You are now entering the realm of semi-intelligent thoughts. Keep your mind open and your mouth shut!

Saturday, December 06, 2003


HA! Syracuse beat Notre Dame! Has YOUR team beaten Notre Dame?

...actually, judging by their performance this year, your team probably has beaten Notre Dame...unless your team didn't PLAY Notre Dame...which would mean that your team HASN'T BEATEN NOTRE DAME! HA!

Sorry. I'm tired and hungry. I'll be back later tonight.



That Was Unexpected (+ a VERY IMPORTANT message) 

Wow. I've been nominated for best "Flappy Bird" blog in the 2003 Weblog Awards (thanks to Susie for the nomination). I didn't see that coming! So, knowing that, go over and vote using the link I'm providing at the bottom of this post (and eventually somewhere in the template). You don't have to vote for SIT, but if you're a fellow blogger or enjoy the blogosphere, you should participate in this. I will if I get the chance.

On that note, I should inform you now that blogging will be extremely limited for the next 7 days. I have to perform at the football game tomorrow (which you should watch on ABC at 1 PM EST), and then I have final exams for the next week. Therefore, I need to stop blogging all day and study. A lot. I mean A. FREAKING. LOT. I have to read 2 books, learn about Spanish conjugation, come up with intelligent responses to philosophical questions, study the development of television, advertising, and the Internet, evaluate my writing from the semester... ... ... you get the point.

I don't really enjoy having to take time off at this particular moment, I can tell you right now. If you'll tolerate some shameless self-promotion, I think I'm starting to really "break out," so to speak, in the blog world. The combination of the Carnival of the Vanities, the Donktionary, and now the award nomination has gotten me a lot more hits, and new people are starting to link to the site. I had over 40 visitors today. ON A FRIDAY! I usually get less than 20 on Friday. I have a slight fear that slowing down now will put my chances of moving up in serious jeopardy. However, my college education is slightly more important than dispensing free ice cream to a few dozen people a day, so I've made my choice.

In order to make up for the coming lack of posting, I will be blogging a lot over Christmas break. Starting December 14, I will be at home basically all the time with nothing interesting to do, so I'll basically be at the computer for most of my waking hours. I have a lot of stuff planned. For example, I'm going to try and participate in all the Alliance assignments. I also have an extended piece I'm planning to write about why I'm NOT a "South Park Republican." In addition, I want to post some more lyrics from songs I've written just for the heck of it (although I may end up doing that this week to save time). In other words, don't abandon SIT this week. Just be patient, and I promise I'll kick it up a notch later in the month. Really.

Okay, I have to stop now. Band practice starts at 8:00 tomorrow morning, so I should get some sleep. Remember to watch the game. It should be good. Now, here is a link to the contest. Check it out:

2003 Weblog Awards

Friday, December 05, 2003

Votes N'at 

Don't know what "n'at" means? Don't be a nebby jagoff. It just means you're probably not from Pittsburgh. Anyway, I'm casting some votes for the TTLB showcase so The Alliance doesn't get overtaken by the League of Miserable Failures again.

I'll be perfectly honest here; The showcase is very unimpressive this week. Seriously. The only good political post is the current leader, which basically makes Al Franken look like an idiot. I'm all for that, but it was edited after submission for voting, and that's just not right. I'm sorry, but I just can't vote for a post that had to be changed in order to impress more people. Also...USE BLOCKQUOTES, DANG IT! I can't tell where Franken stops and the fisking begins.

So, because I can't vote for any of the political stuff, I'm going NP. My first vote is for a short but hilarious post from Ripe Bananas entitled Vegan Marshmallows Roasting Over an Open Fire. Be sure to read the post directly under this, too. Good stuff.

My second vote goes to an entry that seems to have been totally ignored by everyone else, so I'm going to give it a little attention. Check out the entry from Dogtulosba, ink. (whatever that means) entitled Right Behind Me. Honestly, I disagree with a lot of the other stuff on this particular blog (WESLEY CLARK?!!), but anyone who's willing to fight against ignorant cell phone users is worthy of my vote.

Have I mentioned that I F***ING HATE CELL PHONES?

Okay, I have to go back to enjoying 24/7 quiet hours, the only good thing about final exam week. Later.

