, here's the answer: it's a religious belief, and some evolutionists like Dini want an inroad to try to shove God out of intellectual and professional circles (and then trickle down through society). Trying to keep out doctors who don't believe in pseudo-science would help that process.

Amy: Trying to keep out doctors who don't believe in pseudo-science probably isn't going to do much to remove religion from America, but it would do a whole lot to improve the quality of the medical profession. Should we perhaps return to the era when medical care was the province of quacks and faith healers?

Reply: You just proved how out of touch you are! Religious hospitals are everywhere. And why would believing in evolution as a dogma improve the overall quality of the medical profession? It's irrelevant. Believing in God, though: I would argue that it would help a doctor connect better with patients. Now, removing arrogant, intolerant, leftist professors might improve the quality of education in this great country!

--

Me: Now, I could maybe see asking, "Are you a humanist? That is, do you care about the well-being of humans and humanity?" Even that's borderline, but that'd be a more fair question because of what doctors do.

Amy: Actually, doctors do more than care about the well being of humans and humanity. They apply science to help humans and humanity overcome their medical problems. Would you rather have a misanthropic surgeon or a caring, loving, generous poet performing your appendectomy?

Reply: Huh? The humanist question supports YOUR side. Humanist, skepticism, secular humanism, etc. I also don't care who performs my surgery as long as the surgeon is qualified.

--

Me: Mikey, keep your religious beliefs to yourself, okay? Teach the theory in class, but don't use it as a litmus test. Lots of doctors look to God for the strength to allow them to deal with so much illness, disease, and death. I want qualified physicians. If they'll give me the care I need, I don't care what they believe in. You shouldn't either.

Amy: Professor Dini, however, is not assessing whether or not a physician is capable, but whether or not a student is likely to become a capable physician. These are two different tasks. A physician looking to God for strength and support is one thing, a physician looking to Leviticus for the cure for skin diseases is something I certainly don't wish to see.

Reply: You're making lots of straw man arguments. I never even mentioned the Bible in my WHOLE post about evolution and you keep referring to it. You're trying to label me as a crazy Bible-thumper when my actual point was only that evolution is a shaky dogma and professors shouldn't use it as a litmus test.

--

Amy: But how strong, actually, is the evidence in support of the theory of evolution? That depends upon what you mean by theory of evolution.

My introductory biology textbook defined evolution as change in the frequency of an allele in the gene pool over time. That such changes occur in response to natural selection has been overwhelmingly established. Most creationists I know are willing to concede this definition of evolution.

Reply: Yes, the frequency of an allele does change over time. Will that cause gross speciation over millions of years? That's the problem. I don't believe it will, and there's not much evidence to counter me. Where are the transitional fossils? They're nowhere to be found because there ARE no transitional species. You show me some good evidence and I'll believe it. Darwin himself said that if transitional fossils cannot be found, evolution is invalid. I tend to agree with Darwin.

--

Amy: Things start to get sticky around speciation, which is the proccess whereby one species evolves into another species. This process has been well-documented in plants, somewhat less so for animals, but nonetheless there are several pretty persuasive instances of speciation being observed in the laboratory. (See this website for more info.)

Reply: "Sticky" is a euphemism for "we really have no clue...we're just guessing." Gross evolution and speciation hasn't been well-documented in plants. You're also linking to talk.origins, a heavily biased website towards evolution. Try this one and see that the evidence, depending on your worldview, can go either way.

--

Amy: Though some creationists are willing to concede that limited speciation may occurr, the majority balk at the theory of evolution, properly called--that all life on earth is decended from a common ancestor. While this, obviously, cannot be observed in a laboratory, the evidence is pretty compelling. From traditional studies of physiology and embroyology, to the establishment of molecular family trees, and the degree of similarity, for instance, between the genomes of humans and chimpanzees, the evidence that mutation and speciation, as observed in the laboratory, are enough to account for the great diversity of life we see today. (See here for more.)

Reply: There's no compelling evidence. Much of the "compelling evidence" that supposedly points to evolution can easily point to Divine creation where God created creatures in a similar fashion.

--

Amy: Finally there is the question of the initial origins of life. Here the evidence begins to get shaky. Scientists have explained how organic molecules form spontaneously when a mixture of inorganic molecules is electrocuted. Scientists have also shown that under the proper conditions, an organic soup can give rise to incredibly interesting structures known as microspheres. These membrane-enclosed sacs of organic chemicals take in materials selectively, and spontaneously divide when they grow. However, they're still a far cry from even the simplest anaerobic bacteria, and the processes in between these two states remain a mystery. (See this site.)

