Another set of unrelated topics.

1. The Taco Bell tolls for thee...

The Taco Bell E. Coli outbreak continues to rage on, and this time, the feds believe a different veggie is to blame. Apparently, the E. Coli which has now infected 71 people across the country, is being carried by lettuce, which, if I recall correctly, is found on just about everything served at Taco Bell.

And just to make things interesting, Taco Bell's lesser known rival, Taco John's, has an E. Coli outbreak of it's own. At this point, I think it's advisable to avoid Americanized Mexican fast food altogether. Stick to good, wholesome, old fashioned, patriotic food like McDonald's. There's absolutely no health risk there, right? As the brilliant marketers over at the golden arches put it: I'm lovin' it! (TM).

2. Government enforces law. Uproar ensues.

Why is the fact that federal agents arrested 1200+ illegal immigrants in a series of massive meat-packing plant raids causing such a hubub? Our law enforcement agents have one job: to enforce the law. Illegal immigration is (as the name implies) against the law. People that are upset by the raid have only one rational course of action: to attempt to repeal our countries immigration laws. Complaining that our law enforcers are enforcing our laws is ridiculous. The following is an excerpt from the linked article that you didn't (and in all likelihood, won't) read:

Immigration officials last month informed Swift (the company that hired the illegal workers) that it would remove unauthorized workers on Dec. 4, but Swift asked a federal judge to prevent agents from conducting the raid, arguing it would cause "substantial and irreparable injury" to its business.

What a stupid company. It hires a bunch of illegals (although they claim that they had no knowledge of illegal workers in the company), is found out and warned of the upcoming raid, and then tries to convince the government not to arrest a bunch of criminals because it would hurt it's business. That's not how it works. When someone breaks a federal law, they get punished. It doesn't matter who they are, or who they work for. Justice is supposed to be blind.

Again, although it's very understandable that some might feel empathy for the illegals in our country who are just trying to make a better life for their families, any quarrel people have with these raids should rest with the laws themselves, not the enforcement.

3. Excellent Comments on Iraq

Here's a very insightful quote concerning one of the major mistakes the US made in our "war on terror" in Iraq:

"Imagine one day waking up and finding out that your nation's leaders had completely dismantled all police and military. As a result, there is not one policeman, or state, or federal law enforcement agent, or even one national guard or any soldier to protect you from criminal elements, or terrorists. It will be total chaos.

"Then imagine that instead of calling back the army and security forces, the authorities in this imaginary scenario decided to form a new army and police from racist militias, some mercenaries and organised crime gangs.

"With the new government-issued budget and government-issued vehicles, these armed groups begin arresting, torturing, murdering innocent people either because of their faith, or creed, or purely for profit.

"This is exactly what has happened in Iraq."

That quote comes from none other than the vice president of Iraq, Tareq Al-Hashemi. And he's right on. The United States was quite naive to think that a peaceful country would emerge gently out of the state of anarchy it created. The fact is that Iraq is made up of several groups of people who want to kill each other. For years, Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, for all it's faults, did one thing well: it stabilized the country. The various radical factions co-existing in Iraq needed, as Hobbes (the philosopher, not the tiger) would say, "a common power to keep them all in awe" . Saddam delivered this in spades. When America dismantled the Iraqi Government and all it's institutions, they created a vacuum of power that the opposing religious and ethnic groups are still violently attempting to fill. The US-supported Iraqi military and police force is helpless in the face of the escalating violence because most of the people perpetrating the violence are in their ranks. Whole regions are under the control of radical militias. The leader of the most powerful Shiite death squads and militias, Muqtada Al-Sadr is a powerful member of Iraq's democratic government. Essentially, everything that could have gone wrong is going wrong. With conservative estimates of Iraqi deaths currently standing at over 55,000, and high estimates going over 100,000, the death toll in this period of anarchy is already exceeding that of Saddam's reign.

Of course, "cut and run" still isn't an option. America seriously screwed up Iraq, and if we pull out before the job of stabilizing the country is done, the Iraqis will suffer even more. It just makes you wish we had leaders that could think twice before doing something so stupid. The worst part of it all is that even if the country is successfully stabilized, it'll just be another islamic nation, which is something we could certainly do without. In the long run, I don't think that Iraq's Islamic democracy will be any improvement over Saddam's secular government. I guess only time will tell.

Radiation, food poisening, and the fat ban.

(1). Radiation: it's not just for frozen burritos anymore.

The United States military recently placed its stamp of approval on a rather unique crowd control device: the Active Denial System (ADS). Despite having the most politically correct name of any weapon in recent memory, the ADS is quite a piece of work. Here's a summary of its awe-inspiring, pain-inducing power from the worlds most complete and accurate source of information pertaining to cutting edge military technology, the wikipedia:

"The ADS works by directing electromagnetic radiation at a frequency of 95 GHz toward the subjects. When the waves contact skin, the energy in the waves is turned into heat which in turn heats the water molecules in the skin to around 55 C (130 degrees Fahrenheit), causing an intensely painful burning sensation. The focused beam can be directed at targets at a range of approximately one kilometer.