Totally Random Thought 

Okay, still not much to blog about other than the fact that I got to see one of the new $20 bills up close and personal for the first time (looks a bit Canadian...), but I did have an interesting thought while I was walking around earlier.

If President Bush was assassinated, shot down over Iraq, etc., what would be the general reaction from the left? Would they be...
A) Respectful?
B) Mournful?
C) Indifferent?
D) Outwardly respectful and mournful, but secretly happy?
E) Happier than a Palestinian on 9/11?

Just a thought.

Important Message 

I have 3 hours to write a 5 page paper on terrorism, so I won't be blogging this afternoon. I'll be back tonight with whatever I can come up with. Also...

Thursday, December 04, 2003


To whomever came to my site by searching for "hobos are frickin awesome" on Google...I feel sorry for you.

Reminder #2 

Hey, sorry I'm not posting much, but there's not a whole lot going on. Anyway...


Random Updates 

Coming up with titles is hard. Anyway, just a few quick things for now. First of all, I got over 100 hits yesterday thanks to the Carnival of the Vanities. I'll definitely be participating in that again. Also, the Donktionary definitions are up at Alliance headquarters, so be sure to go over and check those out. I'll be going through the entries and picking out some of my favorites for the complete Donktionary sometime after final exams.

Secondly, something interesting happened in my communications lecture today. We were talking about the Internet, and the professor briefly mentioned blogs. I figured he would ask if anyone in the class had a blog, and...I was right. He said, "does anyone in here blog?" And NOBODY RAISED THEIR HAND BUT ME! That's amazing. In a class of 78 COMMUNICATIONS students, I'm the only one with a blog. I feel special. It's interesting that most of the class had never even heard the word "blog." They call it a "live journal," and only one other student has one of those. I'm not sure if they're the same. The TA said to "check out Blogger.com," so maybe a few new ones will be popping up soon.

And finally, in the stupidity department, I slept through my Spanish audio exam this morning, so now I have to call my professor later and arrange to take it on Monday. I HATE TALKING ON THE PHONE! I can never understand people on the frickin' thing. Of course, my professor has an accent, so that's going to make it even harder. That just sucks.

I have to go to philosophy now, so I'll wrap this up. By the way, my philosophy professor made me very happy the other day with something he said in class. He spends a lot of time in Paris, and he said that, in his opinion, too many French people are "racist and anti-semitic." He's black and Jewish, so I guess he would know. Stupid France.

Wednesday, December 03, 2003

Whatever Happened to Subtlety? 

CNN, I have just one thing to say: YOU. SUCK. I was looking at the headlines on the Apple homepage, and one of them was this: Seven-year-old boy corrects Bush.

First of all, it was sandwiched in between stories about cannibalism, war, and murder, so that says a lot about the priorities of the idiots compiling these lists. However, what really makes me mad is the fact that they chose not only to point out that, according to the article, "Young Terrance Martin could not let President George W. Bush get away with mistakenly saying he was just 6 years old when he was really 7," but to make it the focus of the story.

THEY MADE IT THE FOCUS OF THE STORY! If you read the article, you'll find this line: "It happened in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on Tuesday when Bush signed the Adoption Promotion Act of 2003, which renews tax credits for adoptions and encourages families to find homes for more than 500,000 children in foster care."

So, the fact that Bush was corrected by a 7 year old is more important than the fact that he signed the aforementioned legislation? That's interesting. Why don't they just make the headline: "Our President Has the Mental Capacity of a Child." THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY!

Why is the president's one mistake more important than the legislation he signed? Why can I not think of any way that could possibly be justified? Oh, wait...IT CAN'T BE JUSTIFRICKINFIED!!!! They actually put the story about the Adoption Promotion Act in the corner as "related news." Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Anyone who thinks the Clinton News Network isn't biased should read this and shut the F up.

Oh, by the way, the Syracuse University drumline will have a brand new website sometime next week. I'll be providing linkage when that happens.

Reminder #1 

I almost forgot about this: I'm going to be reminding readers every day this week that...


