Wednesday, April 28, 2004

I can understand this feeling...

and as a college student I identify with what is being said here. Honestly my position is so far different. As I commute I walk like a man yet sleep like a boy under the same Star Wars blankets I slumbered under ten years ago and more.

I hang with my friends although not enough. My friends alone will move. I commute to school and live at home and that doesn't prevent my old friends from leaving as well as the new ones.

We grow up, grow old, change. We get married, face our futures, and live.

Tuesday, April 27, 2004

I already understood liberal anger but I apreciate the primer

Unlike liberal anger, mine can best be described as righteous indignation.

As it is, this explanation from the pen of former leftist Keith Burgess-Jackson is still a very nicely worded piece and would serve as helpful to those unfamiliar with the damned culture.

I can't believe that I missed it

The entire site is 40 Optical Illusions & Visual Phenomena
I didn't notice it. I was hooked on that one exhibit.

what do you want to know about Motion Induced Blindness?

I know that optical illusions are too often a pain in the arse. Just the same, it can be educational.

it's fun and funky stuff. Try adjusting the speeds, the direction, and most importantly just which dot you attempt to focus on. What object do you focus on can alter things somewhat, too.

anyone want to see John Derbyshire almost die?

I don't. I did enjoy reading of his experience with a collapsed lung.

Don't take your health or your working anatomy for granted.

My knees are skinned and occasioanlly I suffer joint pain. I'm only 22.

Innocent man gets twenty-five years, and he wasn't falsely accused

Mandatory sentences do not insure justice.
Although prosecutors admitted Paey was not a drug trafficker, on April 16 he received a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years for drug trafficking. That jaw-dropping outcome illustrates two sadly familiar side effects of the war on drugs: the injustice caused by mandatory minimum sentences and the suffering caused by the government's interference with pain treatment.
Can't relieve your pain without jail time? It wouldn't be so much of a problem if the judiciary was left with a teensy bit of leeway regarding sentencing.

Monday, April 26, 2004

I can't believe I keep this stuff

I often find neat or funny things on the web and I too often keep track of that stuff. This leads to my 'Favorites' list being filled. I suppose that's tolerable with articles on politics. In any case I still like to note something, even if I'd rather it not clutter my own bookmarks. Such as the case with Cat Haiku. Whatever it is, it is amusing and it should be kept and shared. So it's here and I can delete it from my own Favorites.

Thursday, April 15, 2004

Deliver Charity to Thine Enemies or Fire?

Reading Mr Derbyshire's work there was something that struck me heavily and I agree totally. How should we regard our foes and the reality.
War consists mainly in one bunch of fired-up young men setting out to kill another bunch of fired-up young men. Wars are won when one side runs out of young men, or out of fire-up. They don't end until then. Our problem in Iraq, basically, it seems to me, is that we have not killed enough fired-up young male Iraqis insistent on killing innocents.
I grew up reading histories focusing on World War II. This is what we did then. We killed Japanese and Germans and hammered their property to the point where it wasn't worth it for them to continue.
Consider, for example, those news photographs we see every couple of days, of streets thronged with fired-up young men — in Fallujah, or Gaza, or Tehran — waving their fists, or sometimes automatic weapons, carrying pictures of some imam, or bearing the coffin of some tribal panjandrum we have killed. When I see one of those pictures, my thoughts run along the following lines. These young men hate us. Nothing we do will make them stop hating us, and pretty much any action we take in our own rational self-interest will end with them hating us more. The right thing to do is to kill them, while they are all conveniently gathered together like this. These demos go on for hours. We have spy satellites, remote-controlled drones, and so on. Why don't we take these people out? What are daisy-cutters for?

These are not, I admit, very charitable thoughts. I can't see anything wrong with them, though.
This is the point that we consider that we're not Americans in 1945. Back thenwe would have indulged in our martial instincts and engaged in action that would most certainly eliminate the enemy. Importantly we must realize, and this is the proof, that we are weak. We won't do what is neccessary to destroy out enemy. We won't sweep out of existence a throng of people who are utterly unwilling to listen to our reason and take anything less than us changing what we are. They want us dead without compromise, logic dictates we kill them first and make it clear to the first and last reasonable men standing that it just is not worth it. I agree with Mr Derbyshire, which would make many think that I am mad. I can't see where it's wrong to just draw a line and say "These people are unrepentent and continue to want to kill me. He's working to his goal. I'll stop him first."

The Bible allows war; the Bible allows self-defense. I don't understand why we can't take a drastic measure. One writer recently said that it must have taken a great deal of restraint on behalf of Israel to not just drop napalm on the throngs of Hamas and Arabs mourning the death of Hamas' founder. I agree. Thousands declaring and celebrating their needs to be martyrs of their cause and killers of innocents. Confession of intent. Intent to be dangerous and lethal. Clear and present danger. Consign them to the fire early.

The 1945 Solution

For two years I have been claiming that what we do and can do and likely will do in Iraq is take it militarily in a rather easy fashion and do it over in the way we assisted Japan and West Germany just after World War II. We tore down those respective countries, each of them our deadly enemies, and rebuilt them brick by brick into nations that are not our enemies.