Reply: Things have gotten "sticky" and "shaky," but evolution is still gospel? It's a dogma, and it's okay to subscribe to the theory, but it seems illogical to assume it's fact if there are so many weak points.

--

Amy: This has led a number of people to embrace the theory of intelligent design--that the first origins of life must have had a designer behind them. The problem with this theory is not that it's obviously false, but that finding an Intelligent Designer who operates outside of the rules of nature cannot be done by science. Hence, it is the duy of scientists to search for a material cause of life--a project that, while off to a good start, is far from complete.

Reply: Huh? That's not even logical. Let's assume God exists. We look for a material cause of life. Then we invent a theory based on the evidence we have, however scant it is, that points to a material cause of life. It seems to me that's EXACTLY what evolution represents. A bunch of presuppositions and assumptions based on limited and ambiguous science coupled with a naturalistic worldview.

And, yes, it's far from complete, alright. Too far for my tastes!

  posted by Stephen @ 3:19 AM

 
Continued North Korean Stupidity
Maybe it's just a death wish? Beats me. North Korea threatened the US again today when it claimed it had nuclear weapons AND it said it might use them depending on US actions.

They say this after we cleaned house in Iraq in less than a month?! I don't have a whole lot to add from my first post about North Korea. Honestly, you'd think they'd try to be nice to us. If they're next on the Axis of Evil List, turning up their rhetoric can't help. They gotta realize that, right? Perhaps not.

I guess I keep forgetting we're dealing with yet another evil regime. (Saddam wasn't quite so goofy-looking, though.) And they have the guts to call themselves the Democratic People's Republic of Korea! Find any country with "Democratic" or "People's" in its name, and it's guaranteed to be Communist, wacko, or both. The United States is one of the most free, democratic, and people-loving countries in the world; do we have the need to try to convince others of that fact? No...it's entirely self-evident. And about the DPRK: I'm not sure what having both words in the name means, but it can't be all that good!

  posted by Stephen @ 11:45 PM

 
Obesity: Not A Good Thing
A study shows that being overweight is a potential cause of cancer. Well, duh. Sixteen years and 900,000 people for that? I realize it's important to prove things through controlled studies, but being overweight is an obvious link to a myriad of health problems.

Another news story on USA today says this:

"Of the approximately 560,000 cancer deaths projected to occur this year, roughly 30% of those will be tobacco-related, and about 35% related to diet, physical inactivity and weight, according to the cancer society."

 
I'll Choose "The Dixie Sluts"
The Dixie Chicks are posing nude on the cover of Entertainment Weekly to somehow "answer their critics." To me, it just further shows they're idiots and should definitely stick to singing and not political commentary. Posing nude does WHAT? Shows WHAT? You still were wrong to bash the President overseas, chickadees. To prove my point in another way, here's a quote:

"It's not about the nakedness," the Post quotes band member Martie Maguire as saying. "It's about clothes getting in the way of labels."

 
Spam, Spam, Everywhere, But Not A Bit To Eat
Spam, or unsolicited bulk e-mail, is becoming a huge problem on the Internet. By year's end, spam messages will surpass non-spam e-mail messages. Some say we're already past that point. To make matters worse, some idiot spammers are suing Spamhaus and SPEWS, two very respectable spam-fighting organizations. These spammers, who are spuriously and stupidly claiming that they're the victims, are the idiots that clog your inbox with Viagra ads and porn messages. Can you imagine how many millions of hours of deleting and blocking spam nationwide have been caused by these morons?! They thieve OUR time and bandwidth, but they're the victims because we try to block their theft. Unbelieveable. Pressing the DELETE key may have worked a few years ago, but it's segued from annoyance to huge, multi-faceted problem. Thus:

Never, ever, ever respond to, read through, or buy from spam e-mail. EVER!

Filters and laws are only successful insofar as they remove the bottom line: money. If Net denizens never bought anything from spammers, the spam would stop. So, if you get spam, report it through SpamCop (a highly recommended service) and delete it! Get it? Got it? Good!

  posted by Stephen @ 10:42 PM

 
Evolution: A Scientific Religion
The theory of evolution has more than just "reasonable doubt" associated with it. It is only a mere educated guess at how humans and animals came to exist upon this planet. Nothing more. It is neither fact nor very reliable, and it continues to be a capricious theory. Every time another fossil is discovered, it seems, a huge part of the theory radically changes. I personally got a kick when I heard about "punctuated equilibrium." This is a counterintuitive sub-theory that was dreamed up when the fossil record couldn't be explained. (Obviously, evolution is true, so the fact that evolution never took place is not an option to consider). Punctuated equilibrium essentially postulates that evolution is slow for a while, and then it speeds up for a very short time: the environment FORCES a crocodile to turn into a bird in a few thousand years. If you believe in magic, evolution is for you.