Afternoon Multi-rant (unnecessarily long and slightly "homophobic" post warning) 

Holy crap, I'm in the middle of a Carnivalanche, courtesy of the Carnival of the Vanities over at Begging to Differ. It may have something to do with the fact that Evil Glenn mentions it each week, which also means that a few people that have been here were originally on Instablender...which means I'm stealing his readers for a few seconds! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Sorry. I do have real things to talk about. First of all, here's a fun experience I had this morning that some of you may be able to identify with: I woke up really early for some reason, but since I was awake and hadn't looked at the clock, I immediately figured that it must be 7:45, the time I usually get up. When I checked the clock, it said 4:21. Unfortunately, I wasn't really paying attention, so I only saw the :21 part and figured that it was actually 8:21, which would make me almost late for class. In a drowsy panic, I got out of bed and quickly started getting dressed. I had changed everything but my shirt before it occurred to me that it was still dark outside, which is when I noticed the 4 in front of the other two numbers. After that, I sat there for a second contemplating the depths of my idiocy, and then I changed clothes again and went back to sleep. That was the first time this has happened since I started college, but I did it a few times at home, too. Strange.

Okay, now that I've once again chased away all uninterested parties with my rambling, here's the important stuff: The topics of gay marriage and homophobia came up once again today, but this time, they were part of a discussion in my sociology class (which I've mentioned a few times before). We have to write a paper for Friday about a social problem and how it can be solved, and the professor decided to use "homophobia" as an example for the purposes of discussion. He said that one way to solve the problem would be to put homosexuals in positions of authority. For example, he said that police departments should "make it their policy to hire officers who are openly gay and lesbian."

What is wrong with these people? My first problem was the fact that he's overlooking qualifications, but he eventually said that the officers in question would be fully qualified. Great, but you're still hiring them based on who they're attracted to. That's friggin' asininity. Apparently, he thinks that putting homosexuals in positions of authority would eliminate their marginal status and make them members of the "normal" community.

So, here we go again with the "gays aren't fully human or American" crap. I don't get it. Hiring gay cops will not change my position on homosexuality. The problem is that "gay" has become an identity in and of itself instead of being a part of someone's identity. Just because people don't agree with homosexuality, it doesn't mean that they think homosexuals can't hold positions of authority. They're two completely different things. Homosexuality, in my view and in the view of many more people than you may think, is immoral.

Putting gays in positions of authority because some people are "homophobic" would have the same effect as putting burglars in positions of authority because some people lock their doors when they leave their houses. It's not irrational to disagree with something you see as immoral, but it is irrational to give someone preference just because you think that behavior is acceptable and want to prove others wrong. Show me how homosexuality is morally acceptable and equal to heterosexuality, and then you'll change "homophobic" opinions. Until then, stop pretending that gays are somehow deserving of special privileges just because they like to have sex with their own gender.

Of course, gay marriage was also covered, and the professor's approach was to portray homosexuals as being deprived of rights because they can't marry (shocking, isn't it?). I've explained my position on this a couple times before on the blog, but I didn't feel like arguing with another professor, so I stayed quiet in class and tried to commit as much of the discussion as possible to memory. First of all, I'm tired of it being called "gay marriage," because that's one of the ideological fallacies mucking up the debate. It's not "gay" marriage that's in question, but same-sex marriage. Gays are not being discriminated against, but since they're the only ones who WANT same-sex marriage, it sometimes seems that way. It's not like straight people of the same gender are allowed to marry each other, but they clearly don't want to.

I'm not going to get into that topic again because I've covered it already, but I do need to address another aspect of the discussion. One girl said she doesn't understand why two people who "love each other" can't get married because they're the same gender, but a man and a woman can marry even if they're not fit for it. I am sick of that argument. Heterosexuals who marry for reasons other than love bother me just as much as homosexuals who want to get married, so I don't think that's really the issue.

Of course, another student pointed out the slippery slope argument that people could use that justification to marry a goat if they claim to love it. I'm not sure if she was being sarcastic, but that is a valid argument. If we use love as the only validating factor in marriage, we should be able to marry anyone and anything, but that's clearly not the issue.