A higher radio frequency is chosen because, as a property of electromagnetic waves, they are unable to penetrate the body as deeply as lower frequency waves, thereby affecting external organs only, such as skin. The United States military states the effect "penetrates the skin to a depth of less than 1/64 of an inch."[1] A spokesman for the Air Force Research Laboratory described his experience as a test subject for the system: "For the first millisecond, it just felt like the skin was warming up. Then it got warmer and warmer and you felt like it was on fire.... As soon as you're away from that beam your skin returns to normal and there is no pain."

The ADS is currently only a vehicle mounted weapon, however, U.S. Marines and police are both working on portable versions."

Essentially, the ADS is a device that sticks an out of control crowd in the microwave for a couple seconds on high power, creating what the military calls the "Goodbye effect". Technically, the waves of radiation emitted by the ADS have a shorter wavelength than the microwaves emitted by a microwave oven, so the comparison isn't perfect, but you get the point. The device is currently awaiting deployment in Iraq, and in the near future could be coming to a reckless crowd of flag-burning hippies near you. While Uncle Sam maintains that exposing large amounts of people to painful waves of radiation will have no unforeseen side effects, and presents no ethical problems, I'll probably remain skeptical. The concept of the government being able to disperse any crowd almost instantly, is just a little bit eerie. Not to mention the fact that any innocent bystanders among the targets will also be exposed to the device's considerable radioactive bite. This creepy increase of government power calls to mind George Orwell's "1984". While I've never actually read the book myself, I'm told by many reliable sources that it deals with a government run by the main character's older brother who does a lot of creepy stuff to the populace of England, and in all likelihood, other populaces (or populi as some are apt to say) as well. On further inspection, the similarities are startling. Is our president an older brother? Is the ADS creepy? Si to all of the above.

People, we are living in 1984.

------------------------------------

(2). Jamba Juice and Taco Bell will probably kill you.

There seems to be an epidemic of food related disease going around:

- Jamba juice has apparently served 1,800 pounds of strawberries possibly contaminated with listeria, a disease with a 20% mortality rate. Ouch. Luckily, the aforementioned strawberries were only located in Arizona, California, and Nevada Jamba Juice locations. I believe this is what they call "Lucky you live Hawaii". But just to be safe, it's probably best to order the secret, legendary, and strawberry-free "White Gummi Bear" for the time being.

- Taco Bell is now dealing with a rash of E. coli contamination amongst it's green onions, forcing it to recall the tainted produce from 5,800 taco bell locations. According to the AP, the Taco Bell E. coli has already infected 36 people across the country. Since I haven't eaten at Taco Bell for several months, I proclaim myself "relatively safe". But what Taco Bell dishes use green onions anyway? Is it just the nachos? Or are trace amounts embedded in most of their dishes? We'll probably never know... until it's too late.

------------------------------------

(3) New York City Bans Trans Fats

New York City is known for a lot of things, mainly: The mafia, gross corruption, and Hillary Clinton. Soon, however, the city will make history as the first city to ban the use of trans fats in its restaurants. For those who don't know what trans fats are, the worlds most complete and accurate source of all information pertaining to nutrition, the wikipedia, has you covered:

"Unlike other fats, trans fats are neither required nor beneficial for health.^[1] Eating trans fat increases the risk of coronary heart disease.^[2] For these reasons, health authorities worldwide recommend that consumption of trans fat be reduced to trace amounts. Trans fats from partially hydrogenated oils are generally considered to be more of a health risk than those occurring naturally.^[3]

Trans fats are increasingly being linked to chronic health conditions (see below), are tightly regulated in a few countries, are mandatory on product labels in many others, and are the central issue in several ongoing lawsuits (particularly against fast food outlets). Many companies are voluntarily removing trans fats from their products, or establishing trans-free product lines."

So, trans fats (A) have no legitimate nutritional purpose, and (B) do a lot of really bad things to the human body. Some experts compare banning trans fats in restaurants to banning lead and arsenic in foodstuffs. But still, does the government have the right to tell private institutions what they can or can't put in their food? Heck yes. If a substance is essentially a poison, it shouldn't be served to the public via delicious, inexpensive fried foods, period. If banning is considered a bit extreme, every purveyor of food should at the very least be required to declare what menu items contain trans fats, as well as the health risks of consuming the said fats, similar to the warning labels placed on boxes of cigarettes. Hopefully, New York City's ban will give chain restaurants a little push towards business practices that are slightly less evil.

------------------------------------

And that's about it.

Democrats are in da' house. And da' senate.

The Democrats now have control of the house, the senate, and more. This is a portion of what the soon-to-be speakerette of the house, Nancy Pelosi, had to say about it:

“Tonight, the American people have entrusted us with their hopes and aspirations, for themselves, their families, and their future. We will honor that trust.

Democrats share the faith and values that Americans uphold in their families and in their communities. We intend, working together, to build a future worthy of that faith, worthy of the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, and worthy of the hopes and dreams that Americans have for our children.

Tonight we have made history; now let us make progress.”