Sadly, evolution is "gospel" in scientific circles. If you don't believe in it, you're condescendingly viewed as a non-thinking moron who obviously knows nothing about science. It is scientific dogma, and it's not a surprise that many are dogmatic when it comes to evolution. It's a scientific religion with many, many adherents. Question it, and you're generally laughed at, patronized, and ostracized.

Those two paragraphs were an intro to a story I saw today. A "smarter-than-everyone-else" type professor at Texas Tech University was using it as a litmus test in order to write students recommendations in order to get into medical school, and the Bush administration began to probe the McCarthy-style Darwinist. Well, the Bush administration has chickened out and dropped the probe. Here's what the professor, Michael Dini, still says:

"If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: 'How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?'" Dini states on his updated Web site. "If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation."

 
Why Kill Embryonic-Stage Humans?
There's a fascinating news item circulating today. It involves a pediatric dentist who took one of his young child's baby teeth and found stem cells in some pulp in the shedded tooth. Dr. Songtao Shi and his fellow scientists call the cells SHED cells: Stem cells from Human Exfoliated Deciduous teeth. Similar to umbilical cord blood stem cells, this offers a potentially wonderful way to harvest stem cells without destroying the earliest stage of human life.

I think we do owe it to humanity to work as hard as we can to find every ethical way to get stem cells. There are people out there suffering from debilitating diseases that will greatly benefit from continuing stem cell research. Admittedly, if I had a relative suffering from such a disease--or if I did--I would honestly find it hard not to advocate embryonic stem cell research. However, like abortion, it is all too easy to take such routes. Medicine is based upon morality and doing no harm; medical research should always follow that philosophy. Dr. Mengele, the evil Nazi doctor, probably learned a great deal from his experiments, but the ends didn't justify his means. That's important to remember.

  posted by Stephen @ 3:55 PM

 
Santorum Whomped; Is Criticism Warranted?
Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum apparently initiated a Lott-style witch hunt recently by being a conservative and making non-offensive remarks. Those non-offensive remarks were subsequently blown completely out of proportion. Leftist homosexual groups are supposedly mad because he said this:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery," Santorum was quoted as saying. "You have the right to anything."

 
Commentary: What's The Cause of Extremism?
It strikes me as being utter hypocrisy that abortion doctor killers are viewed as extremists while the actual abortion "doctors" are not. (I put "doctor" in quotes because people on a regular basis who are supposed to preserve life but actually remove it aren't very good physicians--or members of the human race, for that matter.) Killing is unequivocally wrong, and all people who kill should be held accountable. However, I think a lot of people have the cart before the horse.

Generally, I'd say it's Christian extremists who murder these abortion doctors and give other Christian pro-lifers a bad name. Most Christians are concerned with preserving life of all kinds: unborn, born, and old. And, while Christians detest abortion, they as a general rule never resort to violence to correct this modern-day Holocaust. Think about it, though: who is actually responding to whose extremism? Follow this:

1. Extremist doctor kills countless unborn babies.
2. Extremist pro-lifer kills doctor.

Who's committing the initial act of violence? Also, who is committing MORE violence? After the "doctor" is killed, then everyone left-of-center rightfully labels the killer a "dangerous, hateful extremist." But they don't attribute the correct reasons. Why would someone take umbrage at a medical procedure? The answer: no one would. However, many do take personal offense to killing babies, and some go off the deep end.

I feel very little good will towards "doctors" who perform baby-killing on demand. It's lower than low. It's scummy and they're scum. They make good money and a good living off "reproductive rights": killing unborn babies. However, violence and killing isn't the answer. It took hundreds of years to end slavery, and much of it was non-violent. Sadly, I think it may take that long to correct this evil. What's even sadder is that society's moral enlightenment went backwards. With slavery, it was legal and we made it illegal. Abortion WAS illegal and now it's legal.

Unborn Children Have Humanity?
Sharon Rocha, Laci Peterson's mom, said this, boldness added:

"I can only hope that the sound of Laci's voice, begging for her life, begging for the life of her unborn child, is heard over and over and over again in the mind of that person every day for the rest of his life," Sharon Rocha said.