We destroy our enemies by making them our friends. Literally we tear out what makes them hostile to us and teach them that there is a better way. We broke their will to fight. I wondered why couldn't we do that. I was never given a satisfactory answer.

John Derbyshire describes the three ways and answers my question. I always called it the Japanese/German Scenario or the Post-World War II reconstruction. We destroyed the threat and prevented the fall of yet another Wiemar Republic and the formation of a third alliance of aggression and imperialism by personally stabilizing the next government. Mr Derbyshire describes why my idea can't work. He calls it the 1945 Solution.

Aside from battering them and threatening them, and the other two options, there's mine, which is historically proven. 'Well, perhaps we should do this. It is certain, however, that we are not going to, unless our collective mentality undergoes some dramatic change. A "1945 solution" is not possible because, for better or worse, we are not who we were in 1945.' I interpret this assertion, this analysis of our society as our society being weak. We as a society are weak. If Mr Derbyshire is saying this I believe that he is correct. We're weak. We are too weak to do what must be done.

Destroy our enemies. Beat the will out of them and make it crystal clear that whatever grudge they hold against us, it is not worth it. Then since we destroyed it, we should take the responsiblity to rebuild the thing. Not only that, since we are improving their society from before we freed it from their dictator... they owe us.

Most importantly, we must teach them good. But our currect society lacks the drive and determination to make good at great cost.

We are doing something similar... but it is a lot less forceful, a lot more tactful, and for all intents and purposes less than what I had in mind, and a great deal more uncertain.

Genuine Criticism?

Anybody and their mothers can post reviews at The respective books' authors' mothers can and do. Most of the time there's confidentiality. The question is do all these flying opinions really matter?

As it is a Washington Post article, you need to register your e-mail address and choose a password.

Wednesday, April 14, 2004

Behold human nature revealed... Ecce Homo.... at our worst and barest

This guy makes me wish corporal punishment was back in style. I want to see him crunched. Notice he didn't get charged.

The President is a Cowboy...

and I love Cowboys!

A pox on those who can't.

the speed of sound and light

the speed of light = 299 792 458 m / s according to a Google search.

The website Speed of Light examines this further and states that in "a vacuum, light always travels at a speed of 299,792,458 meters per second, no matter how its speed is measured. is 299,792,458 meters per second, no matter how its speed is measured." Basically this is accepted fact and is confirmed with different details examined at The Speed of Light - A Limit on Principle?.

speed of sound at sea level = 340.29 m / s according to a Google search.

There are formulae available to calculate the speed at which sound travels through certain gasses here.

Tuesday, April 13, 2004

John Kerry versus the American nee World economy

"I'm John Kerry and I approve this message."

I saw an advertisement where the President was denounced for creating incentives for able corporations to outsource jobs to India.

The President is condemned for outsourcing.

Outsourcing jobs results in benefits most visible in the nation that jobs are being created. To establish a few things, I should maintain that a company is insuring its future survival by outsourcing jobs to places where the employment costs less. It is by maintain higher expenses than neccessary that companies end up dooming themselves, thus more jobs vanish than just the ones being 'shipped overseas'.

As the Democrats are complaining and the true Cosmopolitans
are cheering, jobs are being created in other nations by our companies and the economies and various nations are bolstered.

The President of the United States has a duty to protect our interests from encroachment by other nations, hostile institutions, and outside interest in as many ways from as many dangers as are within his defined and prescribed powers. To this effect we might expect him to create disincentives for outsourcing jobs. The thing is that by allowing the outsourcing of jobs the government can only help to preserve our economy. By creating and allowing economic incentives for creating less expensive opportunities overseas the best interests of our own citizens, in the long run everything will be healthier and better.

If the companies stay here and are forced to maintain their employment base here as well, then the companies themselves will move to other countries and/or continents altogether rather than be forced to maintain their employees' tenure at greater cost than possible. As companies reincorporate in Europe or other places where government control is less then they will be allowed to decrease their expenses when it comes to their core workforce. Those companies that do not move altogether may eventually find themselves bankrupt. Either way, more jobs are altogether lost than if the company was allowed to outsource.

Job creation and the increase of available technologies and powers in other places that generally have lesser technological capabilities allow for the growth of those countries' respective economies and thus eventually will create a healthy revolution within their trade capabilities. Thus in the future we will have better and superior nations with which to trade goods. Not only that, but as work in certain fields becomes more centrally located in other nations, one finds that new, oftentimes complementary fields of employment and income are created within this nation. People must learn new job skills and adjust to the absence and immediate handicap. To be fair, at the end of the training our interested citizens would be more valuable, be better equipped, and be altogether more powerful and useful as our economy grows. We, as individuals, will be smarter than the Indians.