First of all, do these politicians really delude themselves into thinking that Americans entrust them with their hopes and aspirations for themselves, their familes, and their future when they vote for them? Generally speaking, the only people whose hopes and dream's depend on certain candidates being elected are the candidates themselves. The Democrats were elected because the Republicans didn't do jack for two years. Nothing else.

Secondly, what faith and values do the Democrats share with the American people? Faith in Socialist government policy? The value of tax increases? Seriously, if there's anything I hate about smarmy political speaches, Republican or Democrat, it's the vague references to American "faith" and "values". Last time I checked there were very few beliefs and values that all Americans shared. Pretending that America is united doesn't make it a reality.

Lastly, I shudder at what this new Democratic "progress" will entail. The Republicans were lousy, but when Republicans are bad, they're Democrats. When Democrats are bad, they're Communists.

________

On another note, Nancy Pelosi scares me. She might as well be Josef Stalin's wife. She's just that scary. The only thing that scares me more than Nancy Pelosi is this page from a children's book entitled "Why Mommy is a Democrat":



There are so many things disturbing about this image, that I scarcely know what to say. This haunting image of fat, slightly demented, liberal squirrels is fundamentally damaging to the deepest levels of the human psyche. For those who wish to inflict further nightmares upon themselves, check out more pages from the book at it's website. The fact that Democrats want the government to act like everyone's "mommy" is precisely the reason why conservatives disagree with them. Everyone already has a mommy. We don't need another one.
_______

On yet another note,
check out the Democrat who's first in line to run for president in '08. And for those who didn't click on the link (you know who you are), it's none other than the beloved governor of Iowa! All the guy needs to do is change his last name from Vilsack to something solid and respectable, like Robertson, become governor of a state that people actually care about, like Nebraska, and he's ready to re-take the whitehouse for the Democrats, the squirrels, and all the good little Americans who just want everyone to share their toys!

It's that time of year again!

Most people assume that absolutely no day of importance stands between the sugar laden gluttony of Halloween (or church approved Halloween substitute) and the poultry laden gluttony of Thanksgiving. This is a huge mistake. On November 7th, all of the people that count will be celebrating the anniversary of Russia's glorious, yet inaptly named, October revolution. Truly, this is a holiday that people near and far can celebrate with zeal. A holiday where we remember that with dedication, armed peasants, and just a little bit of magic, a small group of intellectuals can screw up much of the civilized world for decades! If everyone pitches in, I know we can make this the best Communist Day ever.

For those that want to understand what Communist Day is all about, this is the story of the very first Communist Day, taken straight from the worlds most complete and accurate source of all information pertaining to communism, the Wikipedia:

"On October 25 (November 7), 1917 , Vladimir Lenin led his forces in the uprising in Petrograd, the capital of Russia, against the ineffective Kerensky Provisional Government. For the most part, the revolt in Petrograd was bloodless, with the Red Guards led by Bolsheviks taking over major government facilities with little opposition before finally launching an assault on the Winter Palace on the night from November 6 to November 7. The assault led by Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko was launched at 9:45 p.m. signalled by a blank shot from the cruiser Aurora. The Winter Palace was guarded by Cossacks, Women's Battalion, and cadets (military students) corps. It was taken at about 2 a.m. The latter date was made the official date of the Revolution."

Of course, the story doesn't end there. Legend says that every Communist Day eve, jolly old Saint Lenin travels all over the world in his magic sleigh pulled by flying musk-oxen, to wreck his terrible vengeance on the bourgeoisie oppressors, and to visit the houses of all the little boys and girls. Good children are given an extra allowance of potatoes to make it through the harsh winter, but the naughty children are shipped to labor camps in Siberia. I hope everyone's been extra good this year!

But what's a holiday without some rousing holiday songs? On Communist Day, the accepted custom is to sing random passages from the Communist Manifesto to the tune of Bob Dylan's classic song Positively 4th Street. The words usually don't match up to the tune, and the results are often incoherent and obnoxious, so the spirit of Mr. Dylan's original song is kept relatively intact.

And don't forget about the food! On Communist Day, the whole community gathers together and plunders the home of the nearest wealthy man, taking special care to obtain any foodstuffs that may be found on the premises. The food that has been confiscated from the oppressor is then cooked over an open fire that has been lit in a public place, preferably a WalMart parking lot. Following the meal, the adjacent WalMart can be protested against, vandalized, or destroyed, depending on individual discretion.

Presents can also be exchanged on Communist Day, but must consist solely of potatoes grown on public land. All other presents must be considered bourgeoisie and are to be discarded as relics of capitalist oppression. On the surface, the humble potato may seem like a meager gift, but in the hands of the determined worker of the world, it has a seemingly endless array of uses, and should be received with gratitude. Remember: it is not just a potato, but a potato of liberation.

So this year, remember to make November 7th a day you'll cherish always, and may the Communist spirit last throughout this year and the next!

LOL!