 
There were a couple of interesting items in The Smoking Gun today.

First, Madonna's site was hacked. Her new album, American Life, was to be released on Tuesday, and to try to combat illegal file sharing she shared files that looked to be the songs on her new album. In actuality, they were decoys: audio loops of her saying a naughty phrase with the f-word. Some people got "revenge" by hacking her site and posting MP3s. Now, I really don't give much of a flip about Madonna, but I thought the story was humorous. It has profanity, so be forewarned. Check it out.

As an aside, I'm not perfectly sure what to think of the legalities of music/MP3 sharing. It's perfectly lawful to record something for personal use onto VHS. Similarly, it's okay to record music off the radio. However, with digital CD-quality songs, it becomes a MUCH more cloudy issue. The legality is a moot point, though. It really is. Anything they put into place is unenforceable. Much like speeding. With decentralized file sharing technology, it becomes de facto impossible to enforce such laws. They couldn't recoup the time or money they put into finding the tens of millions of people that trade music. In another few years, it'll be interesting to see what the music industry does...and how the technology grows.

Second, Scott Peterson pled not guilty to murdering Laci and "Baby Conner Peterson." I bet the PUKEs (pro-unborn-killing-exemption people) are livid! An unborn baby given a name? That's almost implying that the baby is human and therefore deserves the right not to be murdered! You'll notice that Count II of Peterson's file says "...with malice aforethought murder Baby Conner Peterson, a fetus." More lividity from the PUKEs! Fetuses can be murdered? Does that mean they're actually human? Wow, I know they hate all that. A world without Roe vs. Wade would mean less babies killed, and for a PUKE, that's not a good thing.

I also did a little research on the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) epidemic. To my knowledge, it's caused by a super-souped-up version of a cold virus. That would be a "coronavirus." Anyway, I found that as of today (or yesterday), about 4,000 people have contracted the syndrome and 200 people have died. Now, I'm not trying to marginalize 200 deaths. That's a lot. But, if you calculate that, it's about a 5.5% death rate of people that contract the virus. Furthermore, I looked at the statistics from the Toronto cases of SARS. Of the 132 people who have contracted it, 14 have died. Nearly 80% of those people were 70 years of age or older! Of the Toronto cases, no one under 43 has died. It's horrible that anybody has to die, but this disease seems mostly to be killing older individuals. And they might have even been immune compromised and thus prone to illness. At this stage, I guess it's impossible to know for sure. No matter what, though, people who contract it just need to stay home so this SARS thing will stop (at least in North America)!

  posted by Stephen @ 11:34 PM

 
The Compassion Of PUKEs
Ah, yes, the wonderful compassion of pro-unborn-killing-exemption (PUKE) people. I coined a term! Anyway, read this quote from that article, and then read it again. Boldface added:

"There's something about this that bothers me a little bit," Stark said. "Was it born, or was it unborn? If it was unborn, then I can't see charging (Peterson) with a double-murder."

 
Fox News. FNC. It's the most popular cable news network out there. With fewer outlets, it beats CNN. It beats MSNBC handily. For the past couple weeks, even, Fox & Friends has beaten CBS' The Early Show. That may not sound like all that much, but it's a huge feat. Only people who have cable can get Fox, whereas everybody close to a city with a TV can get CBS.

I was watching C-Span today when Carl Cameron was on. He's a political reporter for Fox. While he was on, it seemed like every liberal that called up trashed his network. Though Fox claims to be fair and balanced, none of these liberal callers saw it that way. That, of course, was quite perturbing to me. Number 1, the establishment liberal media has been around for SO long that anything deviating from it to the right is called "right-wing" and "biased." Most of those callers would probably readily claim that CNN and the LA Times are both perfectly fair in their reporting. Naturally. After hearing him bash Bush for the past couple years, it amazes me how left-wing Walter Cronkite is. I realize some of the tripe he spews is commentary, but he still should be more even-handed about it. His legacy as a great reporter/journalist is fading every time he speaks. Number 2, Fox speaks the truth about certain issues. For instance, if I said, "We won Gulf War II hands down, and it was a success for Bush," that would be true. If Fox says it, it would be true. Seems fair, right? Not to liberals. War is bad, even when it's successful. Thus, Fox is unfair, biased, and unbalanced--even though they're speaking the truth. Number 3, even if Fox is conservative, CNN and MSNBC are WAY more liberal. Fox is way closer to center and always has been from the start. I actually should restate what I said: CNN and MSNBC have been more liberal in the past. I admit that we're starting to see a shift in both networks. They realize that a huge chunk of potential viewers are intelligent, perceptive conservatives. So, they're forced to be more fair now. (I bet they hate it!) When CNN was the lone news network, it didn't matter so much. Kinda like if you needed your car fixed and the only place in town overcharged; you'd be forced to go there. If another repair shop opened, the overcharging shop would have to lower their prices. Assuming they wanted to stay in business, of course.

