Thursday, November 17, 2005
Random Trivia
Thomas Edison felt that the one flaw in the telephone was that it had no recording device, so you couldn't keep track of what was said. Therefore, he spent years trying to perfect an answering machine-type machine. He failed, and his failure became the phonograph.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
President Bush on North Korea
President Bush is currently in Pusan (I know the current trend is to spell it Busan, but to an old school korling, that just looks wrong, as does Gyeongju, which should be Kyeongju), where he announced the importance of a showing of unity among Asian leaders to get North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. It should be noted that he mentioned the importance of patience. You see, North Korea agreed to halt its nuclear weapons program in the 1990s in exchange for help building a light water reactor for power, a bunch of oil, and a ton of food. We gave them food, and oil, and started working on a plan for a nuclear reactor, when it became evident that North Korea had NOT, in fact, abandoned its nuclear weapons program. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice mentioned that the jury was out on what the North Koreans were prepared to do.
Well, let's parse this out for a moment, shall we? North Korea has lost over 2 million people, population-wise, in the last decade or so. They repeatedly promise to cut back on their nuclear program in exchange for concessions, which we continuously make, and then break their promise. Every time there appears to be a major diplomatic breakthrough with North Korea, some crisis comes up (crab war, submarine incident, poplar tree, tunnels, etc.).
The case to invade North Korea appears to be much stronger in terms of stabilizing a region, removing a megalomaniac from power, and freeing an oppressed people. Yet, we don't invade. We don't call for UN Sanctions (although South Korea opposes the sanctions, so that is probably a big factor there). We don't cut off aid. Instead, we treat Kim Chong-Il as a bad parent treats a spoiled kid. We tell him, "I'm sick of you eating candy bars in the living room at bedtime" while handing him a Snickers while he's sitting at the sofa. It doesn't work with a 6 year old, how could it work against the leader of a nation whose people worship him and his father?
Kim Chong-Il needs to be out of power in North Korea.
Well, let's parse this out for a moment, shall we? North Korea has lost over 2 million people, population-wise, in the last decade or so. They repeatedly promise to cut back on their nuclear program in exchange for concessions, which we continuously make, and then break their promise. Every time there appears to be a major diplomatic breakthrough with North Korea, some crisis comes up (crab war, submarine incident, poplar tree, tunnels, etc.).
The case to invade North Korea appears to be much stronger in terms of stabilizing a region, removing a megalomaniac from power, and freeing an oppressed people. Yet, we don't invade. We don't call for UN Sanctions (although South Korea opposes the sanctions, so that is probably a big factor there). We don't cut off aid. Instead, we treat Kim Chong-Il as a bad parent treats a spoiled kid. We tell him, "I'm sick of you eating candy bars in the living room at bedtime" while handing him a Snickers while he's sitting at the sofa. It doesn't work with a 6 year old, how could it work against the leader of a nation whose people worship him and his father?
Kim Chong-Il needs to be out of power in North Korea.
Almost There
My stat counter is showing me very close to that wonderful 10,000 hit mark. For those of you who cannot read chinese characters, that thing that looks a little like a cursive "r" is a nine, which means, that as of posting this, I have 9,913 hits. Only 87 to go! Tell your friends! Invite your family! Come back often! The haiku and random trivia will continue, but ten thousand will only happen once!
Update:
Friday, Nov. 18, 2005 - I got on the computer this morning to note that I had 10,002 hits on my blog. As of this update, I'm at 10,018, and counting. Figures I'd be asleep for such a momentous occasion.
Update:
Friday, Nov. 18, 2005 - I got on the computer this morning to note that I had 10,002 hits on my blog. As of this update, I'm at 10,018, and counting. Figures I'd be asleep for such a momentous occasion.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
In ___ We Trust
Michael Newdow, the athiest lawyer who tried for years to ban recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, is now trying to remove the word "God" from our nation's currency. He claims it's an endorsement of religion and "excludes people who don't believe in God" according to this article.
Newdow's attempt to remove the Pledge went up to the Supreme Court, where he lost because he didn't have standing to represent his daughter, because he didn't have custody.