The first post on this blog was on the subject of Internet smiley faces and my hatred thereof. So, in the glorious tradition of defending the English language, I will now smite the second enemy of intelligent writing: the loathsome Internet acronym. You know what I'm talking about: lol, rotflol, afaik, btw, imho, and all of the other textual abominations that kids these days can't go one sentence without writing. I'm sorry if this offends 99.9% of the people on the Internet, but I simply can't respect any piece of writing that contains an Internet acronym. No matter who you are, if I see a single "lol" in something you write, I will automatically think of you as a bratty 12 year old girl who spends all of her time at the mall texting her stupid friends on her cell phone. You can be a 40 year old man with a beard who disembowels live deer for kicks, but as soon as that acronym shows up, you become a bratty pre-teen mall rat. Enough said.

A big problem with using acronyms is that it homogenizes everyone. When you say "lol", you're expressing your mirth in a way identical to everyone else. When you say "imho" you're providing a disclaimer for your writing with the exact same words as millions of other people. When you say "brb" you're excusing your absence with a phrase that has been used and re-used billions of times before by other people. Your personality is completely lost in translation. Everyone on the Internet with their sloppy writing, acronyms and smileys could all be the same person as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if your screen name is cl3verd4n8 or winn3th3p00h1004cre, if you write stuff using the same acronyms as everyone else on the Internet, you're interchangeable with everyone else on the Internet.

Just think about it this way: before you write an acronym in a post, comment, email, or any other Internet related piece of writing, ask yourself these questions: Would I write this in an actual letter? A letter to my grandma? A letter to my congressman? A letter to the editor? A letter to my pen-pal in Argentina? Would I write this in a book? A book report? An essay for school? Would I write this in a newspaper? In an advice column? In a comic strip? In a family newsletter? If the answer is no, than why on earth would you write it on the Internet? When you post something on the Internet, you're publishing a piece of work that can be potentially viewed by an audience of millions. Why would you lower your standard of writing just because it's going to be displayed on the Internet? And if you're sending a personal email, why should you write it any differently than you would write a real pen and paper letter? It just doesn't make any sense.

Of course, some people say that acronyms are necessary for IM purposes. Those are people who I like to call: "People Who Should Learn How to Type". But seriously, acronyms in IM's are semi-excusable. Because Instant Messaging is, for lack of a better word, instant, time is of the essence. In order to talk in real time, acronyms may be necessary, although discouraged. They may be the lowest form of communication on the planet, but if you're being attacked by a bear and need to tell s friend quickly, nothing gets the job done like ol' IBABAB (I'm Being Attacked By A Bear). In any other form of electronic communication, acronyms are unacceptable. Why do you need to communicate with the smallest amount of typing possible when you're sending an email to a friend, or commenting on a blog post? There's no time limit. You can spend all day writing if you wish. Just because you're writing something digitally doesn't mean you have to become a mindless Internet zombie, spewing tired acronyms, tacky smileys, and sentences with little or no punctuation.

This isn't just an angry rant. This a call to repentance. Many of you out there in the audience have been living in grammatical sin. It's time for you to invite decent English to come live in your heart, to turn from your poorly written ways, and to enjoy all the blessings of not sounding like a bratty pre-teen girl when you communicate.

3 topics: 60% more flavor, 25% less fat.

1. Omaha and smoking in public aren't friends anymore.

One word: kudos. Not just ordinary kudos. The peanut butter kind. People can whine all they want about personal freedom, but quite frankly, emitting toxic fumes in public places isn't something that anyone should have a right to do. In the simplest of terms, smoking in public is recklessly endangering the health of others. If you want to screw up your lungs, do it in the privacy of your own home. Sure, calling 9-1-1 to report public smoking is a tad extreme, but I think the intentions are good. All who wish to point out that Marx also had good intentions, please put a sock in it. Marx was a bitter drunkard with perhaps the worst sense of personal hygiene ever seen in a European intellectual. How can a man like that have good intentions? Marx was evil. Criminalizing smoking in public is good.

2. Iraq violence escalating during the "holy month" of Ramadan.

The religion of peace strikes again. This might even make some sense to my western-ized mind if they were only targeting American soldiers. Apparently some Muslims think that murdering other Muslims is a perfectly acceptable way to celebrate an Islamic holy month. Haven't they heard of carols? Cookies? Tacky decorations? Gifts? Santa? I guess Americans still have a few things to teach Iraq when it comes to commercializing holidays. On a more serious note, I think the current situation in Iraq illustrates the ignorance behind our attempts to create a democratic middle east. Democracy isn't something that you can force on just any group of people. We treat democracy like it's some kind of magic medicine that will instantly turn the most harsh regions of the world into happy American towns with churches, shopping malls, and neatly manicured lawns. This simply isn't the case. If you give democracy to a country where the people still have a 5th century mindset, you end up with a bloody mess. In democratic Afghanistan, Christians are deported and drug-peddling warlords reign. In democratic Iraq, the Sunni's are mad that Shiites dominate the government, so they deal with it in the only way they know how: with terrorist attacks against civilians and government officials. The Shiites respond in kind with brutal revenge killings. "Palestine" holds elections and, to the astonishment of the west, the radical, violent Hamas party comes into power. Democracy does not equal peace. Civilized western-style democracy with all of it's trimmings (freedom of speech, press, religion, etc.) can only be achieved if the people of the country have a civilized western-style mind-set. You can't expect people to become good little citizens of the international community just because they have a new form of government.