Another news item worth touching concerns (potential, to be fair) wife killer Scott Peterson. He was carrying $10K when they nabbed him. You know, maybe it's me, but I wouldn't ever carry THAT much cash on me unless I was planning to hide somewhere for a while. Mexico, maybe? I'm glad they got him when they did, though. Mexico, similar to many European countries, won't extradite people back to the US if they'll face the death penalty. Ironic! They don't want to topple regimes who drop people into acid or graters feet first to watch them suffer, but they want to allow brutal killers to languish in jail for a lifetime of living off taxpayer money.

Finally, the parents of Scott Peterson say they're gonna stand by their son. They say he's innocent. You know what the sad part of all of this is? It's realizing that evil people aren't born that way. They become evil through their actions. We live in a depraved world. Unfortunately, human nature isn't good. It's bad. We tend to want to do bad things. And, if we succumb to those urges and temptations, we can potentially do horrible stuff. So, the cute little boy of theirs that they raised has, through his actions, become a (potentially, to be fair!) monstrous killer. It's sad that evil actions can affect so many lives, including Scott's. I don't mean to imply that he's a victim, because he's not. I simply mean he is one of the many people whose lives and souls are altered forever because of this. It's sad.

  posted by Stephen @ 8:20 PM

 
I, of course, am fairly new to weblogging. My first blog was earlier this month. Reading more and more blogs has made me realize how blogging is utilizing the Internet in the greatest way possible. I'm sure many have said this before, but especially when related to news analysis, blogging is almost like a mutual fund: you get an aggregate of generally the best stuff.

In a mutual fund, you have stock experts picking the right stocks. In a blog, you have self-proclaimed (and rightly so in most cases) information experts picking the right information. And, when blogs quote from other blogs about news and commentary, you can see how it's like a sieve. All the best stuff gets through. I'd even go so far as to say more of the truth gets through.

The only danger is tunnel vision. A same story with accompanying commentary gets reported and then bounced around among blogs. However, with the huge variety of blogs out there, I don't see that happening. A lot of blog writers--and I'm not necessarily excluding myself--seem to be smart, sometimes eccentric individuals with a passion for what they believe in. They're eclectic, and they find the best information, be it small or large. In other words, you pick ten news analysis blogs and they'll probably have huge differences in the information they contain. Some are piquant, some are funny, some are anti-idiot, and some are actually anti-idiotarian Rottweiler. Quite a mix, eh?

On that topic: as I continue to write this blog, I will try to stray away from becoming too Dennis Miller-ian. While I think he's hilarious and right on the money when it comes to a lot of things, some of his references are a bit esoteric. I notice that lots of blogs around tend to follow that trend. Not because of Dennis Miller, mind you, just because it's fun to be arcane and in your "own little world." While that's perfectly well and good, this blog will try hard to become a solid, conservative, mainstream commentary on events and philosophies. And, I'll also try to remain G or PG in my blogging. I used the word "ass" in an earlier post, but I don't plan to use words any more profane than that one. It's a deal!

  posted by Stephen @ 1:39 PM

 
Saddam Tapes
What's with all the Saddam tapes? It really reminds me of all the crap (both audio and video) we've gotten from Bin Laden. It's really pathetic. Even if Saddam were alive, which is doubtful to me personally, it makes no difference. Aside from a few wacko followers who are willing to commit suicide in order to inflict some minimal damage to us, he has nothing to fight us. He or his former regime. I even heard that the (Dis)Information Minister (DIM) committed suicide. I wonder. It'd actually be a shame. I remember somebody saying that the DIM guy reminded the person of a bad B-movie actor. Of everything that happened during the conflict, most of the comic relief came from the DIM guy.

The only way Saddam would cause problems--and this by proxy--would be if he was in Syria. That'd be a problem. Mostly for the Syrians and Syrian President al-Assad, of course.