His argument for removing God from currency is that it's unconstitutional, and dismisses any claims that the reference is to the country's religious roots, "It's not the history that counts, it's patriotism. What it is, is these people want to get their religious views in our government."
Though I can see an argument against reciting the Pledge in schools, I'm afraid I'm missing the key point in removing God from currency. I can't see a harm in holding a piece of paper, or zinc, or nickel that has a word on it. I can't see that as an endorsement of any one religion, and I can't see it as trying to foist one's religious beliefs on another. This really sounds more like an extremist with an agenda who's not going to be happy until he finds some way to stick it to the system.
Newdow's attempt to remove the Pledge went up to the Supreme Court, where he lost because he didn't have standing to represent his daughter, because he didn't have custody.
His argument for removing God from currency is that it's unconstitutional, and dismisses any claims that the reference is to the country's religious roots, "It's not the history that counts, it's patriotism. What it is, is these people want to get their religious views in our government."
Though I can see an argument against reciting the Pledge in schools, I'm afraid I'm missing the key point in removing God from currency. I can't see a harm in holding a piece of paper, or zinc, or nickel that has a word on it. I can't see that as an endorsement of any one religion, and I can't see it as trying to foist one's religious beliefs on another. This really sounds more like an extremist with an agenda who's not going to be happy until he finds some way to stick it to the system.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Rewrite, revisited
President Bush again attacked the Democrats today. This time, he accused the Democrats of being irresponsible. "Reasonable people can disagree about the war, but it is irresponsible of the Democrats to claim that we misled them and the American People," Bush said in prepared remarks that you can read here.
Point of order. The american people were misled. The President's admission through his National Security Advisor yesterday that we were wrong about WMDs in Iraq - the primary impetus for our invasion of the country - can stand as nothing less than an admission that the american people were misled by the President. What stands to be seen is whether the American people were DELIBERATELY misled. This would take Congressional hearings - something that the President doesn't want to see.
He doesn't defend his actions so much as he criticizes the Democrats for questioning them. He claims that it's dangerous for the soldiers who are fighting overseas to have Democrats (though he doesn't mention the Republicans who have asked for a Congressional hearing) making claims against the war. Apparently, what needs to happen is the Democratic Party needs to shut the hell up until the war is over (remember the end of hostilities some time back?) and give the troops unwavering support. The mindset is that we can't be critical of the leadership and demand accountability from one who's credibility is in the toilet while we have troops fighting a war that his leadership got us into because it might lower their morale. Pointedly, the troops' morale would be painfully lower (not to mention a ton of egg on our collective faces) if there were to be congressional hearings into the intelligence situation and it turned out that we were deliberately misled. Bear in mind that last part is a hypothetical, but consider the worst case scenario if it were the case.
I think the President is right on one part. Democrats should NOT be charging that the President and his administration deliberately misled us - not now. That is irresponsible and improper. What Congress needs to do is accept that the President admitted errors in intelligence and demand an inquiry into the situation to see what the truth is. Then, depending on what happens, history will be written. Anything that happens before an in-depth inquiry is premature.
As a closing point, I can't accept the President's line of the week that the Democrats are trying to "rewrite history." It was the President and his staff that switched tactics on invasion rationale from being primarily a WMD issue to a terrorism issue to a "make the middle east safe for democracy" issue. That is rewriting history. Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot.
Point of order. The american people were misled. The President's admission through his National Security Advisor yesterday that we were wrong about WMDs in Iraq - the primary impetus for our invasion of the country - can stand as nothing less than an admission that the american people were misled by the President. What stands to be seen is whether the American people were DELIBERATELY misled. This would take Congressional hearings - something that the President doesn't want to see.