3. Barack Obama now says he's considering running in '08

Again, Obama continues to hint at a possible '08 presidential bid. I don't really have anything else to say. Except that Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein. Seriously. This is probably his single greatest political liability.

BHO = JFK(x2)

It seems that these days you can't swing a dead porcupine without hitting a bunch of heated discussion on the topic of everyone's favorite senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, and his 2008 presidential ambitions. But if you're not in the habit of swinging dead porcupines, these are the facts:

Barack Obama is a multi-racial, charismatic, young, religious member of the Democratic party. He became an instant star after his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, and later that year was elected senator in Illinois by 2/3 of the vote. He positions himself as an advocate of bi-partisanship, and has very broad support. He's from Hawaii. He looks moderate. He has a photogenic family. People love him. End of story.

These factors cause me to hereby declare The 1st Law of Obama-Dynamics: If Obama runs, Obama wins. The problem with this is that, despite appearances, Obama is not a moderate. He's a liberal. A very liberal liberal. He's more liberal than Hillary Clinton. And he does a really good job of hiding it.

For example, look at the "on the issues" section of his website. Something immediately stands out: there's no mention of his positions on hot-button issues like gay marriage, abortion, or the war in Iraq. Why? Probably because the site is still under construction, and states that more issues will be added soon. But the fact remains that Obama doesn't spend a lot of his time talking about these classic left-wing issues. Why? Because he takes the liberal (AKA polarizing) position on all of them. Although Obama himself doesn't deny this, he makes it very clear that he wants to bridge the gap between the religious right and the Democratic party by de-emphasizing these issues. By putting the most polarizing issues on the back burner and putting issues that are much less likely to make the religious right angry (decreasing poverty, improving education, etc) on the top of his list, Obama makes himself look like a viable choice for people on both sides of the political aisle.

In this speech, Obama discusses his view on religion and politics. If you want to understand Obama, I suggest you read it. His liberal views come out very clearly, but at the same time he suggests that the far left rethink their view of the religious right. Instead of treating Christians like a bunch of ignorant fanatics, he calls democrats to respect religion in the public square, acknowledge it's power to transform hearts, and to embrace the things that liberals and religious conservatives agree on. I don't think rhetoric like this is going to win over any Christians at the very, very far-right of the political spectrum, but for the more moderate "values voters", this kind of thing could really make an impact.

In addition to all of this, the Republican party really isn't having a good time right now with it's public relations. We have an unpopular Republican president who primarily serves as a punching bag for comedians, a very unpopular war started by the aforementioned president, and ethics scandals among prominent Republicans in the house and senate. It's not a good time to be a Republican. And if the Republicans lose in the upcoming '06 elections, it could be the beginning of the end for Republican power. This is yet another factor that could lead to an Obama victory in '08.

And of course, there's also the factor of every TV journalists favorite group of people: the moderates and the "swing voters". This is a category that Obama could easily sweep in a presidential election. Think of him as a black John F. Kennedy. He's a young, eloquent politician with two adorable kids. People love that kind of thing. With his broad appeal and rhetoric of unity, the "undecided vote" is almost certainly going to decide in favor of Obama.

This makes the million dollar question on everyone's mind: is Obama going to run? So far, the answer is no. But every time the question is brought to him, the answer becomes less of a firm no, and more of a weak yes. Recently, when a reporter for TIME magazine asked him if he would consider running after the '06 elections are over, he stated: "When the election is over and my book tour is done, I will think about how I can be most useful to the country and how I can reconcile that with being a good dad and a good husband." In other words, he's probably going to run.

So, essentially, this is the breakdown:

1. Obama is a liberal member of the Democratic party, and has strong support from his base. To members of the Democratic party, he's a rock star. Obama gets 100% of the liberal vote.

2. Obama is charasmatic, eloquent, and a family man. The Republican party is now associated with corruption and failure. To moderates and swing voters, he's also a rock star. Obama gets 99.9% of the "in the middle" voters.

3. Obama treats conservatives like humans instead of dangerous animals. Obama often uses Christian rhetoric, and appears to be a man of integrity. In the midst if Republican failure, Obama may look like a welcome alternative. To conservatives, he may not be a rock-star, but he's still a respected guitar soloist. Obama gets 30% of the conservative vote.

If this guy runs in '08, the Republican party's chances could easily go down in flames. But hopefully, out of the ashes of the Republican party, the NEBRASKA PARTY, like the phoenix of legend, will rise, more glorious than ever before, uniting the religious right with it's rhetoric of hope, morality, reform, and Nebraskan prosperity! Viva La Corn Revolution!

Kofi Anan was the lime jello of UN Secretary Generals. You'll have to interpret that yourself.

So the man who's served as our beloved UN secretary general for ten years is now just another beloved ex-UN secretary general. And in his place is a man from the only country in the world where starcraft is a professional sport.

How does this effect you? Well, according to the worlds most complete and accurate source of information about all things pertaining to world politics, the wikipedia, the UN secretary general: "is the head of the Secretariat, one of the principal organs of the Unitied Nations."