I can't even write about this anymore. I'm just tired of people claiming that gays are somehow being discriminated against when we don't allow same-sex marriage. I'll say it yet again: everyone has a right to marry, it's just a matter of how we define marriage. I think the current paradigm is working pretty well. As for "civil unions" and all this other crap, that's just going to give heterosexual couples more excuses to avoid marriage, so it's probably not a real good thing either. I want to close by directing you to a couple of commentaries by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason, because he articulates this a lot more effectively than me. Here they are:
You Can't Marry Your Canary
Ellen Degeneres Comes Out
Equal Rights for Homosexuals
If you want more, go to STR.org. Christianity at its finest.

Tuesday, December 02, 2003


Friggin' Supreme Court...This is ridiculous:Supreme Court Refuses to Confirm Constitutional Right to Bear Arms

Apparently, their "interpretation" of the Constitution is a perversion of the 2nd Amendment, since they ("they" being, in this case, the 9th Circuit Court) believe "the amendment's intent was to protect gun rights of militias, not individuals." WHAT?!

The amendment says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

How difficult is this to understand? The right of the PEOPLE, you frickin' idiots! What do you think "militia" means? If it just meant military and law enforcement, it would frickin' say that! A militia, by definition, is an army of civilians. How could it possibly apply to anything else? Keep in mind that when the Constitution was written, farmers were defending their homes against British troops. THEY WERE DEFENDING THEMSELVES JUST LIKE PEOPLE NEED TO NOW! Just because we no longer refer to armed civilians as militia doesn't mean that it's unconstitutional to allow gun ownership.

Of course, this is from the people who inject fictional principles like "separation of church and state" and "right to privacy" into the Constitution to suit their agenda.

Mindless wastes of space, those judges. This is what happens when you take "interpretation" too far.

I really wish I didn't have a mental profanity block right now. I wonder if Misha has seen this yet.

More Definitions for the Donktionary┬« 

All right, I came up with some brand new words to define! I'll probably be adding more as time goes on.

Abortion: Medical procedure that allows women to exercise their personal freedom and prevents them from being forced to become incubators for future members of the Evil White Patriarchy™.
Affirmative action: Policies designed to keep the Evil White Patriarchy™ from taking over the world.
Campaign: Contest in which the participants try to come up with the best way to belittle the opposition without forming their own set of policies.
Dissent: Calling Republicans fascist monkeys.
Elitist: Someone who believes that majority opinion should influence public policy.
Extremist: Politician with religious convictions.
Forgery: Document that supports Republican claims.
Illegal alien: An unfortunate non-citizen. (*submitted by a reader who heard Al Gore actually say it*)
Meanness: Personality trait caused by lack of empathy and refusal to throw money at social problems.
Narrow-minded: Having an opinion.
Niger: Alternate name for Africa.
Neanderthal: Conservative judge.
NRA: Neocon Racist Assassins.
Photo-op: Republican appearing in public.
Police brutality: Arresting minorities.
Responsibility: Ree-spon-si-bill-lit-tee??? (checks in mental dictionary around "ragamuffin" and "rapscallion") Nope, not in the liberal language. Sorry.
Sought: President Bush's pronunciation of the word "bought."
Speech codes: The only way to protect the feelings of minorities on college campuses, since most college students have never been exposed to other cultures and are therefore intrinsically racist.
Unilateral: Any coalition that doesn't include France.
Victim: Anyone who has been forced to endure the hardship of not being completely happy 24/7; someone who is not given something they want, even if they don't deserve it; someone whose feelings are hurt; see also minority.
Yellowcake: Alternate name for uranium.