He doesn't defend his actions so much as he criticizes the Democrats for questioning them. He claims that it's dangerous for the soldiers who are fighting overseas to have Democrats (though he doesn't mention the Republicans who have asked for a Congressional hearing) making claims against the war. Apparently, what needs to happen is the Democratic Party needs to shut the hell up until the war is over (remember the end of hostilities some time back?) and give the troops unwavering support. The mindset is that we can't be critical of the leadership and demand accountability from one who's credibility is in the toilet while we have troops fighting a war that his leadership got us into because it might lower their morale. Pointedly, the troops' morale would be painfully lower (not to mention a ton of egg on our collective faces) if there were to be congressional hearings into the intelligence situation and it turned out that we were deliberately misled. Bear in mind that last part is a hypothetical, but consider the worst case scenario if it were the case.
I think the President is right on one part. Democrats should NOT be charging that the President and his administration deliberately misled us - not now. That is irresponsible and improper. What Congress needs to do is accept that the President admitted errors in intelligence and demand an inquiry into the situation to see what the truth is. Then, depending on what happens, history will be written. Anything that happens before an in-depth inquiry is premature.
As a closing point, I can't accept the President's line of the week that the Democrats are trying to "rewrite history." It was the President and his staff that switched tactics on invasion rationale from being primarily a WMD issue to a terrorism issue to a "make the middle east safe for democracy" issue. That is rewriting history. Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Remember Pete Rose?
Pete Rose was forefer banned from Major League Baseball for betting on games. He denied he bet on the games for years. Some time back, though, Pete made a confession, of sorts. He said that what he did was wrong. The comments he made, though, didn't resonate too strongly, because baseball fans across the country already knew what he did was wrong.
President Bush, through his National Security Advisor, admitted that we were wrong about the WMDs in Iraq. He also insisted that there was no disinformation or withholding of intelligence designed to mislead or deceive the American people. This confession, that Iraq had no WMDs and our intelligence was wrong is quite similar to Pete Rose. It doesn't help very much, because we already know what they're saying. It provides a scant bit of assistance to the credibility factor for the administration, as they are admitting that they did err, and chose not to change the story or the party line. For that, they deserve credit. However, that's only part of the equation. This is a necessary first step at damage control; there are many more that need to follow.
One good next step would be an apology to those Veterans whsoe service he forsook in exchange for a partisan speech last Friday. Somehow, I doubt that will come any time soon.
President Bush, through his National Security Advisor, admitted that we were wrong about the WMDs in Iraq. He also insisted that there was no disinformation or withholding of intelligence designed to mislead or deceive the American people. This confession, that Iraq had no WMDs and our intelligence was wrong is quite similar to Pete Rose. It doesn't help very much, because we already know what they're saying. It provides a scant bit of assistance to the credibility factor for the administration, as they are admitting that they did err, and chose not to change the story or the party line. For that, they deserve credit. However, that's only part of the equation. This is a necessary first step at damage control; there are many more that need to follow.
One good next step would be an apology to those Veterans whsoe service he forsook in exchange for a partisan speech last Friday. Somehow, I doubt that will come any time soon.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
How much do I love my wife?
I love my wife. I love her dearly. She is a wonderful woman who puts up with me on almost a daily basis. She works full time while I go to school. She watches the children during my evening classes. She does the laundry. She's pretty phenomenal. So, I'm going to help her out a little.
My wife sells Mary Kay cosmetics. Apparently, Mary Kay stuff is not too shabby. They sell makeup, body washes, spa kits, and gift baskets. All the guys out there who have a significant other this holiday season, the gift baskets are neat, and the women out there who might need something, she's got quite the collection. Take a moment and check out what she has. If you need something, she'd be more than happy to help you out!
OK, I've done my husbandly duty for the decade.
My wife sells Mary Kay cosmetics. Apparently, Mary Kay stuff is not too shabby. They sell makeup, body washes, spa kits, and gift baskets. All the guys out there who have a significant other this holiday season, the gift baskets are neat, and the women out there who might need something, she's got quite the collection. Take a moment and check out what she has. If you need something, she'd be more than happy to help you out!
OK, I've done my husbandly duty for the decade.
A time to attack
President Bush yesterday chose to attack those who question the decisions for going to war in Iraq, suggesting that they are undermining the war effort (and, presumably, less American). I have some problems with this speech he gave.