So how does that effect you? Well, according to the worlds most complete and accurate source of information about all things pertaining to the United Nations, the wikipedia, the UN Secretariat: "provides studies, information, and facilities needed by United Nations bodies for their meetings. It also carries out tasks as directed by the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, the UN Economic and Social Council, and other U.N. bodies."

So, in the end, this change in leadership will probably bring a change in... sanctioning... and peace... and other UN...uh... stuff. You know. All of that important UN stuff that everyone really cares about.

But seriously, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, besides having an inexplicably hilarious name, will also probably reform the UN, leading the charge in the glorious movement to make the worlds biggest bureaucracy less... bureaucratic. Soon the sanctions will be more efficiently un-effective, and human rights abusers will have to ignore more condemnation than ever before.

And Kim "Jong" Jong Il, you better watch your back. Ban Ki-moon is one bad mutha' from South Korea, and he's going to pen so many UN resolutions against your country it'll make your head spin. It's not too late to replace Jay Leno as the most obnoxious man on late night television. Please. Do it for the children.

Nuclear weapons. Meh.

In the past few days the world has been alerted to the fact that North Korea, in all likelihood, has "the bomb". I have two words for this development: so what? North Korea is a country in shambles. It doesn't have resources. It doesn't have friends. All it has is the possibility that it might posess "the bomb", which last time I checked doesn't do much for problems A and B. North Korea is the goth in the high-school of the world, hiding in some dark corner of the hallway wearing a "Nightmare Before Christmas" t-shirt (purchased at hot topic with his mom's credit card), listening to music no one likes, skipping both breakfast AND lunch, posting pseudo-artistic pictures of himself on his myspace, and taking stupid, unpopular positions on political issues just to worry people. North Korea and it's dear leader Kim "possible" Jong Il just want to be noticed, they want to stand out from all the other worthless dictatorships, and like all goth's, they want to shock their parents (China, Russia, etc), by deliberately disobeying them, engaging in behaviors that go against their values, and in general, just seeing how far they can go without getting into major trouble. But anyways, leaving that terribly irrelevant analogy, North Korea really is all bark and no bite. Kim "Chi" Jong Il knows very well that his poverty-stricken country with it's stagnant socialist economy can't survive without foreign aid. He also knows that if it really came down to war, the United States, the EU, South Korea, Japan, Russia, and possibly China would collectively kick his megalomaniac butt. Dear Leader isn't like the president of Iran, whatever his name is, because he isn't a religious dictator. He doesn't have any intention of being a martyr, summoning the apocylypse, and he holds no belief that Allah will assure his victory. Kim "I've run out of nicknames" Jong Il will only fight in a war he thinks he can win. So, in other words, I don't think North Korea is really planning on using their new weapons any time soon. Lil' Kim just wants to be a big man on the international scene. But Kim, I have some news for you. You are a very small man with funny hair and big glasses. Embrace your identity. Become an accountant or a comedian. End this charade.

WWJVF?

There's an interesting article at The Chronicle of Higher education, written by Randall Ballmer, entitled "Jesus Isn't a Republican":
http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42b00601.htm

First of all I would heartily agree with him on the title. Jesus isn't a Republican. The Republican party is still at heart, a secular political party, and more often than not it's just as (at times, more) corrupt as their friends on the other side of the political aisle. You can be a Christian and disagree with our current war in Iraq, the NSA wiretapping deal, and so on, even though it seems that some theologians include George Bush's foreign policy among the major tenets of the faith. Unfortunately, Mr. Ballmer goes a little further than merely stating that Christians shouldn't be affiliated with any particular party in his article, revealing that he basically believes that Jesus is a democrat.

From the article, on abortion:

" On judicial matters, the religious right demands appointees who would diminish individual rights to privacy with regard to abortion."

This sentence could've easily been copied from the planned parenthood website. What do you think Jesus is more concerned about, the life of an unborn child, or some nebulous concept like the "individual right to privacy"? Does he also think that anyone should be able to set up a meth lab and deal drugs from their own home? After all, don't people have a right to privacy? Not that there's anything wrong with that... I mean, we can all agree that the teachings of bible can be summarized as "respect the individuals right to privacy", can't we? All of those danged right-wingers invading the "Individual right to privacy"! I'm sure that God has some terrible judgement planned for them...

"Especially at a time when the government's surveillance activities are already intruding on the privacy and the civil liberties of Americans, we should consider carefully the wisdom of allowing the government to determine a matter properly left to a woman and her conscience."

Refer to the previous comments.

"I have no interest in making abortion illegal; I would like to make it unthinkable. The most effective way to limit the incidence of abortion is to change the moral climate surrounding the issue — through education or even through public-service campaigns similar to those that discourage smoking or drugs or alcohol or spousal abuse."

Why does he want it to be unthinkable? Does he believe that abortion destroys life? If so, than he should agree that because abortion harms a life seperate from the woman, it is no longer a matter of invading individual rights, it's an issue of defending an individuals right to life. People who try to please both sides, believing that abortion is morally despicable, but that people should have a right to do it end up making no sense at all. Also, Republican pro-lifers are already trying to change the moral climate surrounding abortion AS WELL AS limiting it legally, thus defeating his point.