John Kerry promises to create disincentives and other modes and methods to keep jobs here, at various costs. John Kerry is willing to excrete foul waste on our economy to look good. Here's a solid fact. The Democrats and their economists may or may not know that outsourcing will in most cases benefit our country in the long run. It matters little. The Democratic Party, and the various anti-Bush groups on the Left bring up this point because their lazy. It looks very bad. Outsourcing looks bad. In the short run it is ugly and crippling. That is all it is though. They highlight the pain of the short run in order to hurt the President. They are willing to sacrfice our economy's health, if they are wrong, in order to inflict upon the President's political health.

That is not even the tip of Kerry's misdirection in the ways of the American economy.

the continuing hypocrisy of the Left: in the international interest

It's supposed to be the way of the liberal left. People on that end of the spectrum believe more and more in Cosmopolitanism. They believe in the village more than the family. They believe in the state more than the community and most importantly they profess to object to the bias of caring for one's own over one's distant contemporaries. They believe that we should respect the world and think of all the word instead of just focusing on the "me me me" attitudes toward the good of our own nation.

If that is truly so, then the loudest liberals' beliefs are paper-thin and near-worthless. If it isn't, it implies inconsistency in leftist political philosophy (a greater inconsistency than what is usually found in the tenets and claims and causes maintained and stated along various locations on the American political spectrum).

Essentially if the American left believes in the good of all man, as opposed to 'America first', then what are the Democrats doing launching attack ads on television, villifying the President for encouraging or allowing job growth in "India" (for example)?

Wednesday, April 07, 2004

Jews on Google

One shouldn't worry. The first entry for "Jews" on Google is still for the Jews for Jesus organization.

Looking up "Jewish" brings you to

It's not bad everywhere.

Googlebomb Jew, the Jewish World Review, and displace the villains

Apparently if one searches for "Jew" on Google the top-ranked site is an anti-semitic one. In response a number of Bloggers including John Cole have taken it upon themselves to Googlebomb the topic and forcibly remove the site from its top slot by associating "Jew" with the respective Wikipedia entry.

I really can't buy into that specific action because I hate Wikipedia but I agree that the site in question must not be the first thing on Google to represent God's chosen people. As it is I feel the best page to associate to Jews is the Jewish World Review.

Google works with its searches often by making various associations to the point where one can type in two words and get a webpage that includes neither of those words, as occurred with the President's biography page, on purpose. Somehow, the site most connected to Jews was something least representative of them and primarily an attack.

A Googlebomb is a deliberate attempt to alter the patterns of Google's search engine by associating various words and sites together so that when a search is done it is more likely to push one site to greater prominence within a search.

Jewishworldreview is a site collecting and publishing political, social, and sometimes even religious commentary relevent to Jews. Primarily it serves as a host of sorts to various articles by regular syndicated newspaper columnists. Specifically the site highlights and publishes nearly every single pundit from the middle to the right on the American political spectrum. It's actually very cool and very imformative. We have a central location with everything from Cal Thomas to Thomas Sowell to Ann Coulter to Clarence Page. Jonah Goldberg, Bill O'Reilly, Meved, Tony Snow, Mitch Albom, and many others are presented there and archived there. A Jew with religious concerns would find relevent data and wisdom. A Christian can learn more about the beliefs of a Jew.

I would gladly promote the site anyway. It's a quality thing and it could use further financial support, like public television. So go there, read the articles and donate for goodness' sake. It's tax deductable.

Scribbler Works (of course she does)

Recently it was announced on Chuck Dixon's message board the creation of a weblog called Scribbler Works. It's written by a woman named Sarah Beach, who is a writer for Sony (specifically Jeopardy), the chief moderator at Mr Dixon's board, and is one of the founders of Shooting Star Comics.

That's sort of irrelevent to the blog. The tone here is quite different than the writing on the message board. It's really quite stupid and redundent to say that the writing is good; of course it is. I added the blog to my Blog Roll. I posted a response to the first article (these are not mere posts or entries, these are full-fledged essays) on our jealous God and one for her article on wasted, or unspent, talents. Frankly, after what she has wrote, anything added, especially by me, seems redundent.

This stuff is soft in tone but heavy in content. It's served up in an easy-going manner and shifts quickly into something that hurts to think about not because she failed to lay out the meanings and facts but simply because what she says is so convicting.

The Buck hasn't stopped yet

I've only recently learned of a very skilled writer and blogger named Stuart Buck. He writes a legal blog. He isn't new at this and makes my meager works look like what they are, and as such I added him to my Blog Roll.

Unfortunately, he recently suffered a stroke. It's unfortunate that I discovered this stuff because he passed through dire straights. He is recovering, as one can see here, here, here, and here.

Pray for him.

I found out about the stroke and its victim here on Susanna's blog. (I went to her site to track down a thread of knowledge from Chris Muir's Day by Day strip). His credit was proven to me with this writing on on science, scientists and the a priori dismissal of divine causes for any and all phenomena.

Monday, April 05, 2004

it's Jerry Doyle!!

Talk Radio Network: Hosts shows us Jerry Doyle's biography.

He's the host of "The Jerry Doyle Show" and the man himself is freaking awesome.

He's so cool I could have a heart attack.

He's Michael Garibaldi but real!