First, it was Veteran's Day. This is a day to honor, remember, and thank those who donned the uniform and defended this country. It was a day for ALL Americans to show their respect and thanks. The decision to attack one demographic on this national holiday suggests that President Bush, who promised to be a uniter, not a divider, has foregone that promise and chosen to pander to his partisan baseline. Personally, I'm offended by this decision and strongly disagree with the choice to attack on the day he did. He could have chosen any day for shameless politicking, and not detracted from the sacrifices made by the millions of Americans who have served over the years.
Second, his speech was inaccurate. He said that Congress had the same access to intelligence that the Executive staff had - hinting that Congress should look in the mirror before looking at the Commander in Chief. His statement is partly true. The overwhelming amount of information suggested that Iraq had weapons of mass destriction. However, as the holder of the intelligence information, the executive branch had exclusive control over dissemination of said intelligence. This means that Congress certainly did NOT have the same amount of access to intelligence as the President and his advisors had. It means that whatever they got was a selected group of information, not unlike a trial brief, showing the strongest argument for one side of the argument.
Third, the President suggests that Democrats are the only ones who want hearings into this, and suggest that they are trying to "rewrite history," calling such an act "deeply irresponsible." This conveniently ignores the Republicans who want inquiries, or who suggest there were problems. To dismiss those people are "RINOs" would be to further the rift that has grown at a clip faster than at any point in the last 20 years.
First, it was Veteran's Day. This is a day to honor, remember, and thank those who donned the uniform and defended this country. It was a day for ALL Americans to show their respect and thanks. The decision to attack one demographic on this national holiday suggests that President Bush, who promised to be a uniter, not a divider, has foregone that promise and chosen to pander to his partisan baseline. Personally, I'm offended by this decision and strongly disagree with the choice to attack on the day he did. He could have chosen any day for shameless politicking, and not detracted from the sacrifices made by the millions of Americans who have served over the years.
Second, his speech was inaccurate. He said that Congress had the same access to intelligence that the Executive staff had - hinting that Congress should look in the mirror before looking at the Commander in Chief. His statement is partly true. The overwhelming amount of information suggested that Iraq had weapons of mass destriction. However, as the holder of the intelligence information, the executive branch had exclusive control over dissemination of said intelligence. This means that Congress certainly did NOT have the same amount of access to intelligence as the President and his advisors had. It means that whatever they got was a selected group of information, not unlike a trial brief, showing the strongest argument for one side of the argument.
Third, the President suggests that Democrats are the only ones who want hearings into this, and suggest that they are trying to "rewrite history," calling such an act "deeply irresponsible." This conveniently ignores the Republicans who want inquiries, or who suggest there were problems. To dismiss those people are "RINOs" would be to further the rift that has grown at a clip faster than at any point in the last 20 years.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Veteran's Day
This is a day for remembering. For thanking the millions of Americans past and present who have put their country before themselves and donned a uniform and taken up arms to defend it. This is a day to thank those who did what so many wouldn't do, or would do "but for" whatever reason. We're free today because these men and women were willing to preserve that freedom. As a veteran of Operation Allied Force, I would like to thank those who have served before me, including my father, both grandfathers, and my great grandfather, all of whom served during significant times in World history (Vietnam, WWII and Korea, and the Spanish American War). I want to thank my comrades in arms, for having the courage to continue to defend this country.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Random Trivia
Lord Horatio Nelson of the British Royal Navy lost sight in one eye. He was involved in the Battle of Copenhagen (April 2, 1801). During that battle, Rear Admiral Nelson received a signal from his commanding officer, Sir Hyde Parker, to stop the attack. Admiral Nelson heard about the order, then lifted his telescope to the eye in which he'd lost sight, said "I don't see anything," in reference to the order, and continued his attack. The British won the battle, and Admiral Nelson added the phrase "To turn a blind eye" to English Vernacular.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Let's pause for ten seconds for some shameless namedropping
I read on my friend heatherfeather's site a couple kudos she gave to some friends of hers and I quickly realized that the way to get friends is to pander to them. So, Heatherfeather, we at the binjo ditch think you rock.
Now to sit back and wait for the kudos...