Randall on welfare:

"Jesus spells out the kind of behavior that might be grounds for exclusion from the kingdom of heaven: "I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me."

We could have a lively discussion and even vigorous disagreement over whether it is incumbent upon the government to provide services to the poor, but those who argue against such measures should be prepared with some alternative program or apparatus."

Christians have been prepared with an alternate program or apparatus for some time. There are countless international and national Christian charities, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, etc, that have been running for quite some time on private donations. To take Jesus's command to believers to take care of the poor and to translate it to mean that we should have the government take care of the poor so that we don't have to is a little ridiculous. And since the government is secular, it can't provide the spiritual help that so many of the poor need much more than temporary relief from poverty.

Randall on the consistant ethic of life.

"As early as 1984, Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, the late archbishop of Chicago, talked about opposition to abortion as part of a "seamless garment" that included other "life issues": care for the poor and feeding the hungry, advocacy for human rights, and unequivocal opposition to capital punishment. Surely the adoption of what Bernardin called a "consistent ethic of life" carries with it greater moral authority than opposition to abortion alone. "

Last time I checked Right-wing christians have been caring for the poor, feeding the hungry, and advocating human rights. But unequivocal opposition to capital punishment? Can you really read a verse as basic as "Whoever sheds man's blood, his blood will be shed by man, for God made man in his own image." (Genesis 9:6), and come to the conclusion that God is opposed to any capital punishment? Come on.

--------------------------------------

Sure Christians should be careful not to get too caught up in political parties, and yes, a few conservative christians are corrupt, and abortion may be in many cases used by the Republicans as a mere political weapon, but taking the left-wing stance on every issue is no better. Proffessor Ballmer implies in his article that all right-wing christians are cold-hearted hard-line capitalists that ignore the needs of minorites and the poor, advocate cruelty and aren't trying to reduce abortions through non-governmental means. And I think he gets it wrong.

Hopefully though, contrarian views on God and politics like this will create more dialogue on this subject. I think that evangelicals have considered the Republican party to be the mouthpiece of God for far too long. When Christians place all of their trust in an earthly institution they become blind to it's shortcomings and refuse to recognize when it goes astray. How many Republican scandals have evangelicals stayed silent about until news had already leaked out from every other source? Answer: a lot.

And please, read the entire article instead of just reading the stuff that I copied and pasted out of it. Maholo for your cooperation.


...
(Yes, the second part of my third paragraph IS sarcasm.)

It's long, but you should still read it... I mean if that's the kind of thing you're into.

Most people would start off a post like this by saying "Well, I know I haven't written in a while..", or "I'm Baaack!!!", or maybe some crappy paragraph about how busy they were, and how they're going to try to post more regularly, or maybe a sob story about how their next door neighbor hired a professional killer to cap their beloved yorkie, and how they had to aid the FBI in a 4 month cross-country manhunt that ended in a shootout in which many close friends had their lives snuffed out in a tragic case of friendly fire, and how much the experience took out of them emotionally. But everyone knows that nobody bothers reading that trash anyways, and how empty such pathetic excuses sound to the brazen ears of their accusing friends that have been nagging them to "post more on their blog", since last January. Deep inside, those people know that they're frauds, and when they're friendless and rejected, so alone that they can hear their frantic thoughts echo inside the hollow tomb of their empty souls, they know, absolutely and surely that... they... completely LOSE AT LIFE.

So instead of wasting a bunch of fluffy words on a big pile of nothing that nobody cares about, I'll start off by diving right into the unique brand of political commentary that made me famous. The kind of political commentary you wish you could write, but you can't because you're too busy writing about hanging out at WalMart/StarBucks/TheMall with your loser friends while taking pictures of yourself (and your loser friends) with that 1.5 Megapixal camera that your great-grandma left you in her will.

---------------------------

I get to vote in 2008. And I don't particularly care. Am I the only one who thinks that the next presidential elections are going to be, for the lack of a better word, retarded*? Who's worth voting for? What Republican candidates are the "Moral Majority" supposed to get excited about? Liberals like John McCain or Rudy Giuliani? Maybe Mitt Romney's a good guy... but I don't think he has enough recognition to make it. And his selection of judges while serving as the governor of Massachusetts seems to be questionable. Since George W. Bush, Bill Frist, and all those other guys have pretty much damaged the public reputation of the party to an immeasurable degree, the only hope of the Republicans is someone with a flawless record, who has enough charisma to sway all the opinionless, TV poll fed "swing-voters", that seem to be all the rage these days with politicians. Of course, if the Democrats get someone like Hillary or Dean to run, maybe there's hope after all. The magical thing about Howard Dean is the sheer amount of stupid and offensive things that he's said during the past couple years, which permanently stain his reputation. And of course Hillary is hated by the right and the extreme left, almost guaranteeing failure.