When Atheists Attack 

This article is great: An Allegiance to Dissent: Man's Challenge to 'Under God' Is One of Many -- Including a Pivotal Custody Battle Over Daughter Good old Michael Newdow is still at it. The guy who is offended by "under God" still hasn't given up. You need to fill out a couple things before you can read this article, but it's really good once you've gotten past that. It shows just how ridiculous some people can be. I don't want to go too in-depth, but here are a few examples of what the article says:
...in his view, the judge is enforcing an "egregious, unconstitutional" system of family law. "This whole thing is a crock of dung," he told the counselor during a Nov. 5 session.
Why does it not surprise me that he said that? He's trying to get involved in the life of a child he doesn't have custody of, and he had said child with his girlfriend. I believe that means he legally has less of a role in her life, but he apparently thinks that's unconstitutional.
The Rev. Dr. Michael A. Newdow, Esq. -- physician, lawyer and founder of the First Amendmist Church of True Science -- has a restless, uncompromising mind, a mind that dissents radically from many widely accepted aspects of American life, from the pledge to family law to gender-specific pronouns in the English language. In his own writing, Newdow uses "ree" instead of "he" or "she," and "rees" instead of "his" or "her."
The guy is a nut. Why don't they just say it? There's a difference between "uncompromising" and "crazy."
To supporters, Newdow is living proof that, with enough determination, you can fight City Hall.
No, he's living proof that the legal system in this country is far too accepting of ludicrous cases.
Fatherhood is not a role Newdow initially relished. He has asserted in court that the child was conceived when Banning forced him to have sex during a trip to Yosemite National Park...Newdow has joined a movement against "forced fatherhood" led by the little-known National Center for Men.
If he didn't want to be a father, why is he suddenly so concerned about his daughter? Could it be...THE "G" WORD?! "Those fundamentalist bigots can't force their beliefs down the throat of the child I refused to acknowledge as my own daughter and never actually wanted in the first place!" Jackass.
The pledge conveys the message to Newdow's daughter that "her father's beliefs are those of an outsider, and necessarily inferior to what she is exposed to in the classroom," the 9th Circuit ruled.
Hey, guess what? Eliminating the phrase "under God" conveys the message to religious people that their beliefs are those of an outsider! WOW! I guess we have to pick one, don't we?
Americans United for Separation of Church and State had asked that it be allowed 15 minutes at oral argument, separate from Newdow, to present the case against "under God," but the court denied that request yesterday.
How exactly is this an issue of "separation of church and state?" It's irrelevant anyway, since that phrase IS NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION! Furthermore, I was thinking of something: some people say that the phrase in question was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, so of course that's what he MEANT to put in the Constitution. You know what? Jefferson had slaves, too, but we got rid of that when we realized it was wrong. Why should we read something into the Constitution because one of the founding fathers may have implied it in a totally separate document?

All right, that's enough, but I want to point out one more thing: This photo of Michael Newdow. Look at him. He actually looks exactly the way I pictured him when I first heard about the case. He's got the classic atheist scowl (popularized by George Carlin) and the "I'm smarter than you" expression... ... ... Have I mentioned that vocal atheists annoy the crap out of me?

The DO on Tolerance 

I'm a bit late, but I have an excuse: I'm currently working on another entry for the Donktionary®, which will hopefully be posted later tonight. I'm having trouble coming up with new words, but it's looking good so far.

Anyway, there are a couple things I want to cover in this post. First of all, our friends at the Daily Orange have provided another great letter to the editor for me to make fun of (and I'm actually providing a link this time). Here's the original: Letter: 'Tolerance' not enough for LGBT community (you may have to sign up to read it online). I'll just do the usual quote/response minifisk. Let's begin:
The response to the recent Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling has caused me to question something. It seems that more and more often, we are hearing the word "tolerance" in reference to attitudes toward the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community. Although this might sound like positive language that is taking a step in the right direction, I find it offensive as a member of the LGBT community to simply be "tolerated."
That's always a good start. I think everyone can see where this is going already: tolerance is now considered offensive, so even suggesting that homosexuals are different will soon be considered bigotry. Hooray for freedom of speech. I hope this guy represents a minority opinion.
...one dictionary definition of the verb "tolerate" is "to put up with something or somebody unpleasant." So, when the word is used in reference to LGBT people, it implies that our community is in some way unpleasant, which furthers an oppressive message that we are somehow inferior.
FYI: The entire planet is not obligated to like you just because you're gay. Why is that so shocking? It must be nice to belong to a protected group so you can say that you're being oppressed when someone doesn't want to be your special friend. Seriously, not everyone likes homosexuality (not "homosexuals," per se). That's just the way it is.
...This goes to show how far away we still are from acknowledging, accepting and appreciating LGBT people as human beings.
This is yet another subtle jab at "fundies" such as myself, I believe. I don't view homosexuals as inhuman, and I don't enjoy people implying that I do. Also, I certainly think they're morally inferior, but that doesn't take away from their humanity. As Dubya once said, "we're all sinners." If someone disagrees with you, it doesn't follow that they think you're not human. If that were true, then I could say the author of this letter is calling me inferior because I don't agree with him. See how it works?
And until certain heterosexuals can stop using their privilege to deny the 1,049 federal rights and protections that they enjoy to 10 percent of their loving, tax paying, fellow Americans, I guess I'll just have to "tolerate" them.
And of course, he closes with the classic misconception that homosexuals are being denied some sort of right. Once again, I will point out that same-sex marriage laws apply to EVERYONE, not just "LGBT people" or whatever they're calling themselves these days. The only difference is that heterosexuals don't want to marry individuals of the same sex. If we legalized everything that someone wanted to do, we would have chaos. And by the way, that "10 percent" crap was disproven years ago. As I understand it, only about 3 percent of the population is exclusively homosexual, and it's 6 percent at the most (fun fact: in my dorm, there's a board with various "facts" about the world's population if it were reduced to 100 individuals, and one of the "facts" is that there would be "11 homosexuals." Exaggeration, anyone?).