Now to sit back and wait for the kudos...
Wednesday is Haiku Day
and a quick recap for those who are gunshy - A haiku is a japanese poem that follows a syllabic form. the first line has five syllables, the second has seven and the third has five. The trick is in how much you can convey in those 17 syllables.
And now:
On my kitchen hutch
I have a bottle of oil -
Pennzoil for my car.
As always, audience participation is encouraged!
And now:
On my kitchen hutch
I have a bottle of oil -
Pennzoil for my car.
As always, audience participation is encouraged!
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
The Democratic Process
I'm pleased to say I voted today. It's not a Presidential or Congressional election year, but it was election day, and I got to vote for Mayor (who knew there were people running against Bill White, you couldn't tell by the campaigning).
There was a fairly important proposition on the ballot this year. Proposition 2 is Texas' attempt to add a definition to the Constitution that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Basically, the amendment would bar all gay marriages in Texas. I voted against the proposition, but it will probably pass.
Let me explain why I oppose this legislature:
1. I don't see how this really passes any equal protection standards. I've played the advocate and argued both sides from time to time, but right down where it counts, I can't see how this really is not an equal protection violation.
2. If we want to pass an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, presumably it's because gay is a sin. If it's a sin, then won't God punish the gays when they die. It doesn't seem necessary to ban gay down here, as it seems on its face a victimless sin (you're gay to yourself; it's not like stealing or murder, which happens against someone else).
3. Texas already bans gay marriage. It's against the law in Texas for same sex couples to get married. This includes transgenders (a man who had a sex-change to become a woman and now wants to marry a man). If it's already against the law for gay couples to marry, why do we need an amendment defining marriage as an act between a man and a woman? It seems to painfully unnecessary.
Of course, the argument is that if the Amendment passes, then nobody can repeal the law; we'd have to repeal the amendment, which is more difficult. I just don't see the necessity of it. Much like tort reform, I think it's more geared for the lawmakers to say "look what we did," as opposed to actually doing anything.
There was a fairly important proposition on the ballot this year. Proposition 2 is Texas' attempt to add a definition to the Constitution that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Basically, the amendment would bar all gay marriages in Texas. I voted against the proposition, but it will probably pass.
Let me explain why I oppose this legislature:
1. I don't see how this really passes any equal protection standards. I've played the advocate and argued both sides from time to time, but right down where it counts, I can't see how this really is not an equal protection violation.
2. If we want to pass an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, presumably it's because gay is a sin. If it's a sin, then won't God punish the gays when they die. It doesn't seem necessary to ban gay down here, as it seems on its face a victimless sin (you're gay to yourself; it's not like stealing or murder, which happens against someone else).
3. Texas already bans gay marriage. It's against the law in Texas for same sex couples to get married. This includes transgenders (a man who had a sex-change to become a woman and now wants to marry a man). If it's already against the law for gay couples to marry, why do we need an amendment defining marriage as an act between a man and a woman? It seems to painfully unnecessary.
Of course, the argument is that if the Amendment passes, then nobody can repeal the law; we'd have to repeal the amendment, which is more difficult. I just don't see the necessity of it. Much like tort reform, I think it's more geared for the lawmakers to say "look what we did," as opposed to actually doing anything.
Monday, November 07, 2005
Computer Problems
apparently, the notebook I own has a problem with the AC input on the motherboard. This seems to be a documented problem among this model. The company from whom I bought the computer no longer makes this model, likely due to this problem.
Anyway, the motherboard needed replacing, which left me sans computer for the last few days. It was kind of nice to be away from the computer; I didn't miss it nearly as much as I thought I might.
My delays in posting will probably continue though as we near finals. I need to make sure I'm ready for tests, so that I can get my dream job over the summer. So, I'll continue the Wednesday haiku and the Thursday random trivia, but the run of the mill posting might take a bit of a hit. bear with me, Winter break will be here soon!
Anyway, the motherboard needed replacing, which left me sans computer for the last few days. It was kind of nice to be away from the computer; I didn't miss it nearly as much as I thought I might.