But do you know what I really want? Do you what the one thing I'm looking foward to in 2008 is? The possibility of getting a president that doesn't make an idiot of himself whenever he opens his mouth. I'm not saying that our beloved leader George Bush is stupid, I'm just saying he's a terrible public figure. He has no capicity to inspire, to sway the public, or to just not look dumb. He's a horrible speaker. A terrible speaker. I've seen several 12 year old beginning speakers that sounded better than him. And of course it's not as if he's actually speaking his own words anyways, he's just reading whatever his speach writer wrote for the occasion. He was on TV once, speaking about illegal immigration, and the tele-promptor that was feeding him words shut down. He just sat staring like a monkey at the screen, with absolutely nothing to say. That kind of thing damages America's image. A big part of the presidency is representing our country to the world. The president is our figurehead, he's the person people in other countries think of when they think of America. Is a representative that can speak our language too much to ask?

Think of FDR. Now, personally I dislike FDR. I think he screwed up America. But do you know what? He knew how to communicate. He knew how to write speaches. And he knew how to deliver them. Think of Winston Churchill. His public image had a lot to do with why the people of England didn't give up. Sure, he could make decisions too, but when you're a LEADER, the man who's supposed to be in front of his country leading the charge against it's enemies, image is key. Despite what Barney the dinosaur says, what people think of you does matter. End of story.

So in short, if the Republicans want to have a fighting chance, they need to give the American people a man of conviction, who really believes in restoring moral order, small government, and all that Right-Wing jazz, but someone who can also COMMUNICATE those ideas with the american public, someone who can really look like a leader, not just some wind-up monkey reading off a piece of paper, pronouncing half the words wrong, and accidentally omitting the other half.

--------------------

And George W. Bush, if you're reading this, don't worry. We all love you. You're still better than John Kerry. Just have Karl Rove speak for you, okay? He's cool. I mean, you're cool too, and you can still appoint judges and not veto spending bills and all that stuff that you do in the White-Hizzie... but try to stay out of sight. Thanks.





*My apologies to any retards that might be reading this.

Tagged!

I've been "tagged", but because of my firm belief that chain-quizzes like this are tacky/evil/perverse, I'm not going to do it.

What's going to happen to me? Bad luck for 13 years? Get mugged by a hobo wielding a bag of ice and/or tennis racket? Abducted by the Mother-Wheel?


Forced to use internet explorer?

Eleven more people were killed today in the middle east. Over cartoons published in a danish magazine about five months ago . And of course, the people killed had absolutely nothing to do with the cartoons anyways.

Haven't these people heard of writing a letter to the editor? Instead of torching the consulates of random western countries, thier retribution could be more like this:

"Dear Editor of Jyllands-Posten, I was greatly offended by the cartoons you published in your last issue depicting the prophet Muhammed in a demeaning manner. I think that there is a great misunderstanding about our faith. Perhaps you can come over some time, and we can discuss our feelings on this matter. I will bake delicious cookies*. "

-Rashid Al Abu, Iran


Then again... there is a certain apeal to making a total idiot of yourself in front of millions of people.



*Do people actually bake cookies in the Middle East?

Emoticons: The Phantom Menace

I hate emoticons.
This is no secret. They are a putrid blight upon our technologically driven society, undermining hundreds of years of progress in the development of the english language, and sending us back to the ancient world where man crudely expressed his thoughts with hieroglyphics. If I were to use one word to sum up what emoticons are I would simply state: "crutches". They are crutches that people use to prop up thier flimsy writing skills. Using an emoticon is like broadcasting to the world: "I CAN'T PROPERLY EXPRESS MY EMOTIONS THROUGH MY WORDS SO I DECIDED TO EXPRESS THEM USING THIS CRAPPY, LOW-RES SMILEY FACE!". Sometimes an emoticon is used after a piece of humerous writing. In which case all the humor that may have existed suddenly dies. To illustrate this let's look at a piece of writing by retired humor columnist Dave Barry:

"It's time once again for the Winter Olympics -- three magical weeks during which all of America will gather in front of the television set to watch American Idol.

But during the commercials, some of us will also tune in to the Winter Olympics, a quadrennial competition that answers, once and for all, questions that burn in the brains of every true sports fan, such as: (1) Who will claim ''bragging rights'' as the world's best in the individual, sprint and team Nordic Combined? (2) What, exactly, IS the Nordic Combined? (3) Who the heck are the ''Nordics,'' anyway?"

Now let's see that again, but this time with emoticons.

"It's time once again for the Winter Olympics -- three magical weeks during which all of America will gather in front of the television set to watch American Idol. ;)

But during the commercials, some of us will also tune in to the Winter Olympics :), a quadrennial competition that answers, once and for all, questions that burn in the brains of every true sports fan ;-), such as: (1) Who will claim ''bragging rights'' as the world's best in the individual, sprint and team Nordic Combined? (2) What, exactly, IS the Nordic Combined? (3) Who the heck are the ''Nordics,'' anyway? :D"

As you can see, they shoot the humor right out of the water.

So please... stop polluting the world wide web with the acidic evil of tacky smily faces.
If you don't, I'll have no choice but to send John McLaughlin to take you on, and take you OUT, foo.