I think that's about enough of that. I've decided to go ahead and start a new post, since this one seems to have run on again. I'll be back.

Monday, December 01, 2003

Best. DU Thread. EVER. 

If you're one of my 4 regulars, you may be aware that I enjoy going over to Democratic Underground every couple days and laughing at them. Well, I was checking out their "fair and balanced" (as in "only progressive Democrats") message board to see how they were responding to the positive economic trends, and I happened to notice this thread: Is anyone else getting sick of the Dean/Clark Bashing?

You really need to go over and read this thread. It's not as entertaining as I thought it would be, but it's interesting to see statements like this...
It's getting downright nasty and I'm getting sick of it...If you feel the need to write something negative about your opponent, please show some respect for those who support him or her.
...coupled with statements like this:
None are perfect, but ALLALLALL are better than duck-anus.
These people need help. However, they also need fiskings every so often, and since I don't know much about psychology, I'll settle for that.

Showcase Voters 

Okay, the League of Liberals Cheating Douchebags won the sponsorship contest again, but The Alliance is closing in, especially after the whole Sitemeter scandal. I think that if we really work at it, we can win this week. Everyone's back to work and on a normal schedule (hopefully), and there are updates posted at headquarters every so often, so members have NO EXCUSE for not voting. If you're an Alliance member, and you're reading this, and you didn't vote...WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?! IT TAKES 10 MINUTES! NOBODY IS SO BUSY THAT THEY CAN'T SPARE 10 MINUTES OUT OF A 5 DAY PERIOD! VOTE! IT'S FOR THE GOOD OF BLOGGERS EVERYWHERE!

Anyway, I'm once again posting links to all the people who voted (courtesy of Bad Money). I've said it before, and I'll say it again: when you vote in the showcase, insignificant blogs with 4 regular readers link to you. You know you want the publicity. Actually, Frnak and Misha are going to link to everyone who votes this week IF The Alliance wins back sponsorship. This is our chance. Don't screw it up.

Here are this week's voters:

IMAO (554 links) - 2135 visits/day V
Blackfive - The Paratrooper of Love (166 links) - 1350 visits/day V
The Inscrutable American (59 links) - 175 visits/day V
Ramblings of Silver Blue (98 links) - 173 visits/day V
Leaning Towards the Dark Side (38 links) - 155 visits/day V
Madfish Willie's Cyber Saloon (110 links) - 153 visits/day V
Bad Money (134 links) - 152 visits/day V
Practical Penumbra (200 links) - 147 visits/day V
The Alliance (155 links) - 134 visits/day V
Colorado Conservative (21 links) - 120 visits/day V
Serenity's Journal (126 links) - 118 visits/day V
angelweave (100 links) - 106 visits/day V
Pardon My English (55 links) - 87 visits/day V
Being American in T.O. (44 links) - 72 visits/day V
physics geek (38 links) - 71 visits/day V
BigStick (41 links) - 60 visits/day V
An Englishman's Castle (11 links) - 55 visits/day V
The S-Train Canvass (30 links) - 48 visits/day V
curi's domain (18 links) - 48 visits/day V
Left Coast Conservative (99 links) - 46 visits/day V
VRWC, Inc. (54 links) - 45 visits/day V
Wince and Nod (50 links) - 40 visits/day V
Who Tends The Fires (56 links) - 39 visits/day V
The Patriette (50 links) - 35 visits/day V
Five Wasps (21 links) - 31 visits/day V
BLATHER REVIEW (46 links) - 28 visits/day V
CandyUniverse (45 links) - 28 visits/day V
Frizzen Sparks (16 links) - 24 visits/day V
Semi-Intelligent Thoughts (35 links) - 21 visits/day V
Grim's Hall (15 links) - 19 visits/day V
Cavalier Attitude (10 links) - 14 visits/day V
Cannon's Canon (20 links) - 11 visits/day V
Single White Male (14 links) - 11 visits/day V
Hypocrisy and Hypotheses (25 links) - 9 visits/day V
Johnalism.com (10 links) - 7 visits/day V
Interested-Participant (71 links) - visits/day V
Cannot find server (6 links) - visits/day V
Eckernet.com (16 links) - visits/day V
eTALKINGHEAD.com: Political Commentary (70 links) - visits/day V
The Dimmick Institute (1 links) - visits/day V
The New American Revolutionist (23 links) - visits/day V
pstupidonymous (8 links) - visits/day V


We can do this. General Douchebaggery must be stopped.

WMD Update 

Crap! Why does stuff like this always come up when I want to take a between-class nap? I was about to go to sleep for an hour or so, but then I saw two stories that I HAD to blog about. First, there's this:
Saddam sought missile factory, Iraqi files show.
What are the moonbats going to say now? I highly recommend reading the entire article, but here's a sample:

For two years before the American invasion of Iraq, Saddam's sons, generals and front companies were engaged in lengthy negotiations with North Korea, according to computer files discovered by international inspectors and the accounts of Bush administration officials. The officials now say they believe that those negotiations -- mostly conducted in neighboring Syria, apparently with the knowledge of the Syrian government -- were not merely to buy a few North Korean missiles. Instead, the goal was to obtain a full production line to manufacture, under an Iraqi flag, the North Korean missile system, which would be capable of hitting American allies and bases around the region, according to the Bush administration officials.

NOW DO YOU BELIEVE THE FRIGGIN' ALLEGATIONS? HE WAS TRYING TO GET MISSILES LITERALLY WEEKS BEFORE THE FRIGGIN' INVASION, IDIOTS! You know what else this shows? #1: Hussein was working with terrorists (North Korea). #2: Hussein worked with Syria, which strengthens the case for existing WMD being there now (as I believe). The only problem with the article is the fact that it uses lines such as "according to the Bush administration officials." That basically renders the entire message useless to the opposition. I got briefly involved in a comment discussion on another blog once, and I used some stuff from that infamous Weekly Standard article to point out evidence for Bush's case. The token liberal in the discussion came back with something along the lines of, "You're asking me to believe information from government officials that supports the government's position. I just can't do that." This is what we're dealing with: cognitive dissonance. If the evidence goes against your position, rationalize it away.

On the other hand, there's this: AP: Iraqi Scientists Lied About Nukes. To briefly quote this article:

Iraqi scientists never revived their long-dead nuclear bomb program, and in fact lied to Saddam Hussein about how much progress they were making before U.S.-led attacks shut the operation down for good in 1991, Iraqi physicists say.

So, there's one article that supports an accusation, and one that goes against a different one. However, the interesting thing about this is the fact that the scientists had to lie about the program. This means that Hussein did, in fact, want nukes. GASP! Really? Not the Saddamster! I always thought he was such a nice guy!

Is it possible that Hussein thought he had nukes when he really didn't? If so, that might explain his behavior toward the weapons inspectors. In any case, the other article clearly shows that he was seeking ways to attack people. He just wanted it to look like other countries were behind it. I really hope that this evidence holds up, because it would devastate this whole "Saddam didn't pose a threat" argument. We'll see.

Sunday, November 30, 2003

Back to School 

Okay, I just got back to my room at SU about half an hour ago, so I have a lot of unpacking to do and probably won't be blogging tonight. I just thought I'd let you know I'm here again (as if you care).

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

God Bless America