My delays in posting will probably continue though as we near finals. I need to make sure I'm ready for tests, so that I can get my dream job over the summer. So, I'll continue the Wednesday haiku and the Thursday random trivia, but the run of the mill posting might take a bit of a hit. bear with me, Winter break will be here soon!
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Random Trivia
The phrase "Not for all the tea in China" is a misnomer.
China only grows about 10% of the world's supply. India supplies about 1/3.
China only grows about 10% of the world's supply. India supplies about 1/3.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Really?
Terrell Owens, football player for the Philadelphia Eagles, injured his ankle and is unsure as to his availability for upcoming games against the Dallas Cowboys and the Washington Redskins.
I don't laugh at injuries, especially ankle injuries. I broke my tibia and fibula at the ankle and dislocated my foot 9 years ago. It's not fun.
However, sometimes reporting injuries can be.
"[Eagles spokesman Derek] Boyko confirmed [the ankle injury] was on the same right leg he broke a year ago ..."
Seriously, was the adjective "right" completely necessary there? How many right legs does any human have? ahh, humor.
I don't laugh at injuries, especially ankle injuries. I broke my tibia and fibula at the ankle and dislocated my foot 9 years ago. It's not fun.
However, sometimes reporting injuries can be.
"[Eagles spokesman Derek] Boyko confirmed [the ankle injury] was on the same right leg he broke a year ago ..."
Seriously, was the adjective "right" completely necessary there? How many right legs does any human have? ahh, humor.
Wednesday is Haiku Day
On this Halloween
It rained and poured but the kids
still dressed and got loot.
I look forward to your contributions
It rained and poured but the kids
still dressed and got loot.
I look forward to your contributions
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
One Small Step For DeLay
Rep. Tom DeLay and his attorneys succeeding in removing the sitting judge in his trial. The rationale his attorneys argued was that Judge Perkins' contributions to democratic candidates (that's allowed here in Texas) might create the appearance of a bias. His attorneys are still trying to get the trial moved from Austin, "one of the last enclaves of the Democratic Party in Texas."
I can't say that I disagree with the removal of the judge. Even though judges are supposed to be impartial, we know that in practicality, it's mostly impossible to be completely impartial (I commented on this yesterday), and a judge who contributed to MoveOn.Org presiding over a case in which Tom DeLay is a defendant is rather similar to an NRA member judge presiding over a Brady case.
I don't buy the argument that the trial needs to be removed from Austin though, especially if the rationale given is taht it's "one of the last enclaves of the Democratic Party in Texas." If the premise is that he wouldn't get a fair trial because Austin is liberal, then how could they reasonably argue that he'd get a fair trial in any Republican-controlled county? Reading between the lines, it appears what he wants is to be in a place where his acquittal is closer to a guarantee, whether he's guilty or not. I do think, however, that whatever the outcome of his trial, he's veering very close to OJ/Jacko territory, where he'll be viewed as guilty in the court of public opinion regardless of his culpability in the instant case.
I can't say that I disagree with the removal of the judge. Even though judges are supposed to be impartial, we know that in practicality, it's mostly impossible to be completely impartial (I commented on this yesterday), and a judge who contributed to MoveOn.Org presiding over a case in which Tom DeLay is a defendant is rather similar to an NRA member judge presiding over a Brady case.
I don't buy the argument that the trial needs to be removed from Austin though, especially if the rationale given is taht it's "one of the last enclaves of the Democratic Party in Texas." If the premise is that he wouldn't get a fair trial because Austin is liberal, then how could they reasonably argue that he'd get a fair trial in any Republican-controlled county? Reading between the lines, it appears what he wants is to be in a place where his acquittal is closer to a guarantee, whether he's guilty or not. I do think, however, that whatever the outcome of his trial, he's veering very close to OJ/Jacko territory, where he'll be viewed as guilty in the court of public opinion regardless of his culpability in the instant case.
November
This month marks the ten year anniversary of my enlistment in the Air Force - a move that made me what I am today. I thank the Air Force for helping me get where I am, it's a program that can benefit many people, the armed services, I mean. Try it, you might like it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)