Other interesting, albeit sad, news. Laci Peterson and her unborn baby were DNA confirmed as being the ones who washed up a few days ago. No doubt a consequence of that confirmation, her husband was arrested. Now, the facts point one way, and it seems to me it's pretty elementary. He was cheating, she was pregnant, and on the night she disappeared he was in the same general location where she and her baby washed up. Whaddya think? I hope he's innocent, but, well, reality is reality.

Finally, some Iraqis held demonstrations today against the occupation of their country by Americans. To me, this seems to be good and bad. The good part is that they're FREE to do that and not be killed by regime-appointed thugs. The bad part is their motive for protesting. Are they dumb? We've been there about a month, and we won the war about a week ago or so! I mean, geeze! Give us a chance to take a few breaths, eat some lunch, and have a shower! Then we'll appoint an interim government and be outta there faster than you can say "Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf"!


  posted by Stephen @ 12:32 AM

 
Is Syria Next?
The Bush Administration says they harbor terrorists and chemical weapons. And I'm sure they do. I'm also sure they're a safe haven for all the Ba'athist thugs from Iraq. As I've read on the Net, though, it's unlikely Bush will press for military action against Syria with so little time left before the next election. (Next election?! It's amazing how fast time flies when you've got a decent president, eh?)

A great event that occurred yesterday was the rescue of seven POWs from near Tikrit, Iraq. I had my doubts as to if they'd be recovered or not when I first saw them being showcased on TV by Saddam's lackeys. It is true that many POWs were recovered during Gulf War I, but since this war involved regime change, I was worried that they'd be killed. The fact that some POWs WERE killed didn't make me feel much better. But, no matter, because they've been rescued. Along with Jessica Lynch, the army supply clerk who was rescued about a couple weeks or so ago, I guess that brings the total to seven. Not bad!

  posted by Stephen @ 12:39 PM

 
War Update
Though the war has been, in my opinion, won by the Coalition forces, there'll still be a lot of sporadic fighting in the days and weeks ahead. Even months.

Overnight, a marine was killed and 20 were injured when there was an intense seven-hour firefight between Coalition forces and some Iraqi fighters holed up in or near a mosque. Probably Fedayeen and Special Republican Guard thugs. Why are they in a mosque? Are they praying? No, they're just scared. They're too scared to fight in the open, because they'll be obliterated.

On that note, I've found it interesting that whenever news coverage calls the fighting "fierce" or "bloody" or some other descriptive adjective, it usually means the Coalition forces are kicking ass big-time. We take a few casualties and they take 500 fatalities.

Our superiority is so obvious that I'm surprised they fight. Why must it be some sort of warped religious worldview that powers the fighting? I understand we're invading their country, but it's to liberate them! It's respectable to believe deeply in a religious faith, but why apply it here? An evil despotic regime? Even if you agreed with Saddam's religious philosophy, it seems to me it'd be hard to condone dipping dissenters in acid. Don't you think? Unfortunately, I bet many of those fighters were scared that if they didn't fight, they and their familes would be paid back in a bad way.

  posted by Stephen @ 10:27 AM

 
Freedom For The Iraqi People
I got up this morning and watched some Fox News video from central Baghdad of a huge statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down. Initially the Iraqi people tried to pull it down, but it took a Bradley vehicle to actually topple it. The Iraqis danced on the statue and hit it with their shoes (considered quite an insult in that region of the world). They weren't sad, angry, or confused. They were HAPPY to be free!

Now what will all the naysayers say? Was this a bloody war? NO. Was this a long war? NO. Was this an unsuccessful war? NO. Was this an evil war? NO. This war was as antiseptic, as short, as successful, and as righteous as ANY war could possibly be. In one word, it was brilliant. Three cheers to our country, our president, and our military (including other Coalition forces).

God bless the Iraqi people in their upcoming struggle to build a government and a new nation. It'll take some doing, but they'll do it.


  posted by Stephen @ 10:36 PM

 
Since this is my first post, let's start with basics.

What is conservatism?

It's a lot of stuff, but it is my personal belief (and certainly many other people's) that true conservatism stems from the acknowledgement of God and His influence on the world. That, to me, is the basis of most conservative thought. It's not necessarily even an "endorsement" of Jehovah/Yahweh, the God that we Christians worship. More simply, it removes the notion that MAN gives out basic human rights. God does that. Man tries to institute them in a (unfortunate, but true) flawed way.

This blog will be about news analysis, philosophy, and whatever else I think of. Hope you like it! :)

  posted by Stephen @ 2:03 AM